2 ms·
His tweet says, in part > "... Tom has a point, we should let creators say "no thanks" and be auto-excluded. Users may already auto-exclude unverified sites/ch
by wakeywakeywakey 8y ago
His tweet says, in part
> "... Tom has a point, we should let creators say "no thanks" and be auto-excluded. Users may already auto-exclude unverified sites/channels. We will work on this."
This makes your interpretation disingenuous, or uncharitable at best.
- cyphar 8y agoHe is missing the point though. It shouldn't be opt-out, it should be opt-in -- if the purpose is to give donations to creators then surely those creators should agree to receive donations (especially since donations have to be included in tax filings and so on). For "donations to a creator" to be used for a different purpose by the party that is mediating donations appears (to a non-lawyer like me) to be some kind of charity fraud.