hexbear

A lot of scratched liberals in this thread. Some of you really couldn't help yourselves, could you?

A user spent the money on drugs!

Who gives a shit? Would it matter if some of the Palestinians in Mutual Aid wanted to get high after seeing their families murdered? No, it wouldn't. You're just means testing based on location and circumstance. If anything, I appreciate the honesty and transparency. But rather than trying to help people deal with addiction, some of you saltine-looking motherfuckers would rather wag your finger at vulnerable people as you pearl clutch over """"crime"""" the way your fellow liberals think drug addiction deserves jail time.

A user got too much money!

Again, who gives a shit? If you think someone got too much money, then don't donate to them. It's as simple as that. Nobody is making you give money to anonymous strangers.

Someone is scamming!

Yeah, no shit? You're sending money into the void. It's anonymous. Nothing you see on the internet is real, even when people have their real names and photos attached to a profile. That's the risk you take when you contribute to Mutal Aid. Donating to someone, then finding out it was a "scam" is on you. Do you go around telling people your social security number? How about your debit card PIN? Because I do. I tell medical professionals and social services my SSN when I think I can trust them to use that information appropriately. If I get a scam call, I don't tell them shit. I hang up. Mutal Aid is similar: either you trust the person on the other end to use their discretion or you don't. If you don't trust them, then why are you giving them money? If you do trust them, then why are you getting up in their shit over how it's being used? You're not donating to improve the material conditions someone lives in. You're donating to have power over them. Fuck you.

They didn't spend the money on what they said they would!

You sound like the reactionaries who piss and shit all over themselves because poor people have smartphones and refrigerators. That's you, except you're saying it to people treating themselves to a nicer meal or having a Netflix subscription they can watch while they live outside in a fucking tent while it rains. If you want to have it be for a specific thing, then be upfront about your means testing. You can DM the user about getting them a gift card for a specific thing or call the place the person is going to be buying their $200,174,192 doodad and pay for it electronically. But don't do this shit where you give them money with no strings attached, then try to attach strings after it's been handed over.

Seriously a bunch of you cracker liberals are just mad the filthy poors don't kiss your feet and wipe your ass. The fuck are you even here for? LARPing-ass poser leftist dipshits who want to maintain unjust hierarchies that benefit them.

This community's existence is literally the very reason why I've been able to keep being alive. At times, I've been able to receive assistance from less anonymous sources, but Hexbear is the place that truly kept me going considering the amount of support I've gotten here.

This isn't an exaggeration—if I look back on my life for as long as I've been in these shitty circumstances and reimagine me navigating them without c/mutual_aid, it's a very nerve-wracking hypothetical to ponder. I most likely would've been dead soon enough.

Skepticism is certainly expected, but I feel like the desire to weed out scammers or disingenuous people is seeming so strong through this struggle that people are myopically forgetting to consider what some hard restrictions on this community would actually entail for the state of some of our lives.

I hate that I have to rely on c/mutual_aid to literally survive; that brief period where I actually had a job and didn't have to use this community as a recipient (and could even use it as a donor) was the happiest time period I can recall while being through this whole mess. And then, without an iota of transparency, that job chops me, but after trying to find work since then, even at the least demanding (in terms of requirements) workplaces, I realized the ride will continue to be a long, bumpy one. I hate working with animal products, but I went as far to apply to places like McDonald's and KFC, and I still couldn't get hired.

Being Black and transfem led me to this hell, but something I've always picked up on from people is that they might do something like put #blacktranslivesmatter in their bio but not actually understand just how harsh it can be to live this way, especially if you are in a reactionary region, as I do. And, as I can see, I'm not the only person who is saying these sort of things.

I don't know what else to say other than I hope we come to a reasonable solution here. This anxiety is far from what I need right now, so I'm going to try not to read these comments too much.

If people think something is a scam they can take it up with the mods. No need to make meta posts. We're not going to shame the needy anymore than society already does. I don't want mutual_aid turn into some liberal means tested "hmmmm but are you really poor?" BS. Nope. On the other hand I think we are too small to be a reliable source of aid for people. I don't know what the solution is, but whatever is decided I hope we don't turn to the dehumanising judgement practices that cause this kind of desperation in the first place.

It's always the nature of giving money that the funds could be misused, especially when anonymous. I can't think of way to improve that risk without putting in some sort of hoops to jump through or a verification process, but that is burdonesome for people that need help and people don't want to risk doxxing. The verification that money was given and received through reports sounds like an improvement possibly. It would be good if it could be more for proper mutual aid, like sharing goods directly or organizing food give-outs but people would have to trust each other more or risk doxxing again. A name change could be suitable.

If someone has verifiable information that a poster is scamming or whatever, they can take that to the mods directly, but I agree with the idea that meta posts cause more drama. As well the maximum request amount seems like a hinderance as some emergencies can be quite expensive, and it's not like a high request forces people to give more, people with the means can donate what they decide.

Wanted to update what the considered changes to the community are in summary:

• users can post 3 times a week, asks no more than 100$ each post
• display name is changed to "emergency aid"
• users communicate if they are open to non monetary resources (local aid groups, etc.)
• user requests aid, amount requested in title using [$0/$x] format
• users donate and report the post with the amount donated, mods note it or report it with a message indicating they donated so a mod can comment
• user updates title with amount received and the thread is locked when the goal is met
• meta posts are no longer permitted

We will do a follow up post where voting on keeping the community as is or changing it will occur.

If you want to propose changes to this summary please answer in a comment below this one.

