Yes, providing the info to bypass the portal and go directly to the entity is part of doing that ethically. And it is not something GoFundMe was doing. But it is not legally required. GFM was unethical but not illegal.
If anyone thinks this *should be* illegal, that's a whole different discussion. In my opinion, it is something worth writing to state and national legislators about changing.

US law (nor any state law I know of) would not recognize that as an assignment of claims. That's a trademark of an entity. It does not make any representation or claim about the activity of GoFundMe.

I'm a manager for a meta-charity org. We raise money all the time for charities without telling the charity in advance, particularly during disasters when time is critical to get the word out about the need. Right now, tonight, there are people and corporations across the USA raising funds for the various food banks. I doubt many of them have explicit arrangements with the food banks.

Done ethically, this sort of thing aids the main charity immensely. GoFundMe crossed all sorts of lines.

Every single piece of this is legal to raise money for someone else. To keep a portion of the money raised for yourself as long as you disclose to donors that you are doing that. As long as GoFundMe actually did send the remaining money along, it's all legal. Ethical? No. Legal? Yes. They never claimed to be the orgs themselves. In fact, they explicitly said they weren't the orgs. As long as you disclose to donors your process, it is legal. As far as I can tell, the law in USA (varies some by states) expects that donors will do due diligence before giving. The unethical part to me is the search-engine optimization: that misleads donors into thinking GoFundMe is the only or the official portal. But that's just unethical not illegal because GFM never claimed to be the only portal... that's legally on the search engines for presenting them that way.

You do not need permission to raise money on someone else's behalf. That happens all the time with both individuals and corporations raising money for causes they care about. It is perfectly legal. It is the methods that were shady, but GoFundMe (probably quite carefully) avoided illegality.

The three you cite were not among the 1.4 million autocreated pages. Plenty of non-profits are on GoFundMe. These three pages use personal pronouns and speak on behalf of the org. Using that phrasing would indeed be illegal for GoFundMe. The autocreated ones avoided that language.

Multiple websites claim that all of the autocreated pages have now been removed from GoFundMe, so you won't find examples tonight.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.philanthropy.com%2Fn...

It's legal to fundraise on someone's behalf -- people and corporations do it all the time, and they don't need the other entity's permission to do it. The place where GoFundMe crossed ethical bounds was on the scalper-level tipping and on the search-engine optimization, both of which actively interfered in funds reaching the donor intention.

It is legal. People fundraise for causes all the time on behalf of orgs and donate the funds raised. The problem is a) when your fundraising interferes with direct giving and b) when your take of the donations is greater than your costs such that you are scalping the donations.

They are not impersonating the charities. They are unethical in doing this, but the pages are quite clear that they are raising money on their own to benefit the charities. It is the search-engine optimization that makes this bad.

As far as I can tell, this is legal: the GoFundMe pages are explicitly not representing the orgs⦠they are GFM acting on its own to raise money for these other orgs, but in a fairly problematic way.

... except for people with injuries and disabilities. Or for specialized (gutter cleaning) or dangerous (tree trimming) tasks.
Are you also against cars?

Because the longer you go without using credit, the less the system knows about how you will act if given credit. The scores degrade over time because of a lack of data. And that is good predictive data science.

The researchers who wrote the article do not have that vested interest. They were legit trying to test if the loss of jobs is real. Your response assumes they did not do their job. That is some serious paranoia/conspiracy theorizing.

The whole problem is Germany has shrinking population. There are fewer young folks to hire than retirees.

Looking at the paper, I think the authors theorize that if they ran the test longer, the percent would keep rising. It was not the same people failing repeatedly. It was different people in each month, with some but not all overlap. It appears that maintaining vigilance is hard enough, if attacks just keep coming, most humans will eventually let one through. The summary appears to be correct, it just did not cite enough of the paper to explain the claim.

> other than maybe good old fashioned in-person networking.

It's the only exit that I found. And it doesn't work for most new grads... not enough of a network.