←back to thread

323 points plusCubed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
davidgerard ◴[] No.18735792[source]
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): >>18735934 #>>18735953 #>>18736012 #>>18736066 #>>18744548 #
hackcasual ◴[] No.18735934[source]
> I realize some don’t like it, agree we should respect their wishes. But the ability to paypal or western union or otherwise send to people without their consent exists and is not illegal or unethical. Nominative fair use of public data also legal.

There's a huge difference between sending someone money without their prior permission and creating a system to solicit money to send to someone without their prior permission.

replies(2): >>18736250 #>>18736986 #
gregknicholson ◴[] No.18736250[source]
> the ability to paypal or western union or otherwise send to people without their consent exists

Surely the recipient has to create a PayPal or Western Union account first, which constitutes giving permission for that company to take payment on their behalf.

And in fairness, the complaint isn't even that money is being sent to people without their consent. The problem is that the money isn't actually being sent to those people at all — Brave are keeping it.

replies(1): >>18736323 #
Fuebxien ◴[] No.18736323[source]
That's not how Western Union works. The recipient goes to WU and presents matching ID.
replies(2): >>18737082 #>>18737379 #
1. 0xffff2 ◴[] No.18737379[source]
I've never used WU, but I'm guessing that they don't divert all payments that go unclaimed for 90 days into their advertising budget.