Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep Our Servers Running

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 287 posts

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#151

Post by dakolli »

bulder wrote: post #101
dakolli wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, I didnt make it up... Its detailed on the archive.today wikipedia page. The media barrons in the west have bribed the US government to pursue archive criminally on their behalf for helping people bypass paywalls. https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is...

That's great, how does that absolve the archive.today maintainer's bad faith activities, including creating a country-wall?

Umm, every USA company blocks North Korea, Iran and often Cuba.

One guy blocking a single country is not at all problematic.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#152

Post by miki123211 »

conformist wrote: post #110
tossandthrow wrote: post #109

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!

Value judgment aside: Probably because it works well empirically. If you’re a larger scale donor and you’re interested in maximising impact, you may agree to a matching program type setup to crowd in more donors. Also you feel smart because you crowded in more donors and the donors feel like they got a good deal. So several people feel they can attribute the same counterfactual impact to themselves ;)

If you're a charity, you aren't optimizing for max(value_generated) in an immediate way.

If your mission is to help children with cancer, you don't want to spend 100% of your funding on chemotherapy and drug development, because that way, you eventually run out of money (donors die and their cards expire, and you aren't spending on marketing to bring in new ones). You may spend some of it on buying a fancy yacht and organizing a ball for the rich, which will bring in 4x as much in donations as you spend on getting it to happen, and that's the money you spend on chemo and new drugs. If you care about as much money being spend on cancer research as possible, that's potentially a better way to make it happen than spending your donations on cancer research.

Imagine a donor is willing to give you $1m, but you believe you can get up to $500k in extra donations from strangers on the internet if you do donation matching (it's essentially a free marketing campaign). So you ask them for $500k in hard cash and $500k in matched funds. Even if you overestimate and only get $400k in donations, you're still getting an extra $200k of free money.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#153

Post by retsibsi »

ssl-3 wrote: post #65
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason to avoid working with sketchy donors is so they don't unduly influence you. If they're anonymous, how can they influence you?

Even when their matching donation is anonymous and the direct influence is zero, the orphan crushing facility wants the orphanage to be successful. The orphanage's rising success serves to limit the supply of orphans. This means that there aren't as many free-roaming orphans available for crushing as more of them get taken off of the market. This improves the supply-and-demand ratio for orphan-derived products. A suc…

Maybe I misunderstand the analogy, but in this scenario it seems that the orphan crushing facility's donations to the orphanage are an unalloyed good. Their motives are bad, and they are bad, but their donations to the orphanage are causing more orphans to be taken care of and fewer orphans to be crushed.

Personally, my worry about anonymous donation matching would be that the anonymous (to me) funder is influencing the recipient (to whom their identity is known), and without knowing who they are I can't know the nature of this influence or whether it should cause me to reconsider my support. But I don't see any extra reason to care about anonymous donation matching in particular, as distinct from any other funding whose source is opaque to me.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#154

Post by DaSHacka »

Hamuko wrote: post #137
vachina wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like fair game. Jani is trying to destroy the archive.

If that is the case, he succeeded since the archive totally lost all credibility in an instant.

Maybe in the eyes of some, but the archive is still up and the operator is not dead to two shots to the back of the head.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#155

Post by DaSHacka »

esskay wrote: post #132
vachina wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d gladly join his/her botnet. archive.is is the only archive that acts like an archive.

That would be pretty crappy of you given he was attacking an innocent 3rd party. Morals be damned i guess.

"innocent" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.

Does it change the calculus at all if this "innocent" person was trying to dox the operator for nothing more than satisfying a personal whim?

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#156

Post by coldpie »

John7878781 wrote: post #63
theletterf wrote: post #53

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.

in those situations, especially if the business is unresponsive, i just keep charging back until they stop. if i can subscribe easily, i should be able to cancel just as easily :)

IA is responsive. I had to cancel my donation earlier this year due to some financial circumstances and it was a quick and easy email.

However I believe they have an easy cancel button if your donation is associated with an IA account, too.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#157

Post by edelbitter »

klamann wrote: post #128
edelbitter wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RBOS is short for Royal Bank of Scotland. When accepting SEPA credit transfer (though they are not legally mandated to offer the instant execution variant), I don't think there is even a mechanism to sneak in extra fees, beyond what the sending institute already billed (typically: 0.00€).

I still don't get it. The GB74R.. account number is listed under Final Bank/Beneficiary Bank, which is Citizens Bank NA in the United States. Where does the Royal Bank of Scotland come in? There's no SEPA account number listed for RBOS. Also, Scotland is not part of the EU anymore, so there can be significant fees when wiring money to post-brexit UK.

Sending money to the intermediary is still essentially free. The likely incorrect assumption here is rather: that it would do any good in this case. Because that only works when the intermediary has agreed to do anything other than facilitate wire transfers (with the beneficiary account number and cost schedule specified!). They would say so in the instructions (e.g. a note on how the SEPA reference field should be filled), if that were the case.

SCT is not contingent on EU or Euro participation - SEPA membership is distinct from those. That is how Iceland, Norway and Switzerland can reap the benefits (the latter not even EEA member, though effective treaties are now somewhat similar). As long as an US bank has a correspondent branch/account/partnership/whatever inside SEPA, they can make it almost free to receive money via SEPA, and then possibly still save on currency conversion and transaction cost as they clear in bulk across the pond.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#158

Post by DaSHacka »

botanical wrote: post #55
Cider9986 wrote: post #8

THere's also archive.today who does great user-directed archiving. We don't appreciate this infrastructure some random guy runs enough. It's annoying how often archive.org blocks sites but they both complement each other very well. https://liberapay.com/archiveis/donate https://coindrop.to/archive When finding archive.today's Monero donation address just now, I had to use archive.org because donatemonero.org [1] is d…

I also think archive.today is superior to web.archive.org as it breaks less when archiving sources. It's a shame Wikipedia blacklisted it now as an archive source.

They also don't arbitrarily nuke entire domains (with legal content) from the archive like archive.org does.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#159

Post by DaSHacka »

kalleboo wrote: post #22
eru wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. How is ClimateGPT linked to archive.org, and why do you object to it?

They're probably reacting to this https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive/11721950124572... https://erasmus.ai/?p=875

LOL it never ceases to amaze me what people on fringe sides of the internet get worked up over.

Actual modern day luddites, it's going to be so hilarious in a couple years from now when they all stop caring about AI and move on to the next 'current thing'.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#160

Post by Sweepi »

tossandthrow wrote: post #109

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!

|If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? |Just give the money!

Why? If i had the money, I would do the same.

Post reply on HN