GoFundMe Rejects Fundraising for Canadian Freedom Convoy

GoFundMe labels Freedom Convoy “occupation.” What started as a protest against vaccine rules for border-crossing Canadian truckers has morphed into a massive—and more than a week long—demonstration against all sorts of COVID-19 mandates in Canada. Although things have been peaceful so far, Ottawa has declared a state emergency. GoFundMe also refuses to return millions of dollars it raised to support the protests.

GoFundMe supports peaceful demonstrations. We believe this was the intent of Freedom Convoy 2022’s first fundraiser. “We now have evidence that this peaceful demonstration is an occupation. There are police reports of violence or other unlawful activity,” stated the company in a statement.

GoFundMe stated at first that any donations made by people who didn’t request a refund would go to the Freedom Convoy-2022 organizers. In an update, it said that “due to donor feedback,” it would “automatically refund all contributions directly—donors do not need to submit a request.”

This means that more than $8 Million will be refunded. The Washington Post. Protesters raised $3.5 Million on GiveSendGo, a Christian crowdfunding platform since the GoFundMe reject.

GoFundMe said it’s rejecting Freedom Convoy funds because the protest violated its terms of service—specifically, a prohibition on “the promotion of violence and harassment.” However, it is not known to what GoFundME means.

Banner 3

By all accounts, the protests—which have included thousands of Canadians in multiple cities—have been mostly nonviolent. According to the Ottawa Police Service, they had witnessed “extremely disruptive” and “illegal behaviour from protestors. The majority of the violations they see are minor. Ottawa cops gave out 450 tickets in response to “excessive noise”, fireworks displays and seatbelt violation. They also issued “improper muffler” license plates, driving with a suspended license, running red lights, and “driving on no truck routes.”

Although criminal offense investigations were opened, these appear to have resulted in relatively few arrests. OPS stated that they had launched “more than 60 criminal investigations” in relation to the protest on Sunday night. It reported just seven arrests—five people were arrested for unspecified “mischief,” one “for mischief relating to property damage of a downtown business,” and another “for driving while prohibited.”

OPS reports on hate crime investigations, but doesn’t provide more information. OPS stated that a hate crime hotline was set up and received over 200 calls. Detectives will ensure every report is examined.

Numerous incidents of protestor harassment have been reported. The GoFundMe cancellation seems weak because of the alleged misconduct of a handful of demonstrators across multiple cities.

An incident that was serious has occurred in the aftermath of GoFundMe’s decision. attempted arson. However, this incident hasn’t been proven (and so have some claims). are a bit far-fetched).

GoFundMe is a private corporation that can partner with any cause it wishes. However, the decision is disappointing. It’s almost like the move is a pretext to distance oneself from a cause critical of government that is unpopular among political leaders.

CNN’s James MacDonald, a protester, said that the “event has gone beyond vaccines” and was now all about the whole ordeal, including lockdowns, mask mandates, and other measures. All sorts of people are joining the truckers, so the protests spread from Ottawa to many other Canadian cities, although the majority of the action still remains in Ottawa.

Ottawa’s mayor declared an emergency on Sunday. In a statement, the city stated that the declaration of a “state of emergency” reflected the grave danger to safety and security of citizens posed by ongoing protests. It also highlighted the need for support from all levels and jurisdictions of government.


Web3 scam or legit? Web3 is a fundamental shift in the way people access the web through central platforms, such as Google or Facebook. Instead, it envisions an era of communication, storage, payment, and information sharing that are supposedly unintelligible, uneditable and fail-proof. AtlanticKaitlyn Tiffton. It has been, however, a complete farce for a variety of reasons.

You can also see, from Reason:


Spotify’s decision about Rogan (and Young) have been criticized Absolutly nothingSection 230. None at all Mike Masnick writes. You may have been living under a rock, but Neil Young and many other performers removed their Spotify songs to protest Spotify’s links to Joe Rogan’s podcast. Spotify did not remove Rogan from his show, so the musicians threatened to quit.

Some—including Los Angeles Times reporters, tech writer Kara SwisherAnd the activist group Sleeping Giants— have linked this fight to Section 230, a law that protects websites and other digital mediums from certain liabilities for user-generated content. Masnick notes that the issue of Spotify’s decision whether to retain Rogan or not is unrelated to Section 230.

Spotify is free to choose whether to retain Rogan, just as a publisher can decide whether to publish a book written by another person. This right is protected under the 1st Amendment. Spotify could easily win a lawsuit against someone for hosting Joe Rogan. Spotify wouldn’t use Section 230 to sue, but instead for failing to state an actual claim. This would be supported by Spotify’s 1st Amendment rights to collaborate with any content provider they choose (and not with those they don’t).

People want to blame Section230 for Spotify’s host Joe Rogan’s rights. The First Amendment, as in so many cases where Section 230 is blamed is really what people are mad about. Just because one doesn’t like the First Amendment or believes in freedom of speech, it’s not so common for people to try and complicate things by invoking laws that few people understand.

Masnick points out the fact that even if Section 230 was not in existence, Spotify still would have a First Amendment rights to broadcast whatever music or podcasts it wants and make deals with creators.

Just like a publisher, Spotify would also have a 1st Amendment. EditorialThe platform has full control over who is allowed on it and who is not. The 230 does not give you the right to edit (both down and up). This is already possible thanks to the 1st Amendment.

Indeed, if you’re thinking that Spotify might somehow be liable if someone gets hurt because they listened to someone spreading stupid advice on Rogan’s podcast, that’s not going to fly—but, again, because of the 1st Amendment, not Section 230. As Section 230/1st Amendment expert Prof. Jeff Kosseff explained in this great threadBook publishers were found not to be responsible for any dangerous information contained in the books they publish. They have been proven not to be liable for any dangerous information in books that they publish.


• An AP investigation into a federal prison for women in Dublin, California, “has found a permissive and toxic culture at the Bay Area lockup, enabling years of sexual misconduct by predatory employees and cover-ups that have largely kept the abuse out of the public eye.”

• Rising mortgage rates are unlikely to thwart inflation in the housing market.

• An Illinois judge has ruled against the state’s masks-in-schools mandate.

Atlantic Explores what college students think about cancel culture.

• That feeling when you agree with ice cream:

• Always read the fine print:

You can read more about the flaws and research behind this mask.