Hacker News Reader

I think this decision had 2 motivators, in order of importance:

1. Business

2. Ethics

The ethics effect the business. GoFundMe does not want to be known as a company that helped an organization allow the resurgence of Polio for instance. From a business standpoint, GoFundMe needs to maintain positive PR if it wants to keep making money. It is none of GoFundMe's concern if these anti-vax individuals or organizations move to a different platform.

View on HN

I completely agree. That's why I was trying to distance my argument from the perspective of whether GoFundMe made a good or bad decision.

I just wanted to bring up the point from a societal perspective, since it's society as a whole who often calls for actions like this from big companies (making it a "good" decision for them even if just for the PR). Are we going to see a positive change in society from this, is it just irrelevant in the end, or could we even be making the issue harder to fight in the long run?

I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on what the answer to that question is, it's just genuinely a question.

But doesn't GoFundMe support many projects that are obviously total scams? This would seem that their ethics are not consistent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com