• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I don’t know what you mean by

    double-blind to the donor AND recipient

    But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn’t know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind. But people donating can still choose where to donate to.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The recipient doesn’t know the donor, and the donor has no way to prove their identity to the recipient.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Ah I see. I’m not sure that’s technically possible, but if it were, that’d be great.

        I think better would be simply outlawing any communication between a donor and recipient, if the donor wishes to officially remain anonymous. Not they “have no way” to prove their identity, but they’re not allowed to prove it—or even imply it.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Seriously if anyone can spend 100 million dollars and the IRS doesn’t know about it, we are doing something Terribly wrong.

          It will be claimed on their taxes im sure

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      He might mean a certain specific group within the university. Ie the donor can donate to the University as a whole, but not say a specific branch of economics.