I didn't "imply" anything. I outright stated that they were running donation scams. The person who replied to me didn't understand what I was talking about.
Brave put a "donate to this person" button on creator content, took donations of cryptocurrency on that person's behalf, and then pocketed the crypto if the creator didn't register for Brave's program.
Because that is not obvious and your post looked like uncharitable interpretation of uncertain things.
Are there others than Tom Scott claiming this?
Are there underhanded motivations propable on Tom Scott's side against BraveBrowser or the other way around?
My motivation?
Wanting a browser that is actually pro-user.
If BraveBrowser (wont ever use brave as adjective there) used their platform to do underhanded tactics against people that didn't attack first than this would be interesting and a reason to toss any thought about using it.
I don't see a trend there yet.
More sources? I crave.
I'd love if Mozilla got their shit together but I am not seeing it coming.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181221180137if_/https://twitte...
Brave put a "donate to this person" button on creator content, took donations of cryptocurrency on that person's behalf, and then pocketed the crypto if the creator didn't register for Brave's program.