Trucker GoFundMe (split from: Covid-19 miscellany)

[Toni]

You do not know what I think or believe about much of anything.

I certainly do. You tell me all the time. Like when you called everyone who voted for Trump morally bankrupt, which was about 40% of voting Americans at the time you made the statement.

But you touch on a point: I think that this is perhaps....terrorist adjacent. Or terrorist curious, at the least. And I think that the truckers are being manipulated by people who have a larger prize in mind. Full disclosure: I've donated to a couple of causes via GoFundMe. It's not my favorite mechanism but it has been helpful in getting aid to some people who genuinely need(ed) the funds for very good reasons.

So, you believe the people who donated to the convoy knowingly donated to a 'terrorist adjacent' cause, and instead of getting their money back, you would prefer they be put on a list, and that list to go to the Proper Authorities. Gotcha.

As has been pointed out above, GoFundMe's policies have been established for years now. This is not something they pulled out of their hat because it might be politically expedient to do so for this instance.

And I think it's a bullshit clause, exercised unilaterally and post-hoc according to the whims of the corporation, and that people should stop using GoFundMe.

Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this but;

I don’t know about how laws work in Australia but here, laundering money for criminal enterprises would get you brought up on RICO charges. GoFundMe is not that kind of organization.

 

[Metaphor]

Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this but;

I don’t know about how laws work in Australia but here, laundering money for criminal enterprises would get you brought up on RICO charges. GoFundMe is not that kind of organization.

Full disclosure: I'm not a moron so the idea that I would entrust a $600m for-profit, privately held company to determine what is 'terrorist adjacent' instead of the police doesn't seem like something I'ma get behind.

But, you do you, Toni. Get Lists of Names for the Proper Authorities.

 

[Toni]

Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this but;

I don’t know about how laws work in Australia but here, laundering money for criminal enterprises would get you brought up on RICO charges. GoFundMe is not that kind of organization.

Full disclosure: I'm not a moron so the idea that I would entrust a $600m for-profit, privately held company to determine what is 'terrorist adjacent' instead of the police doesn't seem like something I'ma get behind.

But, you do you, Toni. Get Lists of Names for the Proper Authorities.

Believe it or not, in the US, the police or FBI or any other law enforcement agency does not monitor every single donation anyone makes on GoFundMe or any other platform.

Believe it or not, in the US, charitable organizations and such have a legal responsibility to do what they claim they are doing: To use the money they collect for the things they say they will. They can get into big trouble for doing otherwise.

Imagine if they discovered that a drug cartel was using GoFundMe to launder funds. Would that merit turning names over to authorities in your mind? What if it were a militant black group? What if it was a group that was running a human trafficking ring (not necessarily sex related)?

You may see this as an organization striking out on a group you support (or don't. I don't care) but I see this as not truly an issue of whether or not Canada or any other country/state/municipality, etc. has a right to mandate mask wearing or vaccination during a deadly pandemic. But I see it as an attempt to undermine democracy--a very calculated attempt. I don't think that should be supported.

 

[Metaphor]

Believe it or not, in the US, charitable organizations and such have a legal responsibility to do what they claim they are doing: To use the money they collect for the things they say they will. They can get into big trouble for doing otherwise.

There's nothing 'charitable' about GoFundMe. It's a privately-held, for profit corporation.

Imagine if they discovered that a drug cartel was using GoFundMe to launder funds. Would that merit turning names over to authorities in your mind? What if it were a militant black group? What if it was a group that was running a human trafficking ring (not necessarily sex related)?

GoFundMe should 'turn over names' that they are legally required to turn over and that the Proper Authorities have asked for. Don't worry, refunding people automatically won't erase their names from The List. The List of Names of Dissenters can always be created at the appropriate time that you wish to persecute them.

You may see this as an organization striking out on a group you support (or don't. I don't care) but I see this as not truly an issue of whether or not Canada or any other country/state/municipality, etc. has a right to mandate mask wearing or vaccination during a deadly pandemic. But I see it as an attempt to undermine democracy--a very calculated attempt. I don't think that should be supported.

What you believe should be supported is irrelevant. The people who donated to the convoy made the donation with the understanding the money would go to the convoy.

Now, I know the majority here love when large corporations make decisions for them, like Facebook fact checking the British Medical Journal, but I would not want to have GoFundMe as trustee for anything I donated to, given it can and does make unilateral decisions about who is worthy of receiving funds after the fact. So, and forgive me if my withholding of my own money from a $600m corporation offends you, but I will not be donating money via GoFundMe in the future and I would encourage others to refrain from doing so as well.

