[deftnerd]

I had a business idea last year that would take advantage of a similar concept.

Basically, it would be like GoFundMe, but users could also pay money to defund a campaign if they so desired.

For example, if there was a campaign that people thought was distasteful, they could pay $10 to take $5 from the campaign and allocate the previously funded $5 and $5 from the defund fee to the antithesis of the campaign (selected by a site administrator).

The remaining $5 of the defund fee would go to site operations, allowing the defunding payments to pay for costs rather than taking costs out of campaigns themselves.

This would allow sites to respond to pressure from the public about controversial campaigns with less threat of being deplatformed by their ISP, host, or payment processor.

Numbers are just examples, a lot of changes on the pricing and fee balancing would have to be determined, but the concept intrigued me.

[FeepingCreature]

> For example, if there was a campaign that people thought was distasteful, they could pay $10 to take $5 from the campaign and allocate the previously funded $5 and $5 from the defund fee to the antithesis of the campaign (selected by a site administrator).

Sounds like it pays better to be the antithesis campaign. In other words, the site administrator would be the ideological point of weakness.

edit: Oh wait, I see, you pay $10 and get $10 donated. Different problem: the site profits from defunding, so they have an incentive to magnify distaste. And the defund target is still determined by the site administrator.

[phreack]

Why would I start a campaign where people could de-fund me instead of one where they can't?

[deftnerd]

Because controversial campaigns are usually not welcome on other platforms. Niche platforms that court those kinds of controversial campaigns exist, but they struggle to stay alive with the public always trying to get their host or payment processor to stop doing business with them.