Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Brave expands Basic Attention Token platform to YouTube

    (basicattentiontoken.org)
    321 points Helloworldboy | 17 comments | 17 Nov 17 14:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.443s | source | bottom
    Show context
    joshuamorton ◴[17 Nov 17 16:40 UTC] 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 #
    Ajedi32 ◴[17 Nov 17 17:13 UTC] No.15723845[source]▶
    The money doesn't go "into a hole". The funds are saved and a creator can retrieve them at any time once they sign up for an account: https://brave.com/publishers/#getverified Basically, it's their money, and whether they decide to withdraw it or not is entirely up to them.

    IMO this is the right way to do it because it solves the chicken and egg problem that would normally exist with a universal funding method like this. Users don't have to worry about what payment platforms their favorite creators support; they can just browse the web like normal and the platform takes care of the rest.

    replies(9): >>15723961 #>>15724281 #>>15724287 #>>15724339 #>>15726267 #>>15726779 #>>15726794 #>>15727872 #>>15730294 #
    joshuamorton ◴[17 Nov 17 17:27 UTC] No.15723961[source]▶
    It's thrown into a hole in exactly the same way that my $30 I tipped btc is not mine, because I never got it out of the system.

    Edit: I said it better in response to a sibling of yours: I think it's unethical for a platform to accept payment on my behalf without my permission.

    replies(7): >>15724064 #>>15724203 #>>15725584 #>>15725653 #>>15727829 #>>15728153 #>>15730032 #
    33W ◴[17 Nov 17 17:51 UTC] No.15724203[source]▶
    > I think it's unethical for a platform to accept payment on my behalf without my permission.

    Would it be similarly unethical to accept donations to {charity} without first getting their approval?

    replies(4): >>15724260 #>>15724266 #>>15724326 #>>15724378 #
    1. dragonwriter ◴[17 Nov 17 18:07 UTC] No.15724378[source]▶
    It would be unethical (and, quite probably, illegal) to actively solicit and accept donations for a named charity and then hold on to them until the named charity, with whom you had no previous arrangement, actively sought you out and applied for an account which would allow them to receive them.
    replies(3): >>15724627 #>>15725402 #>>15725696 #
    2. quadrangle ◴[17 Nov 17 18:30 UTC] No.15724627[source]▶
    not a lawyer, but I've heard elsewhere that this is indeed illegal
    3. Ajedi32 ◴[17 Nov 17 19:48 UTC] No.15725402[source]▶
    I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this is really the same thing.

    First of all, Brave doesn't just sit idly by and wait for creators to seek them out; they attempt to contact creators via email to let them know there are funds available for them to claim.

    Second, Brave is completely transparent about how the process works. They're not claiming to donors that the funds _will_ reach their intended destination and then not delivering. The method they use to deliver cash to creators is clearly explained on their website.

    replies(1): >>15725960 #
    4. garrison ◴[17 Nov 17 20:25 UTC] No.15725696[source]▶
    This is effectively how Amazon Smile works, although the technical details are different: instead of soliciting "donations" they promise that 0.5% of each purchase is given (by Amazon) to the user's charity of choice. But the charity does not receive the money until they "register" their organization with Amazon, and as far as I can tell there is no way for me to know if my chosen organization has done so.
    replies(4): >>15726210 #>>15726969 #>>15728630 #>>15728843 #
    5. ucaetano ◴[17 Nov 17 21:07 UTC] No.15725960[source]▶
    "Hey, we have money for you! All you need to do is send us your social security number, address and bank account information. This is legit, we promise we're not from Nigeria"

    Yeah, sounds legit.

