The underlying message is that adequate resources is all that it takes for an individual to hoodwink the justice system and be found not guilty of a violent crime. Well, ok, fair enough. Now, GoFundMe shouldn't be a substitute for functional social programs, yet in reality it is. And so, in a world where GoFundMe is required to have an adequate legal defense, why should GoFundMe have the right to take that away?
I reject the idea that they should have that right. Having access to capital via the modern financial system (Visa, PayPal, GoFundMe, etc) ought to be a right. No individual, or company, should have the undemocratic power to strip individuals of access to capital.
> No individual, or company, should have the undemocratic power to strip individuals of access to capital.
i dont believe access to capital is a right - because the entity providing that capital has to be a willing participant, or it'd be called stealing or coercing capital out of some one.
The fact that in the USA, the defacto legal defense funding comes from charity donations via companies like GoFundMe is tragic, because it is a symptom of the lack of actual proper legal representation funded by the state. But this doesn't mean the obligation for GoFundMe to act as a defacto social safety net. They should be able to choose to run their business however they see fit.
> i dont believe access to capital is a right - because the entity providing that capital has to be a willing participant, or it'd be called stealing or coercing capital out of some one.
Don't respond to something that wasn't said.
> They should be able to choose to run their business however they see fit.
Absolutely not. The post office should not be able to deplatform people 'as they see fit', nor should utility companies, nor should banks, nor should payment companies. If you want to be a platform, you have to treat people equally.
> GoFundMe’s Terms of Service prohibit raising money for the legal defense of an alleged violent crime. In light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we want to clarify when and why we removed certain fundraisers in the past.
We have an adversial court system in the US where defendants are expected to obtain legal counsel. It's horrifying that GoFundMe would prohibit raising money for that at the time funds were most needed.
> Once charges for a violent crime were brought against Kyle Rittenhouse in 2020, GoFundMe removed fundraisers that were started for the defendant’s legal defense.
Horrifying.
Note that in some Australian cities, the #1 reported crime today is DV, since divorce lawyers are advising their female clients to automatically make false allegations. (Some govt. departments actually mail out blank forms during divorce procedings to report DV, without the forms even being requested.) If these claims were valid, the hospitals would be full of DV victims, and they simply aren't.
How did that happen? Prosecutors have been told to do nothing about false claims from women.
So automatically restricting how defense funds can be raised is absurd, despite allegations of violence before a trial.
they shouldnt care. But they need to market themselves as a virtuous company, and in today's social media setting, it means disassociating yourself with anything that might seem like it is supporting conservative views.
> they need to market themselves as a virtuous company
I dont really believe that explanation. GoFundMe isn't afraid of mean tweets from unpopular lefties. It's run by people who are genuinely afraid of Kyle Rittenhouse specifically because they perceive him (not necessarily incorrectly) as part of a white backlash. The media has been quite clear about this as the source of their concern.
"We care deeply about human rights ... we do not allow fundraisers that support hate ..."
Translating this corpspeak to normal language: "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone. It so happens that owners of GoFundMe are buddies with the radical left democrats, so we can't express support of the self-defense rights, especially when those rights are used by a white man."
Here is how to donate to the legal defence of BLM related stuff https://www.gofundme.com/f/gnfwc-black-lives-matter-dc-legal... . Do they make sure that the money isn't going to any of the many violent looters? If not, then this (like most corpspeak) is just meaningless hypocrisy.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 35.2 ms ] threadI reject the idea that they should have that right. Having access to capital via the modern financial system (Visa, PayPal, GoFundMe, etc) ought to be a right. No individual, or company, should have the undemocratic power to strip individuals of access to capital.
i dont believe access to capital is a right - because the entity providing that capital has to be a willing participant, or it'd be called stealing or coercing capital out of some one.
The fact that in the USA, the defacto legal defense funding comes from charity donations via companies like GoFundMe is tragic, because it is a symptom of the lack of actual proper legal representation funded by the state. But this doesn't mean the obligation for GoFundMe to act as a defacto social safety net. They should be able to choose to run their business however they see fit.
Don't respond to something that wasn't said.
> They should be able to choose to run their business however they see fit.
Absolutely not. The post office should not be able to deplatform people 'as they see fit', nor should utility companies, nor should banks, nor should payment companies. If you want to be a platform, you have to treat people equally.
We have an adversial court system in the US where defendants are expected to obtain legal counsel. It's horrifying that GoFundMe would prohibit raising money for that at the time funds were most needed.
> Once charges for a violent crime were brought against Kyle Rittenhouse in 2020, GoFundMe removed fundraisers that were started for the defendant’s legal defense.
Horrifying.
Note that in some Australian cities, the #1 reported crime today is DV, since divorce lawyers are advising their female clients to automatically make false allegations. (Some govt. departments actually mail out blank forms during divorce procedings to report DV, without the forms even being requested.) If these claims were valid, the hospitals would be full of DV victims, and they simply aren't.
How did that happen? Prosecutors have been told to do nothing about false claims from women.
So automatically restricting how defense funds can be raised is absurd, despite allegations of violence before a trial.
Also, you know, being accused isn't being found guilty. What next, disbar anyone who acts as a lawyer for a person accused of a violent crime?
they shouldnt care. But they need to market themselves as a virtuous company, and in today's social media setting, it means disassociating yourself with anything that might seem like it is supporting conservative views.
I dont really believe that explanation. GoFundMe isn't afraid of mean tweets from unpopular lefties. It's run by people who are genuinely afraid of Kyle Rittenhouse specifically because they perceive him (not necessarily incorrectly) as part of a white backlash. The media has been quite clear about this as the source of their concern.
Translating this corpspeak to normal language: "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone. It so happens that owners of GoFundMe are buddies with the radical left democrats, so we can't express support of the self-defense rights, especially when those rights are used by a white man."