Charities Upset Over Chase Facebook Contest

ssv03 writes "The New York Times is reporting that Chase Community Giving of Chase Bank recently held a contest on Facebook in which users were encouraged to vote for their favorite charities. At the end of the contest, the 100 charities with the most votes would win $25,000 and advance to the next round to have a chance to win $1 million. Initially, the vote counts for each organization were made public, but two days before voting ended they were hidden, and the final totals have still not been released. While Chase had no official leader board during the voting, several organizations were keeping track of projected winners. Those projections were almost identical to the final results, yet several organizations including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists. They had been performing very well (some within the top 20) until the vote counters were removed. Chase Bank has so far refused to discuss the issue with the organizations. SSDP has spoken out in a press release (PDF) and is calling for a boycott."

Comments

Re:Charities?

[DerekLyons]

Many organizations in the US that push for policy changes are federally registered as 501c3 charities.

All being registered as a 501c means is that you are a non profit/not for profit, it has nothing to do with whether or not you are a charity.

Re:Charities?

[copponex]

What I can't stand is when people start playing semantics and twisting science to support a political point of view. Don't dehumanize a person by calling them collateral damage to make killing them easier to accept. Admit that they're human but that you want to the convenience and the choice.

I'd say after we try to stop killing walking and talking humans for convenience we can focus on stopping late term abortions.

It's sad to think someone modded this troll

[Blappo]

I made a real point about a dishonest poster, and someone thought is was necessary to attempt to censor me.

Well, when he claimed that "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" when preventing student from getting student loans, I have to say I was insulted.

And rightly so I think. My education involved no student loans. I suspect there is a significant amount of the audience that is in the same boat.

So, again, when I saw him claiming something that many of the readers know to be false, and then to see it so highly moderated when his central point is just wrong, I was again insulted.

So, I spoke, and apparently, someone thought it was a "troll". Well, my point was valid, so that's not it. Was it the language?

Well, adults speak here. Sometimes, when confronting others who are engaging in dishonesty, we say things with sharp points on them. Modding someone down for that is a misuse of your points and you should be ashamed.

In short, I said something that is 100% correct, in a tone that expressed my appropriate distaste for a case of misrepresentation, and you felt it was necessary to, what, punish me? Pretend you're my mom and chastise me for naughty language?

HOW DARE YOU?

There's a REAL point here, that your ham handed moderation ignores.

MANY MANY COLLEGE GRADUATES HAVE NEVER HAD A STUDENT LOAN, AND IT IS NEITHER IMPOSSIBLE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TO BE ONE OF SAID GRAUDATES.

Which OP presumes is not possible when he incorrectly claims "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" is the result of not having student loans.

He was wrong.

And so was your moderation, and your attempt to censor me.