That almost looks like an episode of Captain Scarlet.Sort of like Movieland Wax Museum's TOS bridge from the 70s built with standing room only walkways--
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens
- Thread starter jespah
- Start date
Yup---just like Axanar/Captain Pike and others have likely harmed fan films. People scared to donate to ANYTHING now because you never know if it is real or a scam.
Caveat dator, has always been the norm with donations, since the dawn of time. Let the giver beware.
(Cf caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.)
That being said the following facts about online giving are self-evident in regards online fundraising for creative/product development endeavors.
1)The online fundraising format removes many of the visual and environmental cues that have served to protect donors from giving in vain. A hyperbolic example is the dirty old man with brandy on his breath asking for money to buy his baby some diapers, someone that if you met on the street you would avoid, but who could theoretically create a GoFundMe and generate cash.
2) The online fundraising format also has created "marketplaces" where the owner of the marketplace has a vested interest in having as many vendors as possible, whether they are legitimate or otherwise. KickStarter and GoFundMe want MORE folks to use their websites, as their financial viability depends on generating those fees. So they struggle to put any meaningful limits to those who can create fundraising campaigns as every limit could reduce their (and their investors') income.
3) It creates a new, and more powerless, class of "investor." Creative endeavors have always depended on patient investor/patrons because those endeavors often have longer periods of production, numerous up-front costs, and are subject to a larger number of variables affecting profitability than other business endeavors. But the majority of investors and patrons in creative endeavors have generally been people with significant monetary resources, capable of losing their investment without too much trouble. Now, with the advent of online fundraising, the "little" people can invest in creative endeavors, for a few dollars or even a few hundred dollars, but what do they get? Certainly no guarantee their money will actually fund the project, they rarely get increased access, no portion of the profits, and at best they get some trinkets or an overpriced version of a project they would have bought off the shelf anyway.
The notion that the "donor should beware who he or she donates to" is all well and good, but it sidesteps the facts that the tools, cues, and detailed information available to the typical donor are minimized, eliminated, or circumvented by online fundraising sites. The only ones who "wins" with the new fundraising paradigm is the people/corp who own the donation "marketplaces."
I agree completely with point #2. There's an inherent conflict of interest between policing and hosting those seeking donations.
I see your points in the broader context of the issues with online transactions generally. Even though it's widely known to happen, people getting "taken" online remains an ongoing problem.
I don't believe that it's sidestepping anything to remind people of the possibility that they might be getting exploited. That doesn't excuse bad behavior on the part of the venues or by those receiving the money.
True, but online donation sites are particularly friendly environments for exploiters/scammers. A problem that would be lovely to see legislators address.
What the fuck is wrong with people?
Haha! I've found a solution. I've been corresponding with a prince from the planet of New Nigeria, who is letting me invest in a groundbreaking rejuvenation therapy that is close to a breakthrough. It's all thanks to many, many blood and tissue samples from a nice young Russian fellow who doesn't seem to be aging. While I'm waiting for immortality, I've been buying up bags of a rare, delicious coffee discovered by one of Starfleet's greatest strategists and heroes.
......what?!
NO, I don't think we need any more legislators involved in our lives. There is no way to legislate the con; it's always been around and always will be. The best course of action is to be vigilant in knowing where your money is going and be prepared to involve law enforcement if it goes south. Of course you always have the option of NOT investing.
Last edited:
That's an interesting typo.
LOL, corrected, thanks!That's an interesting typo.
AARP keeps hounding me. I have taken to beating them back with a chair.
Lol, they ARE relentless, I got my first mailer a day after my 50th birthday
I tried writing return to sender but they won't pick them up at the mailbox and they're stuffed with stupid CC offers
