Most active commenters
  • brandnewlow(6)
  • detaro(4)
  • kdbg(3)

←back to thread

323 points plusCubed | 38 comments | | HN request time: 0.849s | source | bottom
1. plusCubed ◴[] No.18735107[source]
Edit: title was changed, I am not Tom Scott

I am not too familiar with how Brave and BAT (Brave Attention Token), so please chime in. Here's how Brave describes the BAT YouTube donations system: https://basicattentiontoken.org/brave-expands-basic-attentio...

From my understanding, users of the Brave Browser select which YouTubers to donate to, but they don't know whether the channels have opted in to receive donations? What does Brave do with unclaimed donations? Someone pointed out this concern in an earlier submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15730661

Furthermore, OP said that they might not be following GDPR due to collection of YouTuber data (to assign donations). IANAL, anyone know how compliant this is?

replies(2): >>18735736 #>>18736561 #
2. ecp9 ◴[] No.18735736[source]
This is so weird, I keep meaning to check out the brave browser but knowing it's tied into cryptocoin nonsense drops my interest level to zero.
replies(1): >>18736864 #
3. brandnewlow ◴[] No.18736561[source]
I work at Brave. Tips to un-verified publishers sit in escrow for the creator to claim.

IANAL but GDPR refers to personal data collected from users. The only "Youtuber data" being "used" here is publicly gettable data from the Youtuber's channel.

replies(8): >>18736701 #>>18736743 #>>18736888 #>>18736940 #>>18737023 #>>18739592 #>>18739904 #>>18741982 #
4. AnabeeKnox ◴[] No.18736701[source]
Search on this page for the word "fraud". Here's what I'd do in your position: remove anything on the internet which personally identifies you as an employee of your company. Nobody knows what is going to happen next, but be prepared for it.
replies(1): >>18736913 #
5. detaro ◴[] No.18736743[source]
I quote your own terms of service:

For each Publisher URL receiving votes during a Calculation Period that is not a Brave Publisher by the end of that Calculation Period, the BAT corresponding to its votes will not be distributed at the end of that Calculation Period, and will instead be held in an Uphold omnibus wallet for no less than ninety (90) days thereafter. At that time, the undistributed BAT may be sent to Company’s user growth pool, which is a pool of BAT that Company administers to incentivize use of the Platform [..] Publisher Contributions will be calculated solely based on our accounting. Solely as a cost-recovery measure, we may allocate a certain amount of BAT contributed by Brave Contributors each Calculation Period toward our reasonable expenses incurred in facilitating Publisher Contributions. (https://basicattentiontoken.org/contributor-terms-of-service... section 4 "contributions")

Sounds very much like "we can redirect this from escrow if we want to".

replies(2): >>18737054 #>>18737170 #
6. rchaud ◴[] No.18736864[source]
I agree, this is a terrible look for the company. They need to apologize, suspend the service and be honest with users about how this works, before announcing a reboot.

That being said, I've been using Brave on Android since early 2017, and it's been great. I don't think the BAT stuff is in the mobile version, but I did see it on the desktop Windows version recently.

7. rchaud ◴[] No.18736888[source]
Tom Scott did not explicitly sign up for this service. Brave is not even telling users that Tom Scott is not signed up, and Brave has no automated way of contacting him to let him know that someone donated. The system is engineered to move the money towards Brave, with neither the benefactor nor the beneficiary being aware of that. How is that ethical?
replies(3): >>18737550 #>>18739375 #>>18744500 #
8. CryptoPunk ◴[] No.18736913{3}[source]
There is zero chance an employee is going to get in trouble because a browser company they worked for collected funds in an escrow account to be released in the event that an intended recipient signs up.
replies(4): >>18737184 #>>18738120 #>>18738284 #>>18741911 #
9. ◴[] No.18736940[source]
10. ◴[] No.18737023[source]
11. uberman ◴[] No.18737054{3}[source]
Sounds very clearly like "scam" as well!
replies(1): >>18737113 #
12. detaro ◴[] No.18737113{4}[source]
To be fair, it's entirely possible they're not actually making use of that, or only in very limited circumstances, and it's less "how can we trick people" and more "we didn't really think about what that looks like, because we know we are the good guys", and given their anonymous design they need some out if they don't want to be stuck responsible for funds for eternity. If it's the latter, they're now finding out that especially in combination with the deceptive UI it really looks bad.

And even without the clause, if they truly held it in escrow forever, taking money unasked without a way of returning it, is still a bad thing. Given this isn't the first "support creators" app doing this and getting publicly shamed for it, I have no idea how that went through.

replies(1): >>18741762 #
13. thinkmassive ◴[] No.18737170{3}[source]
Is this why they moved from using Bitcoin to their own BAT token?
14. thinkmassive ◴[] No.18737184{4}[source]
Might want to hold off until we see what legal discovery turns up in chat logs, emails, etc
replies(1): >>18737742 #
15. ObsoleteNerd ◴[] No.18737550{3}[source]
I was interested in Brave after hearing it mentioned here a fair bit, for innovating new ways for creators to get paid... after this story though? Knowing they effectively scam users out of money under the pretense of it really being the creator? That's fraud as far as I'm concerned (maybe not legally, but to me it's a con, and scummy).

