What I find surprising is the inability of many to understand the difference between what is required by law and what is required to achieve funding. You correctly state that there is no obligation for FR to disclose financials - unless of course enough of its donor base demands it prior to opening their wallets so that the choice is to either become more transparent or cease operations.
In a similar vein, FR is not required to allow posters to speak their mind if doing so is counter to management's views. Unless of course management's views become so narrow that there are not enough customers that both share these views and also have the capability of achieving the site's funding goals.
I commonly see these two issues confused on this thread and others. It's quite surprising and perhaps this lack of comprehension explains why a small group of posters act in a way that is seemingly contrary to the site's continued viability.
???
I wouldn’t contribute anything to anyone without some idea of why they needed it.
The Free Republic is asking for my money. I will ask why they need it and for what. If I agree with their explanation, then I’ll hand over some money.
If not, I walk away.
AND if I get flim-flam and a ‘gimme your money and STFU’, then... as they used to say on Seinfeld, “NO SOUP FOR YOU!”
Furthermore, I’d say that, based on the past couple of lackluster Freepathons, that’s getting to be the general consensus.
Now, you can bury your head in the sand and ignore it. Or you can insult those that bring it up. You can even ZOT people for it. But that will exacerbate the problem, not fix it.
Or you can find out what your users what and give it to them.