111–120 of 287 posts
2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!
Probably to avoid being shamed for not "just give the money". Exhibit A.
2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!
2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!
Both side get to feel like they got more out of the initial investment.
1:3 2:3
Everyone wins inside their heads and its nice to live life where everyone wins...
Also easier to justify charity when you think you are winning..
I feel like it's pretty good for what it is.
I still don't get how copying copyrighted content to your own website and then asking for donations can be a legal business model. Nor how it can be morally justified. I get that many people like such an archive to be around for consumption. Me too. But, keeping emotions aside, I can't find a justification to violate the rights of creators. I'm sure many people here will have the knee-jerk reaction to immediately dow…
Because copyright isn't black and white like that. Its a lot more complicated. Its likely a lot of what internet archive is doing is fair use (not all though, they do push the envelope, e.g. their covid library stunt).
As for morally, while that is going to depend on what moral system you subscribe to. Copyright is a relatively recent invention. The bible might say thou shall not steal, but it's likely in context that the bible was fine with copyright infringement. It probably not even something that would have been thought about in a bronze age context.
As far as utilitarianism goes, at first glance seems like Internet archive increases happiness more than it decreases it, so that is a check.
I dont see any reason to think the internet archive violates the Categorical imperative either.
so i guess the question is, under which basis do you believe it to be immoral.
2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!
These types of schemes are so common as to basically be universal. You'd probably be hard pressed to find a major charity that hasn't participated in something like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
archive.today has been targeted by Western institutions, like the FBI, for over a year now. Which signals to me they are the good guys.
All that tells us is that the site is probably not run by the FBI. It could still be run by the CIA, Russian intelligence, or some lone morally neutral guy from Prague
2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!
They'll ask me to round up my purchase to help feed the hungry. Why can't they not invest in all the infrastructure and systems to support this, and just donate a few nickels and quarters themselves. Plus they have the food to give.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Debit cards can do chargebacks just as credit cards can do. That's a feature of Visa and Mastercard (and others). If your bank refuses, complain to the card network. Oh and consider changing banks, that's really unacceptable in 2026 and shows an anti customer stance.
They do, but require that an incident is raised claiming fraud, etc. I guess they want to avoid misuse of this feature.
So, if you feel like you've been charged unfairly (e.g. product not what was expected), in error, fraudulently etc. then chargeback is the route and you should provide a reason. It's a mechanism to protect consumers. If on the other hand you just want your money back without good reason then chargebacks are not the right tool. The consumer also has an obligation to pay if there was no fault on the merchant side.
Honestly, sounds like everything is as it should be?
Be careful: paying with Google Pay is extremely easy and the default setting is monthly recurrence. If you're not logged in, the only way to cancel (as far as I know) is by sending an email, which is incredibly precarious.
Worth noting the 2:1 match is only for recurring donations. The graphic does not mention that > When you start a recurring donation of $25 or more in September, your initial gift will be matched 2:1.
2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!
Also, it allows the matching party to directly gauge and give along the lines of true public interest, and not waste their money on something nobody cares about.
There are infinite ways to give away money, this scheme allows to align better with what causes other people are ready to support with their own money.