3 ms·

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 cri

by uw_rob 5y ago

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.

chii 5y ago
> 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.
- CollinZapruter 5y ago
  > 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.

by uw_rob 5y ago

chii 5y ago

> 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.

CollinZapruter 5y ago
> 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.