The EFF's damage to Bitcoin continues.

[julz]

Today I received this response from adainitiative.org, regarding my query as to whether they would accept Bitcoin donations:

Thanks so much for your interest in supporting the Ada Initiative. We've
had a couple of donors interested in donating via Bitcoin but for the
foreseeable future the legal and tax overhead of Bitcoin donations is too
high for us. We've added information to our FAQ:
http://donate.adainitiative.org/donation-faq/#bitcoin

Notice in the FAQ - they cite EFF's stance:

Do you accept donations in Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a online payment system and digital currency. Some donors have expressed interest in donating in Bitcoin, but we have decided not to accept Bitcoin donations for the foreseeable future. The legal and tax issues surrounding a non-profit accepting and spending Bitcoins remain unclear and therefore the overhead of accepting Bitcoin donations and spending them on our programs would be very high. In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) made a similar decision for similar reasons.

It's one thing for the EFF not to accept Bitcoin for it's own reasons specific to legal advocacy - but from the above, we see that their about-face and public statements continue to damage Bitcoin's reputation in the non-profit sphere.

From earlier this year: ( http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html )

When the founders of Humble Bundle were approached they replied:
"Hey there, we have talked with the EFF and an attorney about this and it is very complicated to say the least. The stakes are very high and there are some extremely serious unknowns about using Bitcoins. While the concept is great, we are not prepared to be its first major test case, after listening to the advice we’ve been given."

also:

A statement from someone at Kiva.org (a technical person, not a legal rep) was particularly illustrative of the chilling effect:
"We talked to some fellow non-profits, and the lawyer from one particular organization gave us some strong reasons to not move forward. We then talked some with our lawyer, who cautioned against doing anything that could distract from Kiva’s core mission by bringing about controversy."

I'm not completely certain - but pretty sure the 'particular organization' referred to above is the EFF.

So... is it any wonder the bitcoin100.org project (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52543) has struggled to find recipients for Bitcoin charity?


The EFF is an asset to the online community  - but their stance here from 2011 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin) seems to be an ongoing impediment to Bitcoin adoption amongst non-profits.
Does anyone have any inside contacts at the EFF to see if they're ready to revisit their public position - and just as importantly, the obvious behind the scenes advice they have been giving to 'steer clear' of Bitcoin?

[FreeMoney]

Fuck the EFF

Frontier my ass

[Inaba]

Every time I read that it pisses me off anew.  Now I'm rethinking my target for Phinnius's donation if we ship ASICs.

The EFF should be embracing Bitcoin... it *IS* the frontier.  Duh.

[kwoody]

Damn lawyers, giving legal advice about things they are likely not very well versed in. Lamesauce.
I suppose the natural human response of "fear the unknown" applies here. Shame they don't know how awesome it is.

[julz]

FWIW I've pointed adainitiative.org to Bitpay's page where they offer to process donations free of charge for 501(c)(3) registered organisations:

https://bitpay.com/bitcoin-for-charities

I also mentioned paysius as a possible intermediary in my initial query - but I'm not aware of a specific page regarding their handling of charities.

I think the bitpay charities page is a good start, but it would be good if it was more descriptive as to the 'tax implications' (or lack thereof!) that these organisations seem to be scared of, and it would be nice also if it showed an example or two of charities which are already using it.

[Severian]

I've wondered if Shari Steele being married to Mr. Supersuit has any bearing on this? Maybe, maybe not.

I find it hard to believe that Brewster Kahle or John Perry Barlow would be opposed to Bitcoin. That EFF not only appears to oppose Bitcoin on principle but also tells others to stay away from it tells me who and what they're actually working for.

[stochastic]

Today I received this response from adainitiative.org, regarding my query as to whether they would accept Bitcoin donations:

Thanks so much for your interest in supporting the Ada Initiative. We've
had a couple of donors interested in donating via Bitcoin but for the
foreseeable future the legal and tax overhead of Bitcoin donations is too
high for us. We've added information to our FAQ:
http://donate.adainitiative.org/donation-faq/#bitcoin

Notice in the FAQ - they cite EFF's stance:

Do you accept donations in Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a online payment system and digital currency. Some donors have expressed interest in donating in Bitcoin, but we have decided not to accept Bitcoin donations for the foreseeable future. The legal and tax issues surrounding a non-profit accepting and spending Bitcoins remain unclear and therefore the overhead of accepting Bitcoin donations and spending them on our programs would be very high. In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) made a similar decision for similar reasons.

It's one thing for the EFF not to accept Bitcoin for it's own reasons specific to legal advocacy - but from the above, we see that their about-face and public statements continue to damage Bitcoin's reputation in the non-profit sphere.

