Was Go Fundme Wrong to interfere in the Canadian Trucker Collection Efforts? (1 Viewer)

[supermike80]

Does a company like Go Fund me have an obligation or duty to interfere in these things and do you think they were in the right to do so?

On the one hand, I don't want GoFund me to look the other way if some dude wants to raise money to fund his sex trafficking enterprise...but when we are talking a political cause, like this, have they gone too far?  Does something like this further the discussion(whether valid or not) that "big tech" will censor or try to subvert causes that are not aligned with their views?

 

[Insein]

The problem is the application of their rules. If they want to declare that they unilaterally do not support donation campaigns for activities that are illegal or may appear to be illegal, then apply that across the board. If that is their stance, they need to deny the campaign at the start or have set  procedures they take if illegal activity is found after a campaign started. Above all though, they can't have as an option that a campaign forfeits their money to GoFundMe to use at their own discretion. 

GoFundMe created this mess for themselves because they somehow decided they were going to keep $9m in donations unless the people asked for a refund in less than 2 weeks. If no one called them on it, they would have stolen millions. 

 

[FairWarning]

They have shut down others before, the Rittenhouse defense fund was one.

 

[FairWarning]

They are a private company and you do have to agree to their terms.  

 

[supermike80]

They are a private company and you do have to agree to their terms.  

Ok.   Let's try to focus a little bit.   The question wasn't whether it was in their rules.  I hope as a collective we can intelligently rise about whatever their rules say and debate higher?   

 

[The General]

My understanding is people were donating money to a Trucker Gofundme set up by someone affiliated with this. Canadian government asked Gofundme to stop. Gofundme complies and has a policy in place that money then gets donated to charities that are set up by the Gofundme organizer page or the donor could get refunded if they asked. They switched that process to auto-refund after a week or so.

Is that all accurate?

 

[supermike80]

My understanding is people were donating money to a Trucker Gofundme set up by someone affiliated with this. Canadian government asked Gofundme to stop. Gofundme complies and has a policy in place that money then gets donated to charities that are set up by the Gofundme organizer page or the donor could get refunded if they asked. They switched that process to auto-refund after a week or so.

Is that all accurate?

That's how I understand it as well except for the Canadian Government asking them to stop.  That I didn't hear.    Not that it isn't true.

And I think you might be skipping a step.  My understanding was initially gofundme was going to do what they wanted with the $$ but after backlash, they agreed to refund the $$

 

[The General]

That's how I understand it as well except for the Canadian Government asking them to stop.  That I didn't hear.    Not that it isn't true.

And I think you might be skipping a step.  My understanding was initially gofundme was going to do what they wanted with the $$ but after backlash, they agreed to refund the $$

I read the Gofundme statement a couple days ago and pretty sure that's how they described it from their side but not totally certain.

If anyone knows this one way or the other that would be great. 

A deeper look at how they determine which fundme campaigns are determined to be acceptable should be part of their doing business, but I understand it I think this was handled ok by Gofundme.

 

[steeler6]

As long as they're consistent in how they enforce their terms of service, no problem. The big question is, have they? 

 

[FairWarning]

Ok.   Let's try to focus a little bit.   The question wasn't whether it was in their rules.  I hope as a collective we can intelligently rise about whatever their rules say and debate higher?   

Do they have an obligation?  No.

I have no idea what their official stance is (conservative vs liberal), I would be interested if it were a liberal cause though.  Maybe the Canadian government put pressure on them.  It wouldn’t surprise me as the US gov has put pressure on banking in the past also.

 

[James Daulton]

Bad look and they shouldn't have done it.  Should have gone forward with allowing the fund. 

 

[Insein]

My understanding is people were donating money to a Trucker Gofundme set up by someone affiliated with this. Canadian government asked Gofundme to stop. Gofundme complies and has a policy in place that money then gets donated to charities that are set up by the Gofundme organizer page or the donor could get refunded if they asked. They switched that process to auto-refund after a week or so.

Is that all accurate?

Except the money is usually automatically refunded as has been in other campaigns that were ended prematurely. This time they decided they would give people 2 weeks to claim the $9m before they took it. 

