←back to thread

323 points plusCubed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
isoskeles ◴[] No.18737257[source]
If this person doesn't want his donations, or wants people to donate to some fund against malaria, I'm sure Brave can figure out how to redirect his funds to another donation site of his choice as a feature.

Brave's attempt to find a new way to pay content creators (and, sure, insert themselves into the process) seems to be in good faith. And I'll admit that the complaints are mostly in good faith too, especially that there should be a feature to opt-out, or there should be a way to receive your funds automatically (I'm surprised and don't 100% believe that there is not).

But the complaints and arguments saying this is "fraud" seem to be in bad faith. There's no evidence that these donations are completely irretrievable from the creators they were intended to go toward. Stop emotionally throwing around the word "fraud" as if there's criminal intent here for Brave to keep every penny of donations, zero intent to ever make that money available to the intended recipients.

replies(2): >>18737601 #>>18737666 #
1. jacques_chester ◴[] No.18737666[source]
Generally, crime has two components: the act or omission itself (actus reus) and the intention to do so (mens rea). What's missing from this formula is whether you did so from pure or impure motives. That might influence a jury or be factored in a judgement, but into itself doesn't change whether you committed a crime.

Assuming there is some jurisdiction where this particular arrangement is potentially criminal, what will matter is not why Brave intended to do it. What will matter is that they intended to do it.