3 ms·

> because that's where they can be the most efficient at getting the most billionaires to help They should choose between the donors and the billionaires then.

> because that's where they can be the most efficient at getting the most billionaires to help They should choose between the donors and the billionaires then. (regardless, they are a tech company, they could employ people remotely) This still does not address the issue of the dishonest fundraising though (pretending that they need your help despite making 1/10th of their wage and not saying up-front on what they spend the money on). I am sure that you would be upset if you gave money to a beggar that you later see getting in his Mercedes, or if you donated money to an organization for the homeless but then realized that 90% of the money goes for researching new pie recipes. It honestly feels like that.

Blahah 6y ago
> They should choose between the donors and the billionaires then Why? They have absolutely no reason to do that. They have a mission, they are raising money for that mission, and doing so very successfully. > (regardless, they are a tech company, they could employ people remotely) Could, and they know that, and they make hiring decisions based on their expertise and knowledge, and have deciided the organisation is better off hiring some people in SF. > This still does not address the issue of the dishonest fundraising though (pretending that they need your help despite making 1/10th of their wage and not saying up-front on what they spend the money on) I understand that you had a misunderstanding about what wikipedia is, how their community management works, and that you didn't make use of the public, publicised resources that make their spending completely transparent. That doesn't make them dishonest, it makes you lazy.