←back to thread

321 points Helloworldboy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
joshuamorton ◴[] No.15723512[source]
(disclosure, I work at google, and previously at YouTube)

This allows a user to donate to a content creator even if that creator doesn't have any way to get access the donations. That is, until youtubers start registering themselves in the payment tool, this is essentially watching someone's video, and then throwing money into a hole.

With other patronage systems, like patreon, you cannot donate money until the creator has an account. To me, that feels super sketch.

Edit: It reminded me to go and check my old bitcointip and altcointip accounts on reddit, on which I apparently had combined closed to $30 in BTC at today's prices, but which have both been shuttered and are now inaccessible. That's not promising.

replies(18): >>15723732 #>>15723785 #>>15723806 #>>15723836 #>>15723845 #>>15723862 #>>15724118 #>>15724297 #>>15725087 #>>15725839 #>>15726351 #>>15726823 #>>15726897 #>>15726948 #>>15729967 #>>15730194 #>>15730606 #>>15731703 #
unfunco ◴[] No.15723732[source]
Not being able to donate money to someone that has no way of receiving that money seems sketch, but letting money rest in the account of a third-party that has no affiliation with the receiver is fine?
replies(2): >>15723882 #>>15724011 #
1. joshuamorton ◴[] No.15724011[source]
As far as I can tell, Brave is doing both. The money rests in a third party account that has no affiliation with the receiver, and they have no way of getting to it until they register.

To put it succinctly, I think it's unethical for a platform to accept payment on my behalf without my permission.

(whereas yeah, I don't consider holding money in escrow unethical)