hexbear

I think it's fine as-is.

The WWW is plenty big. There's risks in everything. My risks when donating make paypal a nonstarter, worst case for me is probably someone unfortunately winding up in a situation that makes the cops look at me. I don't want that. Monero and a venmo account I've acquired which can be funded anonymously.

I don't know what any of this is in reference to but it seems pretty strange to be worried about the chain of custody of money you give to someone on here but not give 2 shits about BDS or where the corporation you work for spends the product of your labor...

Why are beggars held to a higher standard than capitalists?

I like how, no matter how many times I say that I didn’t blow all that money on drugs, that I don’t spend all the money I receive on drugs, this shit just persists and persists.

Nobody was honest with me when I posted threads asking if everything was alright, because it seemed like something was up.

I think regular education about mutual aid would be helpful. For example, while anonymity does mean capacity for harm and then reacting meta posts, look at what happens when donating to, e.g., charities: you end up mostly paying for PMC paychecks and tax breaks for corpos. Edit: maybe adding an explainer comment pinned in every mutual aid post would be a good way to implement this.

I do think that having a vouching system is the best way and my understanding is that this is basically the status quo to some extent. You may want to define some kind of unvouching process in cases where there are verifiable issues. I think this will actually increase trust and donations if communication and messaging are on-point.

So re: meta posts, I think there needs to be more process, not just allowing meta posts and comments. This requires more mod intervention, so I'm sorry to be basically volunteering others' time, but I do think it will be beneficial to have meta posts go through a filter and deliberative process and with clear results and strategic messaging. The alternative, i.e. status quo, is likely to be ad hoc discouragement. The coupling of "this is why you should keep helping our comrades" to any meta posts is very important.

Meta posts are obvious to spot, but what counts as a "meta comment"?

I responded in one of Bailey's recent threads about the possibility of having small donations coordinated on a regular basis by a few people to cover nutrition/glucose. I'd been meaning to ask that for a while, but in full disclosure what fully prompted me to do it was ATTID's meta post. Honestly if someone I knew online really needed fruit juice every 48 hours and had no way of affording it besides p2p donations, 10 people chipping in a dollar or two a month would cover it. Is that metaposting?

People have also mentioned non-monetary resources and how important they are. Does directing someone to non-monetary resources fall under Bad Wrong Moralizing Meta Posting, or is it fair game? What is the line between conversations about the MA (or supportive comments) and something that's seen as derailing it or unwelcome?

Naturally, I gravitate to long-term solutions, and it should surprise no one that ceterum censeo commune Hexbeariana esse ædificandum.

Honestly looking back over this thread makes me afraid to even ask for aid anymore. I had no idea it was this much of an issue simmering under the surface and that worries the fuck out of me because I rely on this place to keep myself fed. It honestly feels like fixing something that wasn't broken.