From earlier this year: ( http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html )

When the founders of Humble Bundle were approached they replied:
"Hey there, we have talked with the EFF and an attorney about this and it is very complicated to say the least. The stakes are very high and there are some extremely serious unknowns about using Bitcoins. While the concept is great, we are not prepared to be its first major test case, after listening to the advice we’ve been given."

also:

A statement from someone at Kiva.org (a technical person, not a legal rep) was particularly illustrative of the chilling effect:
"We talked to some fellow non-profits, and the lawyer from one particular organization gave us some strong reasons to not move forward. We then talked some with our lawyer, who cautioned against doing anything that could distract from Kiva’s core mission by bringing about controversy."

I'm not completely certain - but pretty sure the 'particular organization' referred to above is the EFF.

So... is it any wonder the bitcoin100.org project (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52543) has struggled to find recipients for Bitcoin charity?


The EFF is an asset to the online community  - but their stance here from 2011 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin) seems to be an ongoing impediment to Bitcoin adoption amongst non-profits.
Does anyone have any inside contacts at the EFF to see if they're ready to revisit their public position - and just as importantly, the obvious behind the scenes advice they have been giving to 'steer clear' of Bitcoin?

Donations would probably best be spent on things that will solidify the bitcoin network.

[Melbustus]

Respond and point out that Mark Warden, State Rep for New Hampshire, is accepting bitcoin donations for his campaign:

http://www.markwarden.com/page/contribute-campaign

He's had legal council, etc... One could possibly make the argument that if it's being accepted for state-level campaign contributions, that sets a decent precedent since, obviously, campaign donations are subject to quite a bit more scrutiny than your average non-profit donation.

[Atlas]

http://bitcoinwatchdog.wikia.com/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation

[julz]

Respond and point out that Mark Warden, State Rep for New Hampshire, is accepting bitcoin donations for his campaign:

http://www.markwarden.com/page/contribute-campaign

He's had legal council, etc... One could possibly make the argument that if it's being accepted for state-level campaign contributions, that sets a decent precedent since, obviously, campaign donations are subject to quite a bit more scrutiny than your average non-profit donation.

Thanks - I did point that out to them, as well as Jeremy Hansen in Vermont.

Their latest response:

The main reason to re-visit it would be a large potential income in
Bitcoin, of which we do not have evidence (although I appreciate it's a
vicious cycle to some degree). Otherwise we'll consume the value of the
donations by orders of magnitude in staff and advice costs to integrate
Bitcoin into our workflow.

I've now pointed out to them the underrepresentation of women in the bitcoin community - along with how misogynistic it can be in here:
"How do we get the women on board?' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32386.0

Not the greatest advertisement for this community I'll admit; but if their mission really is to get females more involved in open source Technology - you'd think they'd be interested in addressing this imbalance.

I also pointed out that it was quite likely they'd be eligible for over $1000 USD in initial donations via bitcoin100  which would help offset any implementation costs (which I think would be small anyway).

Really - I think there is an unfortunate imbalance of the sexes here, and it's sad to see this organisation fail to understand that Bitcoin is an important technology.
At the risk of being sexist myself - I can't help but wonder if  the relative scarcity  of females involved in Bitcoin is due to the differences between the sexes as far as 'risk taking'. Certainly by allowing themselves to be swayed by EFF FUD - they appear to be approaching it in a timid fashion.
(I'm sure they'd say 'prudent'/'cautious' - but I'm calling it as I see it).

[repentance]

At the risk of being sexist myself - I can't help but wonder if  the relative scarcity  of females involved in Bitcoin is due to the differences between the sexes as far as 'risk taking'. Certainly by allowing themselves to be swayed by EFF FUD - they appear to be approaching it in a timid fashion.
(I'm sure they'd say 'prudent'/'cautious' - but I'm calling it as I see it).

As you said yourself, this is a misogynistic community (hell, we even had one member just yesterday claiming that he knew a fraudster was a scam artist because the were "too literate" to be a woman).  There's a disincentive to identifying yourself as a woman in this community and I don't see that changing any time soon.  I think it's also important to realise that this forum is not Bitcoin.  It's just one place where Bitcoin users gather, and there are any number of reasons why people might avoid participating here, from the lack of moderation to the proliferation of scams to the sexism.

Personally, I wouldn't use this forum to promote Bitcoin itself or Bitcoin services to other women.  Between the "tits or GTFO" attitude that posters who reveal themselves as women often encounter here and the sheer number of scams which are promoted on this forum, I feel like I'd be doing both them and Bitcoin a disservice.

