“…this fundraiser is now in violation of our Terms of Service (Term 8, which prohibits the promotion of violence and harassment)…”
But I’m looking at the terms of service and they state that what is prohibited is:
Fundraising “…with the implicit or explicit purpose of promoting or involving…User Content that reflects or promotes behavior…in support of…violence…”
Now your letter also states that “GoFundMe supports peaceful protests and we believe that was the intention of the Freedom Convoy 2022 fundraiser…”.
So my first question is “How can such a fundraiser, at the time the funds were raised, evince the prohibited purpose?”
My second question is actually related to the prohibition itself. You might note that it applies only to “User Content”.
Now we know you know how to prohibit direct outside action because the bulk of the rest of the…27 listed prohibitions do just that.
So the stated prohibition can only apply to User Content. What is that? You define it as: “…activity on and through the Services…such as content you post publicly on the Platform (including descriptions, texts…photos, videos, images…you upload or post through the Services…)
But that doesn’t make any sense. Because your stated reason for the freeze and seizure is.
“We now have evidence from law enforcement that the previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation…”
Why that doesn’t speak to User Content at all. In fact it’s completely outside the platform you provide.
Worse, how could outside reporting ever evidence a wrongful intent to promote bad content in a fundraiser you believe was formed and funded for legitimate purposes?
I’m also unclear from where you are asserting the right to redirect funds.
I see your list of remedies:
“to ban or disable…, remove the offending User Content, suspend or terminate…, stop payments…, freeze or place a hold on Donations, and report you to law enforcement…”
And see your “freeze” right (pending my understanding of the actual breach of course), but I found no assertion of a redirection right. If I missed it please redirect me. Happy to be corrected. (I did review every instance of a reference to Charity and Charities however.)
So what I’m left with is what looks like a breach of GoFundMe’s obligations to both fundraisers and donors premised on the thinnest reed of a fundraiser breach and using a remedy that is not included in the contract terms.
But that can’t be right. Can it?
Please advise.
Ah, I see…probably won’t find that redirection right then.
UPDATE (Feb 5)
“However, due to donor feedback, we are simplifying the process. We will automatically refund all contributions directly — donors do not need to submit a request.”
“Only use the Program for your personal enjoyment and not for any commercial or political purposes.”
Hear that folks? No making political statements with this zombie game! I don’t care if it features vaccines or pandemics. :)
Oh wow, and they kept all the “this might be a beta” language in there (Section 7). Not harmful necessarily but completely unnecessary on retail release.
They include incorrect cross references to Sections 18 and 19 for User generated content. (The real sections are 17 and 18.)
The fundamentals here are that California and Activision disagree as to what the law requires to be retained/turned over. You can see that with California calling what Activision claims as privileged as merely “attorney involved”.
Similarly, the document destruction looks bad because California is framing the documents as related to the case/complaints, but Activision’s claim is that they are not. Could Activision be lying? Absolutely, but…
…it’s important to note companies destroy documents every day for security and other good reasons, and Activision’s practice would likely be to effect such destruction. Could this be nefarious? Again absolutely, but the act of destruction itself doesn’t make that case.
This piece is wrong in that it completely misses the distinction between “society” and “government” (not to mention in treating a bureaucracy’s unelected officials as emblematic of “democracy” itself.)
That said, it’s a common erroneous conflation and one I may discuss further.
Specifically, Mass Effect has a great deal of faith in “people” (or more specifically, individuals). It does not have really any faith in collective action or institutions (including the military). It’s a very 80s media approach to the question (think Ghostbusters and the EPA).
So the article is wrong on its premises, and from there wrong on its argument and conclusions, but one interesting question is ‘Why?’.
A wild thread here from a famous Internet figure putting a stake in the ground against games and “gamers” because...some folks on a Minecraft server used slurs.
It’s a wild take against a whole industry, but video games (and gamers) get compartmentalized more than others.
I’m a gamer of course, and we’ve talked a lot about industry perceptions/reporting in #VirtualLegality, but it’s always interesting to see games in particular get labeled industry-wide for the actions of a few.
You don’t see the same pushback to YouTube comments, for instance.
Which is all a long way of saying: I never recommend judging entire industries made up of a multitude of different participants, content, and experiences solely based on the bad behavior of a few.
I’d be happy to talk with @tomscott about it sometime.
So, this is a political document (Democrat-led), and should be taken as such, but it is certainly interesting to see a major House committee declare effectively all current Big Tech companies as monopoly abusers in violation of antitrust laws.
Most notably in respect of Apple, vast weight is given to arguments made by various members of the “Coalition for App Fairness”, including that Apple’s 30% is too expensive, and that they are illegally restricting access to their own hardware.
Will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Republicans add here, but it certainly suggests that a Democrat-led Department of Justice would intend to knock some heads in Big Tech (and that Apple vs Epic will get a bit wilder before the end).
A laughable assertion. His authority is expressly limited (outside of prohibiting gatherings) solely to "procedures...to insure continuation of essential public health services and enforcement of [existing] health laws."
Absent a threat to "continuation" there is no authority.
The order, for those interested. Difficult to see how application of the non-delegation doctrine that prohibited an elected official's actions in this regard would permit an unelected official's, but I guess that's for the next lawsuit.
Notably, the court in Certified Questions was particularly concerned with the lack of contours given to the executive's use of power, where here, virtually no such contours are established at all. Instead, the director simply shouts "continuation" and provides 4 pages of "law".