Why? They aren't a charitable organization. They're a for-profit payment processor. Each GoFundMe fund has it's own administrator, aka whoever puts up the page. The donations go to whoever that administrator is, less GoFundMe's processing fees.

Private for-profit companies are fully allowed to have biases and set up business models that support some causes, and disallow support for other causes. They're allowed to be political, as long as they aren't discriminating based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

But capitalism is wrong when it doesn't benefit me and my side dude. Then it needs government regulation.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 5 2022 11:14am

They are basically acting as a middleman between the charity and the donors, yeah, a law should be passed requiring companies like GoFundMe to be impartial when handling donations. Also, where does it say on GoFundMe's website that all donations must align with the left to be valid?

If GoFundMe is only going to support certain causes, they need to be completely upfront about that. It's the same concept as a business refusing to serve customers who don't follow company policies.

GoFundMe actually needs to put a headline on their website that "Any potential charities that violate the beliefs of our constituents will be donated to charities of our choice."



There's nothing with capitalism.

This post was edited by Superman on Feb 5 2022 11:21am

they already getting money back since if people went other root would cost them 15-30$ a person

I disagree to the first part. Private for-profit businesses are and should be allowed to hold political stances. It's a violation of the business owner/stockholders rights to force them into a business model that violates their own principles, with the exception of discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Regarding the second point, there is a problem there. GoFundMe does NOT notify fund Administrators or donators of their political bias. Because of this, billions have been frozen and/or refunded when it comes to non-leftist causes. Even some of GoFundMe's press releases are pretty confounding.

If you look at the Kyle Rittenhouse defense fund, for instance, "GoFundMe’s Terms of Service prohibit raising money for the legal defense of an alleged violent crime,” these are a violation of the Constitution, when you put in 5 seconds to think about it.



Kyle had the right to a lawyer, the right to mount a defense. Such rights incur costs. By shutting down fundraising for those costs, GoFundMe could be accused of attempting to strip Kyle of his Constitutionally guaranteed rights, right?

Well, not exactly. If they were a charitable organization, that would hold true. But as a for-profit private company, they have the right to freedom of association. They chose to disassociate based on a simple allegation, and that's their right. They don't require due process.

That's the exact same reason why a sitting President can be removed from social media platforms. It is what it is. Sometimes, you have to take the bad with the good. If you disapprove of the right to freedom of association, then promote writing laws forcing association. Just don't pretend to support any form of liberty if that's what you promote.

Nothing wrong with a mixed economy, one where the government can make sure GoFundMe are fair rather than one with lobbyist.

Wrong: every time I get suspended on JSP I am being censored, not losing a privilege to use someone's property.

(I am joking Njaguar, I know I ask for my suspensions and enjoy using your platform and am not entitled to use it as a government right despite what some users on jsp are asserting in this thread).

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 5 2022 11:29am

If I was a sitting president and a social media platform censored me but not those who oppose me? Regardless of the presidents political affiliation, that's an attack on our democracy and our way of life because they control the flow of information. I would create a federal proposition that would allow me to make Twitter.com, Facebook.com, or any other social media giants platform look like the following...

Social media platforms have not been legally recognized as utilities aka "the town square". As such, they're still private for-profit companies with the right to freedom of association.

Any attempt to shut them down for their legal exercise of speech and association is a violation of the Constitution. Likewise, any attempt to remove 230 is simply going to result in more restriction of speech by the end user, as well as editorialization by the private company.

Once again, private for-profit companies have the same rights as individuals. The curtailing of those rights requires they be classed as "town square" aka "utilities" such as power, phone, water, sewage, etc. That classification doesn't prevent profit, merely discrimination based on Constitutionally protected rights such as speech, political activity, etc.

I find it hilarious that GoFundMe, which is just a payment processor, raises the exact same arguments that Facebook/Twitter did. Haven't you figured out yet that what guarantees your freedom also guarantees theirs?

Actually using Twitter as much and like he did was way beneath the acceptable character of a sitting president. It was a national embarrassment.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 5 2022 11:42am