[skinkestek]

It was in all the papers. Went through all instances, all the way to the relevant department.

But of course there is nothing in Norwegian law that that denies people the right to donate their share, as long as every other law is followed.

Which is why last time media even pointed it out in cleartext the article: everything is legal.

They just wrote the article in the style of a criminal investigation anyway and askes big companies questions the same way they would have done with if they were caught dealing with russian mobsters.

That way they can point to the fact that they have informed about it while still destroying the marked for someone they don't like.

(Sorry, English is nit my first language.)

[veqz]

Hyggelig om du forteller hvilken sak det faktisk er, siden jeg ikke kjenner den igjen fra beskrivelsen din.

Nice if you could tell which specific story this is, since I can't recognize it from your description.

[skinkestek]

(English below.) Desverre kan jeg ikke si det uten å doxxe meg selv.

Men ja, det dreiar seg om eit norsk AS som var oppretta berre for å subsidiere ei hjartesak.

Litt som Dinamo reklamebyrå som ble opprettet som en mer effektiv måte å skaffe penger til Stabæk (kjent fra "Ona Fyr"-boka som var innmari populær for noen år siden), bare i mindre skala.

(Orsak for blandinga av nynorsk og bokmål, det er berre eit ein måte å lage ein sjibollet så ingen tek meg for å vere ein utanlandsk påverkningsagent med Google Translate :-)

---

Sadly I cannot say more without doxxing myself.

But yes, it was a Norwegian AS (Ltd?) created for the sole purpose of financing something they cared about.

A bit like Dinamo, a Norwegian advertising agency that was created by fans of the Stabæk football club (and made famous by the much hyped book Ona Fyr a few years ago), just at a smaller scale.

(Sorry for my mix of Nynorsk and Bokmål above, it is mh attempt at creating a shibbolet so Norwegians don't take me for a foreigner with Google Translate :-)

[doktrin]

If it’s a well known case feel free to share it, otherwise you’re just editorialising an unverifiable anecdote.

[skinkestek]

Sadly, as I have outlined in my reply to the other question (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39926847) I am afraid of doxxing myself if I say more about this.

But, without me being a legal expert in any way, shape or form, my feeling is it is relatively similar to the "Fjordteam" case from Sandefjord a few years ago:

Different owners, different jobs, but operated by volunteers who looked for a nore efficient (and healthier :-) way to finance their activities instead of the traditional Norwegian "cake raffle" ("kakelotteri")

[doktrin]

The case involving a large and well known religious organisation that “employed” an army of unpaid volunteers? Can’t see how that relates to the broad description you provided earlier.

[skinkestek]

It was a cooperative.

Used for fundraising.

Everything legal. As proven by taking it all the way up to the department.

[doktrin]

> Everything legal

First of all, this unironically reminds me of Borat.

More importantly, you keep citing legality in this thread as if that should basically end the discussion. Quite frankly that strikes me as a position of convenience, because clearly HN is not a court of law and the scope is not restricted to whatever happens to be legal in any given jurisdiction.

Do you for instance support all legal acts in your country? Going out on a limb I suspect you find at least a few morally dubious or worse.

Just some examples off the top of my head : IVF for single women? State support for all mosques? Fosen windfarms and a broad co-signing of feel-good UN resolutions? Preferential hiring based on either gender or ethnicity? Slap on the wrist punishments for basically all offenses? Enshrined trans rights? Teachers being at the total (legal) mercy of abusive students?

I dunno man, almost like “it’s legal!” is not the QED you think it is.