I might understand the moral reasoning here. Here's my guess: The podcasters were weighing the cost to themselves vs. the benefit to the podcaster. If the po

I might understand the moral reasoning here. Here's my guess: The podcasters were weighing the cost to themselves vs. the benefit to the podcaster. If the podcaster was poor and the listener was rich, the cost/benefit tradeoff favors paying. The listener feels happy to be supportive. If the situation were reversed, the math swings the other way. A principled listener might pay, but wouldn't necessarily feel happy about it.