Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

It would be unethical (and, quite probably, illegal) to actively solicit and accept donations for a named charity and then hold on to them until the named charity, with whom you had no previous arrangement, actively sought you out and applied for an account which would allow them to receive them.

View on HN

This is effectively how Amazon Smile works, although the technical details are different: instead of soliciting "donations" they promise that 0.5% of each purchase is given (by Amazon) to the user's charity of choice. But the charity does not receive the money until they "register" their organization with Amazon, and as far as I can tell there is no way for me to know if my chosen organization has done so.

Amazon Smile only works with charities. Charities publicly list their addresses in multiple public databases. Sending a cheque to that address is easy. Not the same thing for non-charity content producers. (Not to mention, taxes.)

> Amazon Smile only works with charities.

They work with any type of nonprofit, not only charities.

I don't think it's a fair comparison. When you select your charity Amazon Smile directly says:

"We will reach out to the organization you select to ensure it is ready to accept donations from Amazon."

Furthermore, you aren't able to free form enter a charity. It's only from the list they've sourced (presumably from public records).

But the problem remains the same in that the charities on Amazon Smile (almost one million[1]) were (as far as we know) never informed that money was being collected for them.

Yes they might be contacted, but what if they don't want (or simply can't for legal reasons) use Amazon as a gateway for their funds?

Now you've given users the impression that they are helping a certain charity when it never makes it there.

Theoretically, these same users might have made a small donation directly to that company if it wasn't for Smile.

I'd still recommend using Smile, overall I think it's great, but you have to admit there might have been a better way to go about it. How to do that better, I do not know.

[1] https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/about/ref=smi_se_dshb_leli_...

> If your selected charity does not register to participate, becomes ineligible, or requests to be removed from the program, you will have a chance to select a different charity to receive the accrued donations that have not yet been disbursed to your charity. If you do not select a different charity, the accrued donations will be distributed to other organizations receiving donations.

This seems fair.

Why shouldn't Brave adopt this exact model?

Because if I donate to the EFF and it instead goes to a certain charity that kills something like 90% of the pets it takes in, I'm going to be upset.

If I donate to my favorite YouTube personality and instead the money goes to PewDiePie's empire, I'm going to be upset.

The difference between donations and taxes is that I can choose who to fund and how much. If that choice is no longer mine, and I have a strong chance to fund entities I find morally repulsive, then why donate?

I received an email a few months after signing up for Amazon Smile letting me know that the charity I chose was not able to accept donations and that I needed to choose another one. I did not see an option to forward the funds that would have gone to my chosen charity for past purchases to the new charity, though.

But smile doesn't cost anything to the user. You pay the same checkout price for something you were already buying.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this is really the same thing.

First of all, Brave doesn't just sit idly by and wait for creators to seek them out; they attempt to contact creators via email to let them know there are funds available for them to claim.

Second, Brave is completely transparent about how the process works. They're not claiming to donors that the funds _will_ reach their intended destination and then not delivering. The method they use to deliver cash to creators is clearly explained on their website.

"Hey, we have money for you! All you need to do is send us your social security number, address and bank account information. This is legit, we promise we're not from Nigeria"

Yeah, sounds legit.

Yep, that's pretty shitty. I don't know what info brave asks for, but I have pretty tight PII requirements for services I use. If I think Braves terms are unreasonable, is there a reconciliation process I can undertake, or does brave just keep my readers tips? Shady as fuck.

I just finished the process. To verify a site, you upload a file to the site, or add a DNS record, and then you can access your BAT. I don't know how you can withdraw, though.

EDIT: Oh, wait, they make you register a wallet on a site called uphold.com, which will just send the tokens to your Ether wallet or convert them to another cryptocurrency or pay you to your bank. You do have to register for KYC after $1000 worth of income, they say.

not a lawyer, but I've heard elsewhere that this is indeed illegal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com