Interest has dropped to 0, and they go to my shitlist with all the other crytpo-scam stuff prevalent these days.

Edit: Now that I've seen the screenshots of just how blatantly Brave pretends the creator has a profile and actively set this up, this is absolutely fraud. From further down in the comments of OPs original link: https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076221401353207808

replies(1): >>18744504 #
16. jacques_chester ◴[] No.18737742{5}[source]
Incidentally, a reminder: pre-emptively destroying records under the apprehension that you might be served with a lawsuit is A Bad Idea.
17. jblow ◴[] No.18738120{4}[source]
I would think twice about hiring someone if their previous place of work was a scam company, at least because it tells me something about that person's ethical compass.
18. Obi_Juan_Kenobi ◴[] No.18738284{4}[source]
He calls himself VC, so he may be more liable than you think.
19. throwaway12231 ◴[] No.18739375{3}[source]
I don't want to muddle into the legal discussion, but I would like to add that I've been a happy Brave user for several months and have never felt any misunderstanding about where my tips are going. It is very clear to me who is a -verified- publisher and who isn't one. It was also made clear to me that unverified publishers were getting their tips stored in escrow as a carrot to entice them to enroll. Since I obviously like this model as a Brave user, I am also pleased with this approach.

I'm kind of confused as to why everyone here is up in arms. The UI denotes whether a publisher is verified or not. I never believed that Brave was trying to mislead me to where my donations were going. This feels like a simple misunderstanding.

replies(1): >>18740021 #
20. Doctor_Fegg ◴[] No.18739592[source]
> IANAL

In that case, get your lawyer to google “passing off”. Just because a photo is publically gettable doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to do what the hell you want with it.

21. asadotzler ◴[] No.18739904[source]
Every escrow I've ever come across had the agreement of both parties. This one does not.
22. detaro ◴[] No.18740021{4}[source]
Can you show screenshots of that? What do the prompts from https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076221401353207808 look like for a verified publisher?
replies(2): >>18741760 #>>18743572 #
23. imtringued ◴[] No.18741760{5}[source]
Probably something like this... https://twitter.com/JTremback/status/1076213808706641925
replies(1): >>18744507 #
24. brandnewlow ◴[] No.18741762{5}[source]
That's a pretty accurate read on things. We've never actually recycled any funds and also hadn't considered that many creators would interpret our UI/UX as "solicitation" vs. "letting a user do a thing they want to do in our browser."

In any event, the confusion is our fault and we're working on updating the UI and language to be clear based on all the feedback we've gotten.

replies(1): >>18741898 #
25. ubernostrum ◴[] No.18741898{6}[source]
How about instead you shut this off and rebuild it to be explicitly opt-in only?

Or, better for you personally: how about you hand in your resignation and retain an attorney?

Here's the thing: people who get away with this type of thing (sorry, "exciting and new crowdfunding option for creators", or whatever y'all prefer to call it) tend to get away with it only for as long as the targets of their "fundraising" are small-time creators who don't have the resources to pursue action against it. But sooner or later, even if only by accident, Brave's going to impersonate (sorry, "offer exciting crowdfunding options on behalf of") some entity that has resources, including lawyers, and it's going to end badly.

When that happens, a possible outcome is that they will suddenly "discover" all your statements on their behalf in this thread, and that's when it will end badly for you. Oh, that wasn't our position at all, oh, he wasn't authorized to speak like that on our behalf, oh, that's definitely not what we intended, we'll take action immediately to remedy that! The absolute best outcome of that for you is you get fired for cause. The worst outcomes involve you becoming the target of multiple legal actions.

I'm not an attorney and I'm not giving you legal advice. I will give you sincere personal advice: resign, hire an attorney. Find another job working somewhere that poses less of a threat to you.

As to why people will come after you, let me count the ways:

I know people who blog or create YouTube videos or whatever and are very careful not to monetize, because they're disabled and can't work but still need something to fill their days. But disability benefits are means-tested and income streams are constantly investigated. If a benefits agency decides that your scheme is providing income to a disabled person, congratulations! You just cut off their income, and they probably never even knew you existed. That's bad.

I have worked with several open-source projects that rely heavily on donations to keep going. They all have prominent things on their websites directing people where to go to donate, but you'd like to hijack that and instead send people to something the project doesn't know about and may not be able to collect on (especially given how often you flush the "donations" and how many hoops it seems people have to jump through, which many commenters have identified as something that makes them think this is a scam). Congratulations, you just took resources away from the project. And, for projects which use nonprofit foundations to manage fundraising, you just created tax issues -- what happens when the taxman doesn't believe the "we didn't know about them raising money for us" story?