 

[FairWarning]

Except the money is usually automatically refunded as has been in other campaigns that were ended prematurely. This time they decided they would give people 2 weeks to claim the $9m before they took it. 

It should be automatically refunded.

 

[The General]

Except the money is usually automatically refunded as has been in other campaigns that were ended prematurely. This time they decided they would give people 2 weeks to claim the $9m before they took it. 

Thanks. Can I see where this explanation came from? What I read is the money was given to the gofundme organizers, then after the account was denied was to be given to charities the organizers selected or refunded if requested, then after backlash was changed to all refunded to donors with no action required.

 

[BladeRunner]

My understanding is people were donating money to a Trucker Gofundme set up by someone affiliated with this. Canadian government asked Gofundme to stop. Gofundme complies and has a policy in place that money then gets donated to charities that are set up by the Gofundme organizer page or the donor could get refunded if they asked. They switched that process to auto-refund after a week or so.

Is that all accurate?

How does no one have an issue with the bolded?  I mean, that's literally a violation of the 1st amendment in the United States.  Government uses pressure to force businesses to comply under the guise of "asking"?  GTHO.

Does anyone not see how if a government simply has to "ask" a business to stop doing something is problematic?  No one sees any issues?  At all?

Now let's say I'm Donald Trump 2017 and I "ask" GoFundMe to stop liberal causes.  Any problems now?

 

[Sand]

As long as they're consistent in how they enforce their terms of service, no problem. The big question is, have they? 

Interesting question - they yanked the fund for Rittenhouse (who was acquitted).  They yanked the fund for the Wisconsin parade killer (who is undoubtedly guilty).  

There are still ones up for George Floyd protestors.  I guess those are virtuous, so they're allowed to stand.

 

[supermike80]

Interesting question - they yanked the fund for Rittenhouse (who was acquitted).  They yanked the fund for the Wisconsin parade killer (who is undoubtedly guilty).  

There are still ones up for George Floyd protestors.  I guess those are virtuous, so they're allowed to stand.

See and that just makes it worse.  Why did they yank the one for Rittenhouse?  Doesn't the guy deserve the best legal representation he can get? Same with the parade killer?  Why is Go Fund Me deciding to end these campaigns? Makes no sense to me.     

Not like I would ever give any money to them anyway, but this just seems....wrong

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Bad look and they shouldn't have done it.  Should have gone forward with allowing the fund. 

I was definitely a bad look.  I think when something borders on violating their terms, they should probably rule in favor of letting the go-fund-me page stand.

 

[The General]

How does no one have an issue with the bolded?  I mean, that's literally a violation of the 1st amendment in the United States.  Government uses pressure to force businesses to comply under the guise of "asking"?  GTHO.

Does anyone not see how if a government simply has to "ask" a business to stop doing something is problematic?  No one sees any issues?  At all?

Now let's say I'm Donald Trump 2017 and I "ask" GoFundMe to stop liberal causes.  Any problems now?

I went back and found their statement: LINK

Tricky with how they determine this and apply it, but I don't have an issue with them doing this and erroring on the side of caution.

 

[ekbeats]

I hate that companies now seem to have a political bias.  I don’t think it’s good for the country.  We don’t allow discrimination based on  sex, race, etc.  Maybe it’s time to extend that to political beliefs.

 

[ekbeats]

How does no one have an issue with the bolded?  I mean, that's literally a violation of the 1st amendment in the United States.  Government uses pressure to force businesses to comply under the guise of "asking"?  GTHO.

Does anyone not see how if a government simply has to "ask" a business to stop doing something is problematic?  No one sees any issues?  At all?

Now let's say I'm Donald Trump 2017 and I "ask" GoFundMe to stop liberal causes.  Any problems now?

It’s also going on in the United States.  Jen Psaki just said that she wanted Spotify to further censor Rogan.  Flat out 1st Amendment violation, by the White House no less.  And no one seems to care.

 

[The General]

It’s also going on in the United States.  Jen Psaki just said that she wanted Spotify to further censor Rogan.  Flat out 1st Amendment violation, by the White House no less.  And no one seems to care.

I think the language was that more work can be done on what is deemed Covid misinformation by platforms like Spotify.

