The Greek Data Protection Authority provided some guidance on online tracking last month. In particular, the following was called out explicitly as a non-compliant practice:
> In the event of rejecting trackers, the user is constantly invited to make a new choice through a
pop-up window, while the same does not apply if the
user accepts trackers, in which case their choice is
maintained for a longer period.
That's not necessarily same context, but the main point still stands: By law, if you're invoking "consent" as the legal basis for collecting and processing data, consent must be freely given and as easy to withdraw as to provide. Provoking people to change their mind from "no" to "yes" but not the opposite is not considered to be freely-given.
Brave placed "Tweet this" buttons next to 5 bullet points on its page. In this setting, how could they conform to the consent standard you have articulated? Is the default opt-out (no tweet) enough? Must they offer a "tweet this" for some countervailing argument? If so, which argument?
You're absolutely right — Brave's behaviour is entirely transparent. The part that's disingenuous is the comment I was replying to, trying to argue that the multiple calls to action are anything but an attempt at driving social media engagement.
I just upvoted you as I didn't see a problem with what you said, but asking people to tell you why they downvoted around here seems a losing battle. I've asked often enough without response.
The reason you won't get a response to such questions (and follow-up comments about downvotes get flagged and downvoted) is because discussion of voting is against the HN Guidelines[1]:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Does it bother you that a commercial entity with "a dog in the fight" is asking you to take action on its behalf?