GiveSendGo stands firmly behind its decision to host content related to Mangione.
“We believe every person is entitled to due process in a court of law — not in the court of public opinion,” Alex Shipley, GiveSendGo’s communications director, said in a statement. “To be absolutely clear, we do not support or condone vigilante justice. However, people have a constitutional right to a strong legal defense, and access to that defense should not be reserved only for the wealthy or those who fit a particular narrative. Our role is to give individuals and their communities the opportunity to fundraise for that defense, because true justice is served when everyone has equal access to a fair trial — regardless of the verdict.”
Know what this article doesn’t tell us? How much they break off for themselves, let alone the massive PR boost they get.
These fucks helped Kyle Rittenhouse. I don’t give a shit that they appeal to this ridiculous 2012 libertarian fuckboi idea of “hur dur we are equal opportunity for everyone!” They’ve been on the wrong side of history many, many times. Yay congrats you got it right this time arguably! Not good enough tbh.
I’m sure Gab and truth social platformed some good people too.
I don’t really care. People should be allowed to crowdfund for legal defense fees. Taking away that ability would only further hurt poor people and enable the wealthy.
GoFundMe is scared. The other people need publicity so they’re willing to host it. I’m not a fan of that crowdfunding site, because of their religious background, but I’ll donate if this is the only outlet.
You choose how much to pay them from a list. The lowest is $3. So, that’s the “chunk” it’s added on to the donation amount. The only thing the fundraiser loses is whatever the transaction fees are. Which is probably like 3% plus ~$0.25 each
You can actually write in a $0 tip to the platform
Oh, that’s nice. Hmm
Wait why didn’t a gofundme for Rittenhouse violate their ToS??
insert vague appeal to the law and everyone gets a fair shot as if that has literally anything to do with facilitating a slush fund for the political pariahs rallying around a kid who traveled across state lines to kill progressives
Classic case of lemmy liberals moving the goalpost. “They’re only doing good when they’re helping further my agenda” gtfoh with that stuff
Someone who knows enough about language to be a commissioned grammar cop should also know that “Liberals” ≠ the Left.
Liberals aren’t the ones decrying th hypocrisy of bad actors. That’s the Left.
An example of typical liberals is the .world admins and mods making it forbidden to discuss jury nullification and removing factual and relevant criticism of Dem leadership, labeling it “misinformation”.
First of all, grammar police ≠ political scientist. Secondly, you probably meant “…decrying the hypocrisy of ‘good faith actors’*…”, and quite frankly I don’t care who’s going the decrying. It’s shifting the goalpost to fit one’s agenda, and if i had to extend that argument to “The Left”, i would.
Furthermore, removal of discussions on jury nullification does not signify the actualisation of any political agenda (jury nullification is a democratic process in and of itself, so it would not serve the mods well if they WERE indeed furthering an agenda). The actions of the mods can simply be viewed as damage control if not anything else.
They’re focusing too much on the payment site. Yes, they have fun raised some very questionable people, but I would also argue that Luigi is a very questionable person at this point.
The focus really needs to remain on the fundraising.
As a leftist I agree.
Although I don’t agree with them fund raising for Rittenhouse, I respect their decision and I wouldn’t want them to fund for Luigi but not someone I don’t agree with. That’s a double standard that we call out the right for and I think we should practice what we preach.
Exactly the point succinctly put. You either accept fundraising for all types of criminals or reject it. There’s no in between. It is on the donor to determine whether they would donate or not.
To expand on my previous comment I have been appalled that the main stream media for the last 14 months has been justifying the slaughter of innocent Palestinians in the interest of self defence but the same people are outraged at the murder of one CEO.
The double standards are sickening and I think we should all treat others as we want to be treated and hold ourselves to the same accountability as we hold others.
Yes! It is good to be ethical! How is that controversial?
Also you literally know nothing of my politics other than I think Kyle Rittenhouse is a bad person and facilitating him makes donors bad too. Don’t call me a liberal just because you have an axe to grind and want to lump people you disagree with into your simplistic idea of a boogie man group.
So you don’t think he deserves the same quality of defense as Kyle Rittenhouse?
If you think these fundraising efforts are what are standing between his having a quality defense and not I don’t know what to tell you other than go actually read about these people.