Considering what the average donation would be when all donations are divided by all members, it's not paying the rent, more like buying a bottle of cheap wine when dropping by a friend's house--you don't get a say in how the house is run.
You may not. But there is something called the "implied law of return" when money is exchanged with a company. Granted someone would be out of their gourd to litigate it, not am I even remotely suggesting it - but common law does convey a sense of community "ownership" when the community supports an endeavor.
But, keeping your expectations low will assure that you will never be disappointed :-)
That we make the choice to give money does not negate the private ownership of the site, and we give knowing we can be booted at any moment.
See above. There is precident for this. You have an implied right of reasonable use. But yes, you can get booted at any time and probably can't do anything you can do about it in reality.
Private would be paid for by the compay 100%. When a group pays for something, in general, some implied rights are conferred.
Considering what the average donation would be when all donations are divided by all members, it's not paying the rent, more like buying a bottle of cheap wine when dropping by a friend's house--you don't get a say in how the house is run.
If had pooled money to pay for a conference room to meet in, you wouldn't expect to be booted unless you did something eggregious. And the law (almost always small claims) would most likely support you. But then again, who would pursue such a silly thing?
Some interest is always "implied" when finds cross, whether you personally expect it or not.
The point was that the issue is slightly grey. And in theory at least, it really is.
The "It's my party and mine alone" line get blurred when money changes hands.