4 ms·

And what about other people that give to non-profits? Should they also be made to continue giving even if they no longer agree with what the non-profit is doin

And what about other people that give to non-profits? Should they also be made to continue giving even if they no longer agree with what the non-profit is doing?

arca_vorago 9y ago
Nobody makes anyone give money to a nonprofit...
dcole2929 9y ago
No one can or should be able to force you to donate your money to any endeavor. That said it's fair to question whether an organization that is currently enjoying a tax free exemption on the basis of being a independent non profit should continue to enjoy that status after proving they are not in fact independent. It's likewise fair to question whether any person donating to that organization deserves to write off their donations if the receiving organization acts more like a pr division of the giver. My personal opinion is that if an organization receives more than 50% of it's funding from one source, it's no longer independent and shouldn't be treated as such
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
hpcjoe 9y ago
... no ... the essence of free speech is free association and dissociation with people, ideas, and narratives. There should be no compulsion or "made to continue giving" if they disagree. In this aspect, google would be well within its rights to discontinue funding speech it no longer agreed with. Its within its rights to attempt to influence a narrative. But there are optics associated with this, and people who may be (rightfully or wrongfully) suspicious of its motives, who would take such actions as confirmation of their own pet theories. Without reflecting on how common a pattern this is, if this is what happened, then it happened. And its not wrong for google to ask for tighter conformity to its preferred narrative. Its not wrong for the think tank to offer this tighter conformity. It just looks ... well ... bad. Google acting in their own self interest is rational. Doesn't mean its "good" or "bad" in a wider context, but it is rational.
Spivak 9y ago
They wouldn't be made to continue. But if it's clear that the actions of a given non-profit are really for the financial benefit of their 'donors' then then they should be taxed like any other marketing division.
Goladus 9y ago
No, but of course that's not what happened. They said shut down the open markets division or we'll pull funding. And probably there was something like "oh yeah and when you're looking at what our lost patronage does to your bottom line, remember that I also play golf with 4-5 of your other patrons so think very carefully"
stretchwithme 9y ago
I was being absurd here on purpose, as I was responding to a statement that implied this is what should be done. And it seems to have been edited since. I guess I should have quoted it. But looks like people thought I was serious.

And what about other people that give to non-profits? Should they also be made to continue giving even if they no longer agree with what the non-profit is doing?

arca_vorago 9y ago

Nobody makes anyone give money to a nonprofit...

dcole2929 9y ago

No one can or should be able to force you to donate your money to any endeavor. That said it's fair to question whether an organization that is currently enjoying a tax free exemption on the basis of being a independent non profit should continue to enjoy that status after proving they are not in fact independent. It's likewise fair to question whether any person donating to that organization deserves to write off their donations if the receiving organization acts more like a pr division of the giver. My personal opinion is that if an organization receives more than 50% of it's funding from one source, it's no longer independent and shouldn't be treated as such

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

hpcjoe 9y ago

... no ... the essence of free speech is free association and dissociation with people, ideas, and narratives. There should be no compulsion or "made to continue giving" if they disagree. In this aspect, google would be well within its rights to discontinue funding speech it no longer agreed with. Its within its rights to attempt to influence a narrative. But there are optics associated with this, and people who may be (rightfully or wrongfully) suspicious of its motives, who would take such actions as confirmation of their own pet theories. Without reflecting on how common a pattern this is, if this is what happened, then it happened. And its not wrong for google to ask for tighter conformity to its preferred narrative. Its not wrong for the think tank to offer this tighter conformity. It just looks ... well ... bad. Google acting in their own self interest is rational. Doesn't mean its "good" or "bad" in a wider context, but it is rational.

Spivak 9y ago

They wouldn't be made to continue. But if it's clear that the actions of a given non-profit are really for the financial benefit of their 'donors' then then they should be taxed like any other marketing division.

Goladus 9y ago

No, but of course that's not what happened. They said shut down the open markets division or we'll pull funding. And probably there was something like "oh yeah and when you're looking at what our lost patronage does to your bottom line, remember that I also play golf with 4-5 of your other patrons so think very carefully"

stretchwithme 9y ago

I was being absurd here on purpose, as I was responding to a statement that implied this is what should be done. And it seems to have been edited since. I guess I should have quoted it. But looks like people thought I was serious.