I would like to caution against trying to oversimplify your model of activists and their organizations. They're not entirely unified, they have complicated moti

I would like to caution against trying to oversimplify your model of activists and their organizations. They're not entirely unified, they have complicated motivations, and they work together in complicated ways. Sure, there's dark money. All of politics is full of dark money. I'm not even sure that means anybody's evil. If you're a billionaire and you're trying to move political opinion, you know that you being the public face will interfere with that. You may also have limited time. So you fund others and stay in the background. Sure, the "Heat Initiative" thing benefits from the dark money. But it's not so much about some slush fund spinning up an organization. Registering a domain is cheap. What makes this kind of thing effective is multiple slush funds, not always on the same page, having worked for a long time to build a community and a methodolody. Part of the methodology is to have lots of "grassroots organizations". Every two-bit activist in the space seems to run a "group", and be on at least the "advisory board" of a couple of others. There are also some larger groups, more what you'd think of as "real" organizations, that can help coordinate. It's second nature to all of them-- part of the methodology-- to create a new "initiative" and make it a vaguely independent entity. One reason for doing that is that it's easier to get supporters to buy in on single issues. For instance, NCOSE announced that it was part of the "Heat Initiative". NCOSE probably would not agree with a lot of other things that Hopewell does. This fairly tightly targeted effort, with its own name, lets them work together on an issue they do share, and do it without seeming to agree on everything. In fact, to the degree that both their names do come up, they can use their other disagreements to make it look like a universal issue. Look, everybody agrees, even these people who cant agree on this other thing! Anybody who disagrees with both must be really extreme! Wrong, of course, but sometimes effective. Everybody involved has a very large rolodex. When you set up the "Heat Initiative", you call every potential fellow traveler you can think of, and see if they want to help out. They can help by visibly "joining", or they can help by doing things like making phone calls to politicians and journalists to hype the thing, or getting you an appointment with the right person at Apple. That sort of networking lets you get a lot done without having to make the "initiative" into a large or long-term organization in its own right. When they're working together on this, it's as parts of a sort of "anti-porn complex". For the most part, that complex really does oppose all porn, not just child porn. Most of the really vocal anti-child-porn people-- the types who make it their life's work-- are obsessed enough to be blind to even glaring flaws in what they're asking for. They're often fanatical to the point of being unable to see that anything tagged as "anti-child-porn" might ever be a bad idea, even if it obviously won't do any good and obviously will do harm. For whatever reason, the vast majority also seem hostile to all porn, to prostitution, and often to a bunch of other stuff around sex. At most, they may be grudgingly, theoretically willing to permit porn in general if it meets a bunch of purity tests that can never be completely met, and produces absolutely no ill effects. All negatives count, but no positives can ever be acknowledged. What they most seem to have in common is that they're all uncomfortable if everything related to sex isn't kept in some kind of well-contained, ritualized box: a box that makes it somehow "pure". They may want different boxes, but everybody has some box. The religious wing wants to see all sex be in marriage (and usually heterosexual, generally in the missionary position, and often only for purposes of procreation). The "soccer mom" wing wants to see at least monogamy, with a bunch of social baggage attached. Both seem to be opposed to anybody under about 25 even knowing that sex exists. There's also a more lefty wing that comes out of a certain subset of feminism. They tend to endlessly measure their own and everybody else's every sexual thought and action in terms of various arcane social theories-- which they work constantly to elaborate and "improve", almost always by making them stricter-- and to believe that anything that doesn't come out 100.00000 percent pure should be suppressed. All of them are prepared to use governmental authority to enforce their bounds. ... and, to be fair, they are all also opposed to real coercion and real exploitation that really do happen. Even if some of them do also accept some other kinds of coercion and exploitation. Anyway, they may be at one another's throats about other issues, even on some sex-related issues, and even on some details about porn... but they can usually at least work together on anything related to porn, and especially child porn. And of course they'll take money for that cause, from billionaires or anybody else. There are profiteers involved in all of this, but it's important to remember that most of the people involved, including the billionaires, are true believers. If you assume that they're all just out to make a buck, without truly believing in their cause, you won't be able to predict them accurately. Thorn may be run by bogus profiteers. But actually I suspect Thorn is more like true believers trying to make their social engineering project self-sustaining. And of course even an individual who's totally committed ideologically, and really wants to work full-time on the issue, has to eat. The age verification companies, who are working with the same players on closely related issues, do seem to be largely real profiteers.