←back to thread

323 points plusCubed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
callinyouin ◴[] No.18736064[source]
Brendan Eich's defense of this scheme [0] seems a bit weak to me. Do you really think the solution is to make creators opt out? What in the world makes you think it's okay to represent people who have not asked for your assistance and take donations on their behalf? Why is it their responsibility to ask you nicely not to use their name to solicit donations?

[0] https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1076187316748615680

replies(3): >>18736212 #>>18738433 #>>18739563 #
jonny_eh ◴[] No.18736212[source]
This must be against some kind of law, I'm not sure which though.
replies(5): >>18736368 #>>18736516 #>>18736815 #>>18736960 #>>18737941 #
dictum ◴[] No.18736516[source]
IA-definitely-NAL, but I can't see a way that opt-out can be legal here.

Maybe the legal defense applies the same logic of consent in third-party tracking (third-party provides the service in behalf of the first-party, to whose terms you agreed by using its service. Even that may clash with laws like GDPR):

Brave, third-party, is providing a service to the first-party – the browser's user – who contracted it as a way to provide a best-attempt donation for the creator.

(If it's not obvious, I'm not privy to the details AND US federal and states' law)

The only legal way I can see to do what Brave currently does is to spam the hell out of creators (ah, growth hacking) when someone attempts a donation, but only take the money after the creator signs up.

replies(1): >>18739133 #
1. erikpukinskis ◴[] No.18739133[source]
Well, how about this...

I'll send you $20, if you agree to try to get $15 to the XKCD guy somehow.

If you accept this deal, have you broken the law?