Staines
Honestly I have no idea what you're on about.
My concern is not what people do with the money, my concern is people disengaging from the comm.
But go off, or whatever.
Any antonym for starve will do instead of feast. I apologise. My intention was to contrast degrees of deprivation, not degrees of luxury.
This is the reality.
We're a small community. Funds are limited. Trust is everything.
People here don't hold homeless users in contempt. They are limited in what they can provide. Yes, homeless people should not have to live the most spartan existence, but if the limited funds available to us on hexbear can either provide for two people sparsely, or leave one to starve while the other feasts, I think I know what we'd pick.
You made people feel helpless, and they disengaged from donations.
Trying to explain yourself over and over again isn't helping anything -- and I really really don't mean that in a cruel way.
I don't see how it's possible to run a mutual aid comm with anonymous people scattered all over the world. Mutual aid really requires a much closer knit network of people working together in tangible non-monetary ways. I've done a little mutual aid offline, and mostly it's the combination of a plan and people giving the right aid and advice to advance that plan that really changes people's situation.
What we have is a charity comm. If we're going to run a charity comm some regulation would help.
-
Limiting posts to one per week, or month, per account to stop the competition for visibility and subsequent blocking of the comm by people overwhelmed by the number of similar or repeated posts. Hexbear is not a large community, and many people are now blocking the comm because it makes them feel uneasy.
-
Enforcing the use of an external tracking tool like GoFundMe so people can be confident when targets are or aren't met for a given post. It also provides a little bit of legitimacy and makes donations easier for many people who would be considering it.
-
Allowing people to provide suggestions for local support such as specific food banks or shelters: things that may reduce weekly repeats on the charity comm. Allowing people to suggest alternative purchases or actions, such as a more cost efficient alternative could be useful.
Regardless of moral judgements, donators need confidence in the system for the comm to function. Otherwise it's just a drama generator that fosters contempt and mistrust while also leaving people feeling abandoned. A couple of incidents have really blown peoples trust, and left them fatigued. The situation is not going to change unless adjustments are made. As for discussions about the validity of a users cause - evidently, even when discussion of causes is forbidden, people still seethe and it still seeps into and erupts throughout the whole instance. The amount of recurring drama from one incident alone that is taboo to talk about is enough indication that simply banning discussions isn't actually helping much, if at all.
Absolutely no way. On the night this was written I had a really disturbing dream about throwing someone wearing an Israeli army shirt off a ferry at night.
That's too much of a creepy coincidence.
That's awful. Only two?
Lemmy.world? The instance of misanthropic baby killing terrorists?
A db0 mod explicitly making a rule saying that anti-bigotry protections do not apply to people that they label "tankies" would suggest our members aren't safe on their instance.