5 ms·

Currently working on a similar app and I definitely agree that if you're going to be charging it should be towards a charity. This seems like a terrible cash gr

Currently working on a similar app and I definitely agree that if you're going to be charging it should be towards a charity. This seems like a terrible cash grab with something that does not even provide an enticing service.

nonzeroday 11y ago
If you charge towards the charity then a user doesn't feel committed when he/she slips.
- fluxquanta 11y ago
  If you believe the point is to "make people feel bad if they fail" then you really deserve nothing from this. It conflicts with the stated purpose entirely. The goal should be to entice people to succeed, not punish them if they don't. Edit: For reference, the original comment I responded to stated "If you charge towards the charity then a user doesn't feel bad when he/she fails."
- fapjacks 11y ago
  This is so awful and you a rent-seeking bad person.
  - dreamdu5t 11y ago
    It's not rent-seeking. They provide a service.
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      Oh, you mean the service they provide in being available to take money from people? That service? Hey, look, everybody! I offer that service, too! Give me a break.
- hammock 11y ago
  To solve this, Stickk (a similar service) has "anti-charities." StickK's list of 23 anti-charities (their anti-ness, of course, being in the eye of each goal-setting beholder) includes: The George W. Bush Presidential Library, the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library, the NRA, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, and various fan clubs of opposing sports teams.
  - dreeves 11y ago
    Here's our (Beeminder's) argument against anti-charities, clever as that is: http://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity http://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity
- SCdF 11y ago
  I feel like your answer comes from you wishing to charge money for a product (understandable obviously) more so than it comes from any actual scientific or even observational basis. Put another way: you would say that wouldn't you.
- zodPod 11y ago
  No, if you charge toward a charity then YOU don't get to make a bunch of money. This seems stupid.

nonzeroday 11y ago

If you charge towards the charity then a user doesn't feel committed when he/she slips.

fluxquanta 11y ago
If you believe the point is to "make people feel bad if they fail" then you really deserve nothing from this. It conflicts with the stated purpose entirely. The goal should be to entice people to succeed, not punish them if they don't. Edit: For reference, the original comment I responded to stated "If you charge towards the charity then a user doesn't feel bad when he/she fails."
fapjacks 11y ago
This is so awful and you a rent-seeking bad person.
- dreamdu5t 11y ago
  It's not rent-seeking. They provide a service.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    Oh, you mean the service they provide in being available to take money from people? That service? Hey, look, everybody! I offer that service, too! Give me a break.
hammock 11y ago
To solve this, Stickk (a similar service) has "anti-charities." StickK's list of 23 anti-charities (their anti-ness, of course, being in the eye of each goal-setting beholder) includes: The George W. Bush Presidential Library, the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library, the NRA, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, and various fan clubs of opposing sports teams.
- dreeves 11y ago
  Here's our (Beeminder's) argument against anti-charities, clever as that is: http://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity http://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity
SCdF 11y ago
I feel like your answer comes from you wishing to charge money for a product (understandable obviously) more so than it comes from any actual scientific or even observational basis. Put another way: you would say that wouldn't you.
zodPod 11y ago
No, if you charge toward a charity then YOU don't get to make a bunch of money. This seems stupid.