|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: gofundme started by: GORDON Posted by GORDON on May 03 2015,10:55
Giving this its own thread...Now they are dropping fundraising for those Baltimore cops ACCUSED of committing a crime? < http://thehill.com/blogs....fficers > How can they reconcile this? Do they think people should not be able to defend themselves in court, an accusation = guilty? If bakers can be compelled to bake a cake, I don't see why gofundme isn't being compelled to allow peeps to raise funds for a lawyer. Posted by Malcolm on May 03 2015,11:29
Jobs can drop you for being accused of a crime.QUOTE “GoFundMe cannot be used to benefit those who are charged with serious violations of the law,” They do have the weasel word "serious" in there. Let's assume that means something above a misdemeanor. The interesting bit is that you could change the wording slightly and have the fund go to the "families of the accused" and probably get away with it. QUOTE Do they think people should not be able to defend themselves in court, an accusation = guilty? I believe they want to distance themselves from the sort of controversy that comes along with major court cases because of negative publicity affecting their bottom line. QUOTE If bakers can be compelled to bake a cake, I don't see why gofundme isn't being compelled to allow peeps to raise funds for a lawyer. Because we have those rockin' public defenders that all the poor-ass criminals have to rely on. Where are the public bakers? Secondly, for the reason stated above. QUOTE GoFundMe generates revenue by automatically deducting an 8% fee from each donation users receive. It's a simple Fight Club-style equation. They think the donations they'll lose due to bad press from that one campaign (and others) are greater than the donations it'll take in. There was a "defend Officer Wilson" fund during the Ferguson thing. It raised about $180K. GoFundMe made under $20K and probably took a lot of heat just based on the comments on the campaign page. I keep saying, all the bakers need to do is come up with a list of regular customers who refuse to shop at their place because they made a cake for a gay wedding. One's an economic reason, the other's not. As far as the real reasons go, I've got plenty of theories, but that's the one they'll front with. Thirdly, they are (supposedly) going to apply this rule to all people who are even potential criminals. There is no discrimination other than alleged criminal actions, which is legal albeit dickish. EDIT: Here's a GoFundMe account that violates the policy. QUOTE mmsdefensefund Nominally a legal defense fund for a Mr Louis Daniel Smith who is facing criminal charges in relation to him selling "MMS" (Miracle Mineral Supplement). A statement released by the United States Department of Justice in 2013 relating to this case includes the phrase "modern-day snake-oil salesmen." Raised about $125K. QUOTE Louis Daniel Smith, 42, and Karis Delong, 38, both of Ashland, Ore., were charged with defrauding regulators and suppliers in a scheme to manufacture and sell industrial bleach as a cure for numerous illnesses, including arthritis, cancer, and the seasonal flu. Also charged were Chris Olson, 49, and Tammy Olson, 50, of Nine Mile Falls, Wash. A federal grand jury returned an indictment, unsealed yesterday, charging Smith, Delong and Tammy Olson with one count of conspiracy, four counts of interstate sales of misbranded drugs, and one count of smuggling. The grand jury charged Chris Olson with one count of conspiracy, one count of the interstate sale of a misbranded drug and one count of smuggling.
Posted by Vince on May 03 2015,16:54
I don't think they're long with the revenues they've been making. Especially bad move with the Christian banning, since Christians tend to give pretty readily.
Posted by Malcolm on May 03 2015,18:03
(Vince @ May 03 2015,18:54) QUOTE I don't think they're long with the revenues they've been making. Especially bad move with the Christian banning, since Christians tend to give pretty readily. They're a glorified hosting + basic web page + e-transaction biz. The operating costs can't be that big after a few years have gone by and made up the initial hardware investment. It's still not a Christian ban, either. Posted by Vince on May 03 2015,18:08
(Malcolm @ May 03 2015,20:03) QUOTE It's still not a Christian ban, either. Doesn't matter. All that matters is they see it as such. Posted by Malcolm on May 03 2015,18:12
(Vince @ May 03 2015,20:08) QUOTE (Malcolm @ May 03 2015,20:03) QUOTE It's still not a Christian ban, either. Doesn't matter. All that matters is they see it as such. I don't think that's true, either. Posted by TheCatt on May 03 2015,18:44
(Vince @ May 03 2015,19:54) QUOTE I don't think they're long with the revenues they've been making. Especially bad move with the Christian banning, since Christians tend to give pretty readily. $23,500,000 / year revenue last year. Claims to be on a pace of $73M / year for 2015. Sounds like they are doing OK. |