Hacker News Reader

Comment by arowthway | Hacker News Reader

Excuse my FUD, but are they really non-profit as described in FAQ? I find it a little hard to believe given how aggressive they are at marketing the paid version.

View on HN

As someone who runs a charity, it surprises me how often people equate "non-profit" with "doesn't get paid" or "does everything for free". Non-profits still need money, they just don't use that money to make profit that is paid to shareholders. Instead, they use the money to further the stated objectives of the organisation.

NB: I'm not trying to imply anything about whether Anna's Archive is non-profit or not. Just that the fact that it aggressively tries to raise money isn't a relevant factor.

This kind of implies a legitimacy that AA just doesn't have. They're not 'a' non-profit, and there's simply no way to know that they're not taking in loads of money and pocketing it.

> They're not 'a' non-profit

How do you know?

> and there's simply no way to know that they're not taking in loads of money and pocketing it.

Or that they are, right?

They are not a non-profit because they are not a registered company/organization.

There is no requirement for a non-profit organisation to be registered.

When people talk about a "non profit" entity, they are almost certainly referring to a legal non-profit. Maybe that's not what GP meant.

And yes, you are technically correct in that there's no way to know that they are or are not pulling in money and pocketing it. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the questions asked but okay.

> When people talk about a "non profit" entity, they are almost certainly referring to a legal non-profit.

In UK, a non-profit association does not have to be legally registered to be legal.

There is. Without a legal framework its just an association that claims not to make a profit. This is all word games though as be clearly don't agree on the definition of a non-profit organization.

> There is.

No. In UK, many an unregistered association is a non-profit e.g. sports clubs, volunteer groups, societies.

In UK there is simply no such status as "non-profit", so technically none of what you listed are "non-profit" organizations. These are unincorporated associations, that, by the way, can be making profit (but that would be on shaky grounds, since common law makes it hard not to fuck up, being as vague as it always is). However, there is a "charity" status in UK, and you'd have be a registered organization to obtain it.

Anyway, "non-profit" is (i.e. "only makes sense defined as...") a legal status, it isn't just a way to say "not making money" (after all, we wouldn't call any failing business a non-profit, right?), so it really doesn't make any sense to ask if an illegal underground gang is "non-profit". GP is correct to point that out.

> In UK there is simply no such status as "non-profit"

Incorrect.

‐--------

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/non-prof...

noun [ C ]

uk /ˌnɒnˈprɒf.ɪt/ us /ˌnɑːnˈprɑː.fɪt/

(also not-for-profit)

an organization whose aim is to make money for a social or political purpose or to provide a service that people need, rather than to make a profit

(Definition of non-profit from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)

‐--------

That's Cambridge UK.

> However, there is a "charity" status in UK, and you'd have be a registered organization to obtain it.

Again incorrect.

See https://www.gov.uk/setting-up-charity

I'm not entirely sure what this sort of pedantry is meant to accomplish. Congratulations on being technically correct, I suppose?

Both I and GP have pointed out the crux of the matter, and you are ignoring it.

By pedantry, you mean "pointing out completely misusing terms and falsehoods about UK law", right?

> Both I and GP have pointed out the crux of the matter

"They're not 'a' non-profit".

> and you are ignoring it.

No. I am challenging it.

I've seen no evidence either way and so far it seems nor have you. So let's wait and see.

Literally everybody except you knows what I and both GP were referring to.

Everybody including me, I'd say.

They provide LLM data sets for 'donations'. They collect other open collections and beg for paid memberships to access pirated material. Its a russian project. You can for sure assume that someone is earning something somewhere.

> Its a russian project

I've seen people claim this a lot, but is there a single proof that supports this? The only potential insights into AA owners was an arrest of a few people suspected of running the site, and they were Latin American, not Russian.

Check their gitlab for bounties. They have a lot of money in reserves to be spent on that. There are a few open bounties for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've also worked on a bounty for them once and can confirm they have plenty more money in their budget. So I believe that they don't pocket donations, or at least not a very large portion of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com