[TheBible]

Ugh, this community never misses a chance to hate on women.  No wonder they want nothing to do with you spergs.

[ElectricMucus]

ohhh the SA Goons gonna love this.

[repentance]

Ugh, this community never misses a chance to hate on women.  No wonder they want nothing to do with you spergs.

It's not quite as bad as reddit...yet.

[julz]

I agree this forum is awful in that regard.

The only way around this is for women to be involved in the technology itself. When more women have visibility as code contributors and Bitcoin entrepreneurs - the misogynistic voices here will be smacked down quicker and harder.


It would be pointless for me to try to hide this forum from a womens advocacy group such as Ada Initiative when discussing Bitcoin with them.
It's got to start somewhere - and I don't apologize for holding this forum up as an example of something that's a bit broken, and that they may have the potential to begin to address.

edit: my comment above regarding 'risk taking' gender differences only reflects my *current* understanding.
From what I see, studies bear this out: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268111001533
I have no opinion on whether this is genetic or social in basis though - it's just something I see as a plausible explanation for a gender imbalance in a technology such as Bitcoin which (largely due to bad press) has a reputation as being edgy/risky.

Once that imbalance exists though - it's accelerated by the obnoxious comments which go unchallenged. Perhaps my discussion of 'risk taking' gender effects isn't helpful either - but if so - I wish there were more women around here to correct any misconceptions I have in that regard!

[ElectricMucus]

3.   People were misconstruing our acceptance of Bitcoins as an endorsement of Bitcoin. We were concerned that some people may have participated in the Bitcoin project specifically because EFF accepted Bitcoins, and perhaps they therefore believed the investment in Bitcoins was secure and risk-free. While we’ve been following the Bitcoin movement with a great degree of interest, EFF has never endorsed Bitcoin. In fact, we generally don’t endorse any type of product or service – and Bitcoin is no exception.

Wanna know the reason, made it bold for the lulz.

[Atlas]

I agree this forum is awful in that regard.

The only way around this is for women to be involved in the technology itself. When more women have visibility as code contributors and Bitcoin entrepreneurs - the misogynistic voices here will be smacked down quicker and harder.


It would be pointless for me to try to hide this forum from a womens advocacy group such as Ada Initiative when discussing Bitcoin with them.
It's got to start somewhere - and I don't apologize for holding this forum up as an example of something that's a bit broken, and that they may have the potential to begin to address.

You know, maybe if we didn't white knight women and treat them like some special kind of endangered creature, there wouldn't be a problem to perceive at all.

[julz]

I agree this forum is awful in that regard.

The only way around this is for women to be involved in the technology itself. When more women have visibility as code contributors and Bitcoin entrepreneurs - the misogynistic voices here will be smacked down quicker and harder.


It would be pointless for me to try to hide this forum from a womens advocacy group such as Ada Initiative when discussing Bitcoin with them.
It's got to start somewhere - and I don't apologize for holding this forum up as an example of something that's a bit broken, and that they may have the potential to begin to address.

You know, maybe if we didn't white knight women and treat them like some special kind of endangered creature, there wouldn't be a problem to perceive at all.

There's a problem when I'd be embarrassed to tell my girlfriend,mum and/or sister to join up to this forum to join in the discussion - and I would be.
The imbalance is a historical social effect that some are obviously too young and/or ignorant to appreciate.
It's a problem if women themselves see that what is stopping them join in is not so much technical hurdles - but social and community ones.
The existence of organisations such as the Ada Initiative demonstrates this.

Atlas - your ability to see problems where they don't exist and miss real problems is prizeworthy.

[Atlas]

Nothing is stopping from women joining in. People having certain opinions about humanoids with vaginas isn't banning women from this forum.  

If they can't tolerate people having their own perspective, that's just too damn bad.

[julz]

Nothing is stopping from women joining in. People having certain opinions about humanoids with vaginas isn't banning women from this forum.  

If they can't tolerate people having their own perspective, that's just too damn bad.

I'm not against a bit of 'harden the f**k up' as far as online speech goes, but I'm also not averse to initiatives to bring counter-voices in to verbally smack them down.
As we saw with the whole jessy/vegetta thing - that can work pretty nicely.

In the meantime - anyone should be able to smack down that crap whether or not they have penis and identify as male,female or something else; without retarded claims of 'white knighting'.   Well - claim it if you want - but it's dumb.

Nobody's *forcing* you to be a nice person Atlas, I'm just arguing for it in general as a measure which will
a) make this place a little more representative of society as a whole (nearly half the potential population avoiding it isn't a good start)
b) grow the Bitcoin userbase

Do you really have a problem with that?