And round and round and round we go. You're going to be hurting those people to make money. If you have a moral compass, it should be pointing heavily toward getting the hell out of there, as soon as you can.

Plus, crypto in general is in weird legal space to begin with. Lots of people can't afford to have you dealing in potentially unregistered securities in their names and without their knowledge or consent. In the US that could easily lead to federal felonies for them, because of what you did.

So, look. I've seen this pattern again and again and again. What Brave is doing is not a new idea. It's widely, roundly, solidly despised, both because it's an unwarranted intrusion on other people and because it creates such nebulous but frightening potential consequences for them. I've also been waiting for one of these crypto "fundraising" operations to finally go far enough that someone (either an entity with good lawyers, or a regulator) bothers to turn them into a smoking hole in the ground as an example to others. Maybe that's the ultimate fate of Brave; if it is, I won't shed any tears.

replies(2): >>18743110 #>>18744497 #
26. ubernostrum ◴[] No.18741911{4}[source]
There is a non-zero chance that a company in legal trouble will suddenly decide an employee wasn't authorized to speak on their behalf and so clearly misrepresent their perfectly legal and honest intentions, and throw that employee under a bus.

Best thing to avoid that, as I said in another comment, is to quit and get a lawyer.

27. dragonwriter ◴[] No.18741982[source]
> IANAL but GDPR refers to personal data collected from users.

No, it addresses the collection and processing of personal data no matter where it is collected from.

> The only "Youtuber data" being "used" here is publicly gettable data from the Youtuber's channel.

Which is personal data that YouTube has collected or created associated with services they are providing to the user. They are responsible for their collection and use of it, but that doesn't authorize third-party collection and use of it under the GDPR. Particularly, the GDPR definition of personal data subject to the rules it imposes does not exclude information which is “publicly gettable” from some other party than the subject.

28. atomical ◴[] No.18743110{7}[source]
Everyone will be sued. That much is certain. However, executing machine learning in the browser to protect privacy is a step forward.
29. kdbg ◴[] No.18743572{5}[source]
http://se.ri0.us/2018-12-22-184516548-9adee.png

It has a pretty obvious mark under the name if they are verified.

replies(1): >>18744808 #
30. brandnewlow ◴[] No.18744497{7}[source]
You make a lot of great arguments against business practices we have no intention of pursuing. We shipped some poorly-considered UI, got a bunch of deserved flack for it, and are pushing up fixes swiftly (tomorrow). You can read about them here: https://brave.com/rewards-update/

Thanks for your passion for creators and for those of modest means and with disabilities. The internet is awesome in part because it's a place where everyone and anyone can contribute.

31. brandnewlow ◴[] No.18744500{3}[source]
This was not our intent. We're shipping a bunch of changes tomorrow that we hope fix this: https://brave.com/rewards-update/
32. brandnewlow ◴[] No.18744504{4}[source]
We agree the UI in that screenshot tells the wrong story. It doesn't represent what we're trying to do so we're shipping a bunch of changes tomorrow that we hope will fix things: https://brave.com/rewards-update/

We'd love another shot at winning your interest. Thanks for caring about finding new ways to get creators paid.

33. brandnewlow ◴[] No.18744507{6}[source]
We're shipping a bunch of fixes tomorrow that will (we hope) dramatically improve this: https://brave.com/rewards-update/
replies(1): >>18748875 #
34. pull_my_finger ◴[] No.18744808{6}[source]
Maybe instead there should be a big red "X" or something if they _aren't_ verified
replies(2): >>18745351 #>>18749009 #
35. kdbg ◴[] No.18745351{7}[source]
As an outsider I agree, and I think that would have headed off a lot of the complaints.

That said, I did ask the few people I know that have been using BAT. All three of them knew that there was a chance their tip wouldn't be received if it wasn't a verified user. So, from actual users, putting actual money into it, they understood how it worked.

Two of them specifically would only tip to verified accounts. The third said he saw it as an incentive to get the creators to join the platform, though he's also the most vocal and evangelistic about BAT.

36. rsynnott ◴[] No.18748875{7}[source]
This... doesn't seem like much of an improvement?

"Not yet verified" would, I think, imply to many people that they will in the natural course of things be verified, and perhaps even that they've asked to be verified.

It would be better to say "Bla is not a user and will not get the money you donate now, and quite possibly not ever", or similar wording. Or just (and this is, er, the obvious approach) not allow this at all for people who haven't asked for it.

37. kdbg ◴[] No.18749009{7}[source]
Just to kinda follow up, this is exactly what Brave has added.

It has a grayed out message and a link to learn more about what happens to unclaimed funds: http://se.ri0.us/2018-12-23-170628027-eb454.png

replies(1): >>18756961 #
38. detaro ◴[] No.18756961{8}[source]
Thanks for sharing the screenshots!