←back to thread

323 points plusCubed | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.652s | source
Show context
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 #
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 #
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 #
throwaway12231 ◴[] No.18739375[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 #
detaro ◴[] No.18740021[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 #
1. imtringued ◴[] No.18741760[source]
Probably something like this... https://twitter.com/JTremback/status/1076213808706641925
replies(1): >>18744507 #
2. brandnewlow ◴[] No.18744507[source]
We're shipping a bunch of fixes tomorrow that will (we hope) dramatically improve this: https://brave.com/rewards-update/
replies(1): >>18748875 #
3. rsynnott ◴[] No.18748875[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.