3 ms·

This is kinda neat. > 2. The recipient organization is as opposite (and hopefully as offensive) as possible to the site operator that funded the donation. Thi

by neilv 2y ago

This is kinda neat. > 2. The recipient organization is as opposite (and hopefully as offensive) as possible to the site operator that funded the donation. This is vulnerable to "false flag" abuse, from faux-morons. > 1. The recipient organization does share our values. This partly mitigates that risk. Faux-morons can still generate more funds for recipients chosen by the site, and/or hurt the profitability of the site, but at least it's for causes within the values of the site.

willvarfar 2y ago
Wouldn't faux-morons be better off just giving the money to their target charities? Why set up a website pushing the agenda they don't support, and pay to do that, in order to get some of that money they pay be siphoned away to causes they do support?
- neilv 2y ago
  (Sorry I said "site", which was confusing; I meant nearlyfreespeech.net.) I'm not certain, but I read the following part to probably mean that nearlyfreespeech.net donates their own estimated profit from providing service to the morons in question: > When we find a repugnant site on our service, we mark the account. We receive reports about all payments to such accounts, and we take a portion of that money larger than the amount of estimated profit and we donate it to the best organization we can find.
  - graemep 2y ago
    Yes, but their estimated profit is less than the revenue from providing the service, so the morons have still spent more than their target gets.
    - neilv 2y ago
      Thanks, I missed that. (I stupidly commented while waking up.) Someone trying to abuse this policy might have additional reasons to false-flag, but I no longer think that that angle on policy abuse is a significant risk.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    Their own estimated profit comes from the entity that hosts the content, right? So if I want to trick them into supporting a charity, I open an account, give nearlyfreespeech x$, they make x-y$ profit, and then give that to a charity. I've just lost y$ on that transaction, compared to just giving it to the charity directly.

by neilv 2y ago

willvarfar 2y ago

Wouldn't faux-morons be better off just giving the money to their target charities? Why set up a website pushing the agenda they don't support, and pay to do that, in order to get some of that money they pay be siphoned away to causes they do support?

neilv 2y ago
(Sorry I said "site", which was confusing; I meant nearlyfreespeech.net.) I'm not certain, but I read the following part to probably mean that nearlyfreespeech.net donates their own estimated profit from providing service to the morons in question: > When we find a repugnant site on our service, we mark the account. We receive reports about all payments to such accounts, and we take a portion of that money larger than the amount of estimated profit and we donate it to the best organization we can find.
- graemep 2y ago
  Yes, but their estimated profit is less than the revenue from providing the service, so the morons have still spent more than their target gets.
  - neilv 2y ago
    Thanks, I missed that. (I stupidly commented while waking up.) Someone trying to abuse this policy might have additional reasons to false-flag, but I no longer think that that angle on policy abuse is a significant risk.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Their own estimated profit comes from the entity that hosts the content, right? So if I want to trick them into supporting a charity, I open an account, give nearlyfreespeech x$, they make x-y$ profit, and then give that to a charity. I've just lost y$ on that transaction, compared to just giving it to the charity directly.