 

[ZiprHead]

What you believe should be supported is irrelevant. The people who donated to the convoy made the donation with the understanding the money would go to the convoy.

They also agreed to the terms and conditions of GFM prior to making their donations.

 

[Metaphor]

What you believe should be supported is irrelevant. The people who donated to the convoy made the donation with the understanding the money would go to the convoy.

They also agreed to the terms and conditions of GFM prior to making their donations.

I don't know how many different ways I have to say this. The fact that there is a term that can be unilaterally invoked and decided by GoFundMe is the very reason people should stop using GFM. There are alternatives that have not acted as capriciously as GFM.

 

[Metaphor]

If I were to donate via GFM to the rescue of cats made homeless by a hurricane and then later found out that this charity (using GFM to raise funds) was really a front for making coats out of cat fur or drug trafficking or what

I think you didn't finish this sentence, but if I made a donation to GFM for homeless cat rescue, and it turned out that it was a terrorist front, I would expect GFM to stop payments and refund everybody automatically. It is clear to me that GFM has no such compulsion but thinks it is entitled to disburse the funds for purposes other than you donated (public pressure finally changing its mind in the convoy case).

GFM has stated that it will streamline its process and refund all of the donations in 7-10 days.

I know that. It changed its mind after the announcement of its initial position (no automatic refunds and disbursement to other charities) and the pushback on it.

 

[TomC]

I don't know how many different ways I have to say this. The fact that there is a term that can be unilaterally invoked and decided by GoFundMe is the very reason people should stop using GFM. There are alternatives that have not acted as capriciously as GFM.

The truckers lied.

GFM accepted an account for a peaceful protest. It turned into something else entirely.
Frankly, I don't much care if GFM does what you think appropriate. If people get more cautious about sending money to strangers, I'm good with that.

The problem I'm seeing here is that you're OK with liars if they support a cause you support.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

The truckers lied.

GFM accepted an account for a peaceful protest. It turned into something else entirely.
Frankly, I don't much care if GFM does what you think appropriate. If people get more cautious about sending money to strangers, I'm good with that.

The problem I'm seeing here is that you're OK with liars if they support a cause you support.
Tom

Holy shit it's like people don't read a word I say.

This has nothing to do with the truckers. If the truckers lied (there's no evidence that they did, mind), they convinced everybody, including GFM and the people who donated.

I did not say GFM should be forced to hand over the money to the truckers. I said it should automatically refund the donors. The donors are surely as much victims of the convoy 'lies' as GFM was.

 

[Jarhyn]

The truckers lied.

GFM accepted an account for a peaceful protest. It turned into something else entirely.
Frankly, I don't much care if GFM does what you think appropriate. If people get more cautious about sending money to strangers, I'm good with that.

The problem I'm seeing here is that you're OK with liars if they support a cause you support.
Tom

Holy shit it's like people don't read a word I say.

This has nothing to do with the truckers. If the truckers lied (there's no evidence that they did, mind), they convinced everybody, including GFM and the people who donated.

I did not say GFM should be forced to hand over the money to the truckers. I said it should automatically refund the donors. The donors are surely as much victims of the convoy 'lies' as GFM was.

Do we get to say "I told you so" and you to admit "yeah, you sure did" when half these people find different ways to donate to the convoy, indicating after clear evidence that they are not victims but conspirators?

 

[Metaphor]

Do we get to say "I told you so" and you to admit "yeah, you sure did" when half these people find different ways to donate to the convoy, indicating after clear evidence that they are not victims but conspirators?

What are you talking about?

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

 

[Jarhyn]

Do we get to say "I told you so" and you to admit "yeah, you sure did" when half these people find different ways to donate to the convoy, indicating after clear evidence that they are not victims but conspirators?

What are you talking about?

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

I think they should have abided by the terms of the contract that the donators agreed to, and sent the money on to charities that are not terrorist fronts under the expectation that no matter of the first or second party, passing money in those directions is a liability for transferring funds to terrorist activities.

They chose to send the money back, instead so now, do we get to tell you "we told you so" when the refunds are sent through a different route to the bioterrorists?

 

[Metaphor]

I think they should have abided by the terms of the contract that the donators agreed to, and sent the money on to charities that are not terrorist fronts under the expectation that no matter of the first or second party, passing money in those directions is a liability for transferring funds to terrorist activities.