 

[James Daulton]

I hate that companies now seem to have a political bias.  I don’t think it’s good for the country.  We don’t allow discrimination based on  sex, race, etc.  Maybe it’s time to extend that to political beliefs.

I agree with this.  It's one thing to keep dangerous misinformation out but quite another to pick and choose who you censor or what projects you support or don't. 

 

[urbanhack]

I hate that companies now seem to have a political bias.  I don’t think it’s good for the country.  We don’t allow discrimination based on  sex, race, etc.  Maybe it’s time to extend that to political beliefs.

So discrimination should be treated the same for conscious choices and opinions the same way as attributes that one has no control over like race????

 

[Zow]

They are a private company and you do have to agree to their terms.  

Yep. /Thread

 

[Zow]

How does no one have an issue with the bolded?  I mean, that's literally a violation of the 1st amendment in the United States.  Government uses pressure to force businesses to comply under the guise of "asking"?  GTHO.

Does anyone not see how if a government simply has to "ask" a business to stop doing something is problematic?  No one sees any issues?  At all?

Now let's say I'm Donald Trump 2017 and I "ask" GoFundMe to stop liberal causes.  Any problems now?

Probably not. 

 

[LawFitz]

It's one thing to keep dangerous misinformation out but quite another to pick and choose who you censor or what projects you support or don't. 

The problem is the slippery slope between the two.

 

[The General]

Were there people breaking the law as Gofundme said?

 

[FairWarning]

Were there people breaking the law as Gofundme said?

I guess it depends on what law was broken.

 

[The General]

I guess it depends on what law was broken.

Yeah thats what I’m curious about. The statement was pretty broad from gofundme. If they are reporting the money is going to people breaking the laws that is something I’d think they not want to be a part of knowingly. 

 

[GregR]

My understanding is people were donating money to a Trucker Gofundme set up by someone affiliated with this. Canadian government asked Gofundme to stop. Gofundme complies and has a policy in place that money then gets donated to charities that are set up by the Gofundme organizer page or the donor could get refunded if they asked. They switched that process to auto-refund after a week or so.

Is that all accurate?

I don't know. Not a single post about it has matched what I'd been reading though.

What I'd read pretty much everywhere I saw mention, was that the amount raised was so far in excess of what was required for the intent (gas and food, etc), they were shutting it down while they reviewed with the host how the great excess of money would be distributed. 
 

I should edit to add, I realize the story has moved on further and frankly I haven't paid close attention to that aspect, but that was what I heard everywhere about why they halted it in the first place.

 

[FairWarning]

Yeah thats what I’m curious about. The statement was pretty broad from gofundme. If they are reporting the money is going to people breaking the laws that is something I’d think they not want to be a part of knowingly. 

Agree

 

[The General]

I don't know. Not a single post about it has matched what I'd been reading though.

What I'd read pretty much everywhere I saw mention, was that the amount raised was so far in excess of what was required for the intent (gas and food, etc), they were shutting it down while they reviewed with the host how the great excess of money would be distributed. 

Thanks. I had not seen angle that mentioned yet.

Like a lot of these things these companies have some very complex issues to handle past their awesome idea that at face value is constructed to provide a great service (and make some cash). 

 

[ekbeats]

So discrimination should be treated the same for conscious choices and opinions the same way as attributes that one has no control over like race????

Maybe, yes.  A person’s religious belief is protected in certain circumstances. It’s obviously a slippery slope, but I’d rather be there than going off a cliff, which is we will be at it if we keep on with this silly culture war.  

 

[ekbeats]

I think the language was that more work can be done on what is deemed Covid misinformation by platforms like Spotify.

With the end result being censorship.  The Government has no business encouraging restrictions of speech like this.  I remember a day when the ACLU would have immediately objected into it

 

[ekbeats]

By the way, Trudeau can go suck an egg.  Calling the protesters Nazis…. What an ###.

 

[Sand]

By the way, Trudeau can go suck an egg.  Calling the protesters Nazis…. What an ###.

The sweet, sweet siren call of Godwin's Law notches another victim.