• do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested?
• do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts?
• do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
• do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid?
• do you think we should allow meta posts?

No perfect solutions here.

Meta stuff should be kept to a minimum. If somebody thinks/knows a post on the comm is dodgy, they probably should DM the mods of the com with their 'recipts'... but... we're all mostly strangers to each other here so I'd be incredibly surprised if more than a tiny fraction of these "snitch" DM's would have iron clad claims. But if the mods decide there's enough there to act on, it should be a mod who drops a post about why a specific user or post has been locked/deleted/banned with comments from the other mods on the post letting the rest of the hexbear user base know that more mods were okay with the action than not and the conversation stops there.

Nobody here should be gatekeeping what "mutual aid" means. This is an online forum, of anonymous users, where practically no Hexbears are ever physically around another Hexbear user. What "mutual aid" means in this context is pretty much, drop a few bucks in a Venmo or post emojis of sympathy. If you want to drop some change in somebody's digital tin cup, awesome. If you're worried about "being ripped off" you might want to rethink what you're doing looking at the mutual aid com.

I think things should stay the way they are. Maybe there should just be a limit on how often someone can post. It’s a bit unsettling to see some people asking for help week after week, it starts to feel like the help is already factored into their budget and not like an emergency fund.

I don’t say this from a place of ignorance. I grew up in deep poverty myself, and I genuinely wish for all people to be lifted out of poverty and to have all their needs met. Otherwise, I wouldn’t call myself a communist.

What benefit is there to allowing meta posts? The description of mutual aid should be changed to reflect that it is mainly used for fundraising, but if you don't or can't contribute, just unsubscribe or block the comm.

I think it's in a bad state and recently blocked it. A space where community members can help each other out in crisis is great, and while it sometimes functions like that, it's used as an uregulated fundraising charity just as often.

When we see people asking for hundreds of dollars in donations every month, we need to ask if that's actually within the scope of this site to handle in a safe manner. As it stands, I don't think it is. 100 % of the risks is put on the person donating, as that's the only way we can do it with the resources available, but that's an awful way to do charity.

At the very least, I think the current warning in the comm about posts not being vetted is not clear enough and should explicitly warn users that they might be getting scammed.

It seems like there's a clear divide between what the people who use the comm to raise funds and the people who donate want

From my experience being someone who used to donate on here but stopped after being burned multiple times (i do irl or Palestinian fundraisers now), I would prefer if meta posts were allowed with the hard evidence given to the mods/admins to avoid doxxing.

There are multiple other users who claim they used to donate and have since stopped and/or even blocked the comm due to issues they have with how its run, further reducing the amount of money being given to comrades who need it. If allowing meta posts gets more people to trust the comm more and donate vs not allowing them and having an even further reduction in how much is being donated, I think we should allow them.

The amount of money that can be donated is so limited and if one person gets money they dont "need" it does take that money from someone else who needs it which should be considered.

I wouldnt apply this directly to irl charities/mutual aid groups but with everything be anonymous and solely user funded, trust is everything

I think the non-monetary aspect of "mutual aid" could be focused on better in this community, instead of "aid" just being solely monetary donations, we could organise groups and discussions devoted to keeping each other honest with finances, and helping each other budget, find potential sources of income, things like that. Have it work like an actual mutual aid org instead of just a donation bucket. Maybe have a monthly/weekly discussion topic about financial issues and ways to deal with them, or more emphasis on mentorships and accountability, if people have trouble organising their finances and would like someone to help keep them on track for their longer term goals.

This isn't unique to this mutual aid comm, I've seen way too many people spiral despite getting financial aid, because they don't have the emotional support network they actually need to push past their current issues. I don't think we can do things on the same level as an IRL organisation, but a little bit of help beyond just financial aid, might end up going a long way, both for the health of the comm and the people in it.

At the same time, I do recognise that being too open about locations and events is bad opsec, and I'm honestly not really sure how to square that circle.

I don't see how it's possible to run a mutual aid comm with anonymous people scattered all over the world. Mutual aid really requires a much closer knit network of people working together in tangible non-monetary ways. I've done a little mutual aid offline, and mostly it's the combination of a plan and people giving the right aid and advice to advance that plan that really changes people's situation.

What we have is a charity comm. If we're going to run a charity comm some regulation would help.

• Limiting posts to one per week, or month, per account to stop the competition for visibility and subsequent blocking of the comm by people overwhelmed by the number of similar or repeated posts. Hexbear is not a large community, and many people are now blocking the comm because it makes them feel uneasy.

• Enforcing the use of an external tracking tool like GoFundMe so people can be confident when targets are or aren't met for a given post. It also provides a little bit of legitimacy and makes donations easier for many people who would be considering it.

• Allowing people to provide suggestions for local support such as specific food banks or shelters: things that may reduce weekly repeats on the charity comm. Allowing people to suggest alternative purchases or actions, such as a more cost efficient alternative could be useful.

Regardless of moral judgements, donators need confidence in the system for the comm to function. Otherwise it's just a drama generator that fosters contempt and mistrust while also leaving people feeling abandoned. A couple of incidents have really blown peoples trust, and left them fatigued. The situation is not going to change unless adjustments are made. As for discussions about the validity of a users cause - evidently, even when discussion of causes is forbidden, people still seethe and it still seeps into and erupts throughout the whole instance. The amount of recurring drama from one incident alone that is taboo to talk about is enough indication that simply banning discussions isn't actually helping much, if at all.