Brendan Eich answers on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1076187316748615680
basically he plans to keep it working the way it works now, "opt out" and all - he's confident this is a completely legal way to work
replies(5):
basically he plans to keep it working the way it works now, "opt out" and all - he's confident this is a completely legal way to work
> "... Tom has a point, we should let creators say "no thanks" and be auto-excluded. Users may already auto-exclude unverified sites/channels. We will work on this."
This makes your interpretation disingenuous, or uncharitable at best.
It shouldn't be opt-out, it should be opt-in -- if the purpose is to give donations to creators then surely those creators should agree to receive donations (especially since donations have to be included in tax filings and so on).
For "donations to a creator" to be used for a different purpose by the party that is mediating donations appears (to a non-lawyer like me) to be some kind of charity fraud.