    replies(1): >>15726595 #
    6. JumpCrisscross ◴[17 Nov 17 21:40 UTC] No.15726210[source]▶
    Amazon Smile only works with charities. Charities publicly list their addresses in multiple public databases. Sending a cheque to that address is easy. Not the same thing for non-charity content producers. (Not to mention, taxes.)
    replies(1): >>15730169 #
    7. Sir_Substance ◴[17 Nov 17 22:42 UTC] No.15726595{3}[source]▶
    Yep, that's pretty shitty. I don't know what info brave asks for, but I have pretty tight PII requirements for services I use. If I think Braves terms are unreasonable, is there a reconciliation process I can undertake, or does brave just keep my readers tips? Shady as fuck.
    replies(1): >>15727124 #
    8. klank ◴[17 Nov 17 23:57 UTC] No.15726969[source]▶
    I don't think it's a fair comparison. When you select your charity Amazon Smile directly says:

    "We will reach out to the organization you select to ensure it is ready to accept donations from Amazon."

    Furthermore, you aren't able to free form enter a charity. It's only from the list they've sourced (presumably from public records).

    replies(1): >>15727173 #
    9. StavrosK ◴[18 Nov 17 00:43 UTC] No.15727124{4}[source]▶
    I just finished the process. To verify a site, you upload a file to the site, or add a DNS record, and then you can access your BAT. I don't know how you can withdraw, though.

    EDIT: Oh, wait, they make you register a wallet on a site called uphold.com, which will just send the tokens to your Ether wallet or convert them to another cryptocurrency or pay you to your bank. You do have to register for KYC after $1000 worth of income, they say.

    10. snowpanda ◴[18 Nov 17 00:55 UTC] No.15727173{3}[source]▶
    But the problem remains the same in that the charities on Amazon Smile (almost one million[1]) were (as far as we know) never informed that money was being collected for them.

    Yes they might be contacted, but what if they don't want (or simply can't for legal reasons) use Amazon as a gateway for their funds?

    Now you've given users the impression that they are helping a certain charity when it never makes it there.

    Theoretically, these same users might have made a small donation directly to that company if it wasn't for Smile.

    I'd still recommend using Smile, overall I think it's great, but you have to admit there might have been a better way to go about it. How to do that better, I do not know.

    [1] https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/about/ref=smi_se_dshb_leli_...

    replies(2): >>15727276 #>>15727712 #
    11. spiznnx ◴[18 Nov 17 01:22 UTC] No.15727276{4}[source]▶
    > If your selected charity does not register to participate, becomes ineligible, or requests to be removed from the program, you will have a chance to select a different charity to receive the accrued donations that have not yet been disbursed to your charity. If you do not select a different charity, the accrued donations will be distributed to other organizations receiving donations.

    This seems fair.

    replies(1): >>15727409 #
    12. xyzzy_plugh ◴[18 Nov 17 02:03 UTC] No.15727409{5}[source]▶
    Why shouldn't Brave adopt this exact model?
    replies(1): >>15730951 #
    13. grahamburger ◴[18 Nov 17 04:10 UTC] No.15727712{4}[source]▶
    I received an email a few months after signing up for Amazon Smile letting me know that the charity I chose was not able to accept donations and that I needed to choose another one. I did not see an option to forward the funds that would have gone to my chosen charity for past purchases to the new charity, though.
    14. ◴[18 Nov 17 11:34 UTC] No.15728630[source]▶
    15. dexterdog ◴[18 Nov 17 13:20 UTC] No.15728843[source]▶
    But smile doesn't cost anything to the user. You pay the same checkout price for something you were already buying.
    16. Alex3917 ◴[18 Nov 17 19:01 UTC] No.15730169{3}[source]▶
    > Amazon Smile only works with charities.

    They work with any type of nonprofit, not only charities.

    17. reificator ◴[18 Nov 17 22:04 UTC] No.15730951{6}[source]▶
    Because if I donate to the EFF and it instead goes to a certain charity that kills something like 90% of the pets it takes in, I'm going to be upset.

    If I donate to my favorite YouTube personality and instead the money goes to PewDiePie's empire, I'm going to be upset.

    The difference between donations and taxes is that I can choose who to fund and how much. If that choice is no longer mine, and I have a strong chance to fund entities I find morally repulsive, then why donate?