5 ms·

Donate to the eff. They will send you an awesome hoodie.

by aey 9y ago

microcolonel 9y ago
I'm glad they picked up this approach, I think they got it from the NRA. NRA's been doing donor merchandise and services quite well for a long time, they even have a wine delivery service. I encourage anyone operating a non-profit to consider setting up programmes like this; you'll get more visibility (from people virtue-signalling their donation), and it will attract new revenue from sociopaths.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > and it will attract new revenue from sociopaths. Can't I just like a hoodie?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Heheh, fair enough. But I figure if the hoodie is the deciding factor for whether or not to donate (or how much), then you're just making a purchase.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      True true. I donate to the EFF annually but now I can wear their swank hoodie at US border crossings (I am a glutton for punishment).
    - lobotryas 9y ago
      When you donate money you arguably "purchase" the good feeling of doing something "good" and also social validation if you choose to make your donation public. I think it's a great idea to entice more revenue by giving an option (a hoody) for people who are not interested in "purchasing" the above.
    - petecox 9y ago
      Purchases are great. e.g. my Clayoquot Sound t-shirt from 2013 which is a souvenir with an indigenous rights theme from the other side of the world. A mere cash donation to a petition-wielding activist would not have had the same resonance. At least several years later I still have a cool t-shirt.
- bitwize 9y ago
  And I think the NRA got it from PBS, who have been offering tote bags, Elmo dolls, and the like in exchange fir pledges for decades.
abtinf 9y ago
A few years ago, I considered starting regular donations to the EFF. Unfortunately, I did not realize they had taken pro position on state intervention and control of the Internet, a concept generally described with the orwellian phrase "net neutrality." This position directly contradicts much of the their advocacy that I wanted to support.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  It does not sound like you understand what net neutrality is. Have you read their statement on it [1]? [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
- frandroid 9y ago
  So you're taking the "pro-corporate control" position instead. Brilliant.
- mr_overalls 9y ago
  It's only state intervention in that it limits the potential tyranny of corporate behemoths to abuse the citizenry and subvert free markets.
- sdenton4 9y ago
  And why must the government insert itself into free speech issues by passing radical regulations like the first amendment? For shame!
- natch 9y ago
  I am glad you commented, so that others could rebut your misguided position. It's not usually kosher to comment on voting here, but I think in this case it's worth making an exception to help keep you readable: I un-did my downvote of you because I hope that others who, out of innocent ignorance perhaps, currently share your position, will be able to read your comment (I don't want you to go to full invisibility) and then read and consider the responses to it. I would advise anyone who agrees with this guy (abtinf) to really think it through a bit. The "regulation is bad therefore ALL regulation is bad" trap is easy to fall into. Even if you are a strict libertarian, net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening, and, though it sounds paradoxical, enabling MORE freedom, not less.

Donate to the eff. They will send you an awesome hoodie.

by aey 9y ago

Donate to the eff. They will send you an awesome hoodie.

I'm glad they picked up this approach, I think they got it from the NRA. NRA's been doing donor merchandise and services quite well for a long time, they even have a wine delivery service. I encourage anyone operating a non-profit to consider setting up programmes like this; you'll get more visibility (from people virtue-signalling their donation), and it will attract new revenue from sociopaths.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> and it will attract new revenue from sociopaths. Can't I just like a hoodie?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Heheh, fair enough. But I figure if the hoodie is the deciding factor for whether or not to donate (or how much), then you're just making a purchase.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    True true. I donate to the EFF annually but now I can wear their swank hoodie at US border crossings (I am a glutton for punishment).
  - lobotryas 9y ago
    When you donate money you arguably "purchase" the good feeling of doing something "good" and also social validation if you choose to make your donation public. I think it's a great idea to entice more revenue by giving an option (a hoody) for people who are not interested in "purchasing" the above.
  - petecox 9y ago
    Purchases are great. e.g. my Clayoquot Sound t-shirt from 2013 which is a souvenir with an indigenous rights theme from the other side of the world. A mere cash donation to a petition-wielding activist would not have had the same resonance. At least several years later I still have a cool t-shirt.
bitwize 9y ago
And I think the NRA got it from PBS, who have been offering tote bags, Elmo dolls, and the like in exchange fir pledges for decades.

abtinf 9y ago

A few years ago, I considered starting regular donations to the EFF. Unfortunately, I did not realize they had taken pro position on state intervention and control of the Internet, a concept generally described with the orwellian phrase "net neutrality." This position directly contradicts much of the their advocacy that I wanted to support.

lightbyte 9y ago
It does not sound like you understand what net neutrality is. Have you read their statement on it [1]? [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
frandroid 9y ago
So you're taking the "pro-corporate control" position instead. Brilliant.
mr_overalls 9y ago
It's only state intervention in that it limits the potential tyranny of corporate behemoths to abuse the citizenry and subvert free markets.
sdenton4 9y ago
And why must the government insert itself into free speech issues by passing radical regulations like the first amendment? For shame!
natch 9y ago
I am glad you commented, so that others could rebut your misguided position. It's not usually kosher to comment on voting here, but I think in this case it's worth making an exception to help keep you readable: I un-did my downvote of you because I hope that others who, out of innocent ignorance perhaps, currently share your position, will be able to read your comment (I don't want you to go to full invisibility) and then read and consider the responses to it. I would advise anyone who agrees with this guy (abtinf) to really think it through a bit. The "regulation is bad therefore ALL regulation is bad" trap is easy to fall into. Even if you are a strict libertarian, net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening, and, though it sounds paradoxical, enabling MORE freedom, not less.