 

[Sand]

Yep. /Thread

As usual, though, it seems there is a bimodal distribution of the application of these rules.  If Rittenhouse is shut down, then why are there ones out there for bailing out Kenosha rioters?  I'm not opposed to either, to be honest, but it seems that the application of these internal rules has two very different interpretations depending on the recipients.

 

[The Commish]

They are a private company and you do have to agree to their terms.  

Yep. /Thread

Companies are people too!!!!!!!!! Until they do something we dont like.

 

[FairWarning]

Companies are people too!!!!!!!!! Until they do something we dont like.

Then we give them the Neil Young Treatment.. 

 

[The Commish]

Then we give them the Neil Young Treatment.. 

Or better...we speak with our wallets. Capitalism baby!!

 

[glvsav37]

Yeah thats what I’m curious about. The statement was pretty broad from gofundme. If they are reporting the money is going to people breaking the laws that is something I’d think they not want to be a part of knowingly. 

But GFM has plenty of "Bail fund" fundraisers. And I'm not only talking about those solely focused on the summer riots and BLM/George Floyd protests. Isn't the fact that bail is needed indicative that the recipient "may" have broken a law?  Yes we live in a guilty until proven innocent country, but the fact that those other current GFMs are associated with the legal process would tell me that "funds for people possibly breaking the law" should be allowed in this case. 

 

 

[The General]

But GFM has plenty of "Bail fund" fundraisers. And I'm not only talking about those solely focused on the summer riots and BLM/George Floyd protests. Isn't the fact that bail is needed indicative that the recipient "may" have broken a law?  Yes we live in a guilty until proven innocent country, but the fact that those other current GFMs are associated with the legal process would tell me that "funds for people possibly breaking the law" should be allowed in this case. 

 

I thought the distinction here was that this was funding the illegal activities as opposed to the defense of someone who is arrested. I don’t know the history of gofundme and how they come to their judgements. 

 

[Max Power]

Were they wrong... I think so.  Both on the idea of good faith donations and long term customer base.

Were they allowed to do this?  Absolutely. 

 

[whoknew]

By the way, Trudeau can go suck an egg.  Calling the protesters Nazis…. What an ###.

I hadn't heard this so I googled for his quote but couldn't find it. The closest I saw was - 

Mr Trudeau said: "Freedom of expression, assembly and association are cornerstones of democracy, but Nazi symbolism, racist imagery and desecration of war memorials are not."

Is that what you are referring to?

 

[chet]

The Canadian government colluding with a foreign company to misappropriate funds largely from Canadian citizens is beyond disgusting and unprecedented.  Even if you disagree with the nature of the protest, it has been peaceful.  

I am sure GoFundMe was used for the BLM protests--they halt funding on largely right wing efforts but turn a blind eye to left wing protests?  

 

[chet]

I hadn't heard this so I googled for his quote but couldn't find it. The closest I saw was - 

Mr Trudeau said: "Freedom of expression, assembly and association are cornerstones of democracy, but Nazi symbolism, racist imagery and desecration of war memorials are not."

Is that what you are referring to?

Here's a tweet accusing the protesters of just about every -ism except Nazism.

Today in the House, Members of Parliament unanimously condemned the antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia that we’ve seen on display in Ottawa over the past number of days. Together, let’s keep working to make Canada more inclusive.

 

[glvsav37]

Here's a tweet accusing the protesters of just about every -ism except Nazism.

when you can't beat'em, slander them 

 

[The General]

The Canadian government colluding with a foreign company to misappropriate funds largely from Canadian citizens is beyond disgusting and unprecedented.  Even if you disagree with the nature of the protest, it has been peaceful.  

I am sure GoFundMe was used for the BLM protests--they halt funding on largely right wing efforts but turn a blind eye to left wing protests?  

Do you have a link that broke down where these donations were coming from?

 

[Stealthycat]

Interesting question - they yanked the fund for Rittenhouse (who was acquitted).  They yanked the fund for the Wisconsin parade killer (who is undoubtedly guilty).  

There are still ones up for George Floyd protestors.  I guess those are virtuous, so they're allowed to stand.

who decides virtuous ?

in retrospect, since Rittenhouse was innocent, that one should have stood, right ?