And, for about the eleventy-billionth time, the fact that GFM has such a term that they can invoke and disburse your money to a place you did not donate it to is a good reason to stop using GFM. You can keep using it if you want. Your money is your money.

They chose to send the money back, instead so now, do we get to tell you "we told you so" when the refunds are sent through a different route to the bioterrorists?

What the fuck are you talking about? What would you be saying "I told you so" about?

 

[Jarhyn]

I think they should have abided by the terms of the contract that the donators agreed to, and sent the money on to charities that are not terrorist fronts under the expectation that no matter of the first or second party, passing money in those directions is a liability for transferring funds to terrorist activities.

And, for about the eleventy-billionth time, the fact that GFM has such a term that they can invoke and disburse your money to a place you did not donate it to is a good reason to stop using GFM. You can keep using it if you want. Your money is your money.

They chose to send the money back, instead so now, do we get to tell you "we told you so" when the refunds are sent through a different route to the bioterrorists?

What the fuck are you talking about? What would you be saying "I told you so" about?

That GFM by returning the money would be transferring funds towards terrorist activities. Do we get to say "I told you so" and you say "yeah you sure did..." without sarcasm when the people who got their money back send it back towards the bioterrorists?

 

[Metaphor]

That GFM by returning the money would be transferring funds towards terrorist activities. Do we get to say "I told you so" and you say "yeah you sure did..." without sarcasm when the people who got their money back send it back towards the bioterrorists?

Huh? I did not deny that some people who got a refund would donate to the convoy via other means. I imagine some or many of them would. Some people might even increase what they originally pledged. Others will get the money back and keep it. It's their money to do with as they want.

I don't accept your pronouncement of the convoy as a terrorist organisation, but that probably goes without saying.

 

[Toni]

Do we get to say "I told you so" and you to admit "yeah, you sure did" when half these people find different ways to donate to the convoy, indicating after clear evidence that they are not victims but conspirators?

What are you talking about?

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

Wait—GFM NEVER asserted that it would disperse the funds to charities if it’s choosing. They outlined a princess for donors to be reimbursed and stated what they would do with unclaimed donations.

 

[Metaphor]

Wait—GFM NEVER asserted that it would disperse the funds to charities if it’s choosing. They outlined a princess for donors to be reimbursed and stated what they would do with unclaimed donations.

Yes: they would disburse unrefunded donations to charities of its choosing.

 

[TomC]

Wait—GFM NEVER asserted that it would disperse the funds to charities if it’s choosing. They outlined a princess for donors to be reimbursed and stated what they would do with unclaimed donations.

Yes: they would disburse unrefunded donations to charities of its choosing.

Every 30 days I pay my cell phone bill on the phone.
The rigamorole is the same every time.
Towards the beginning of the call, the computer says "Phone plan purchases are nonrefundable."

Again, right before "Do you want to process this payment now?" it says "Phone plan purchases are nonrefundable."

If, anywhere in the 30 days for any reason, I decided I don't want the service any more would I be entitled to a refund? Would keeping my money be theft?
Or did my agreeing to the terms mean I have no right to change my mind and expect a refund?

That's what I'm seeing here. Both donors and truckers/supporters agreed to some terms and now don't want to abide by them. Going from "peaceful protest" to what is going on now doesn't obligate GFM to do what you or anybody else thinks should be done.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

 

[Metaphor]

Wait—GFM NEVER asserted that it would disperse the funds to charities if it’s choosing. They outlined a princess for donors to be reimbursed and stated what they would do with unclaimed donations.

Yes: they would disburse unrefunded donations to charities of its choosing.

Every 30 days I pay my cell phone bill on the phone.
The rigamorole is the same every time.
Towards the beginning of the call, the computer says "Phone plan purchases are nonrefundable."

Again, right before "Do you want to process this payment now?" it says "Phone plan purchases are nonrefundable."

If, anywhere in the 30 days for any reason, I decided I don't want the service any more would I be entitled to a refund? Would keeping my money be theft?
Or did my agreeing to the terms mean I have no right to change my mind and expect a refund?

That's what I'm seeing here. Both donors and truckers/supporters agreed to some terms and now don't want to abide by them. Going from "peaceful protest" to what is going on now doesn't obligate GFM to do what you or anybody else thinks should be done.
Tom

Precisely why you think an analogy to your phone service provider is pertinent, I'm sure I don't know.

But, I will simply reiterate what I've said before a number of times. The term that GFM can exercise capriciously and unilaterally is an awful one, and I will never use GFM for that reason.

You can do what you want with your own money.