5 ms·

To be honest, charities need to be publicity machines to do an effective job. They need constant buzz to receive money but also spend effectively. Publicity a

To be honest, charities need to be publicity machines to do an effective job. They need constant buzz to receive money but also spend effectively. Publicity attracts people who want to hang on (e.g. politicians, leaders) which allows the wheels to be greased, access granted, and massive discounts to be had. Criticizing orgs for using their famous benefactors for that publicity is just silly.

kodah 6y ago
I don't think calling it "silly" is the right thing to do. "Elites" have ecosystems that keep them rich, powerful, and elite of which these charities are enabling. When you donate fortunes to charities it allows you a certain voice both within the domain of that issue and more broadly. This leaves the shaping of society up to people seeking popularity, not people calculating what the "right" thing to do is. That voice, their money, and their influence have proven problematic in society or at a minimum are more problematic to the every day person who checks none of those boxes. If you are an "elite" you will be rightly criticized at every turn, unless you keep to yourself which, as you pointed out, will likely lead to your demise as an elite.
- protomyth 6y ago
  I am talking about the effectiveness of a charity and what it needs to maximize its effect. I did not say anything about or point out anything about their demise as an elite. That is just an uncharitable reading of my words. Thinking "elites" are more corrupt than the average bureaucrat who manage the money if we took it away is just not reality.
  - kodah 6y ago
    I was talking about the role of elites and why they use charities like this, it's parallel to your point. > Thinking "elites" are more corrupt than the average bureaucrat who manage the money if we took it away is just not reality. I don't think they're more corrupt, just probably as corrupt because often they're the same people or run in the same circles.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
This is provably false. I live in an area where a lot of people are struggling because of Covid-related lockdown, and there are a number of small charities coordinating food and other donations. None of them are publicity machines, except in a very minor informational sense, and all are effective locally. That stops being true above a certain size - specifically when a charity adopts the tropes of corporate culture and starts spending more time on "messaging" and "engagement" than delivery. Inexplicably this seems to coincide with a hugely overpaid CEO and managerial staff. I'm sure someone like Bill Gates can afford to compile a global index of tiny all-volunteer charities and donate significant sums to them. But that kind of help won't have his name on it. It's not obvious it even interests him and his fellow billionaires.
- protomyth 6y ago
  If you are not a publicity machine then you are doing a disservice to the people you serve because you have no hope of spending the money as effectively. I work in non-profits and the worst thing is having no attention paid to you. You can help people still, but you are not getting as far. There is nothing more pure about charity that does not have publicity.

kodah 6y ago

I don't think calling it "silly" is the right thing to do. "Elites" have ecosystems that keep them rich, powerful, and elite of which these charities are enabling. When you donate fortunes to charities it allows you a certain voice both within the domain of that issue and more broadly. This leaves the shaping of society up to people seeking popularity, not people calculating what the "right" thing to do is. That voice, their money, and their influence have proven problematic in society or at a minimum are more problematic to the every day person who checks none of those boxes. If you are an "elite" you will be rightly criticized at every turn, unless you keep to yourself which, as you pointed out, will likely lead to your demise as an elite.

protomyth 6y ago
I am talking about the effectiveness of a charity and what it needs to maximize its effect. I did not say anything about or point out anything about their demise as an elite. That is just an uncharitable reading of my words. Thinking "elites" are more corrupt than the average bureaucrat who manage the money if we took it away is just not reality.
- kodah 6y ago
  I was talking about the role of elites and why they use charities like this, it's parallel to your point. > Thinking "elites" are more corrupt than the average bureaucrat who manage the money if we took it away is just not reality. I don't think they're more corrupt, just probably as corrupt because often they're the same people or run in the same circles.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

This is provably false. I live in an area where a lot of people are struggling because of Covid-related lockdown, and there are a number of small charities coordinating food and other donations. None of them are publicity machines, except in a very minor informational sense, and all are effective locally. That stops being true above a certain size - specifically when a charity adopts the tropes of corporate culture and starts spending more time on "messaging" and "engagement" than delivery. Inexplicably this seems to coincide with a hugely overpaid CEO and managerial staff. I'm sure someone like Bill Gates can afford to compile a global index of tiny all-volunteer charities and donate significant sums to them. But that kind of help won't have his name on it. It's not obvious it even interests him and his fellow billionaires.

protomyth 6y ago
If you are not a publicity machine then you are doing a disservice to the people you serve because you have no hope of spending the money as effectively. I work in non-profits and the worst thing is having no attention paid to you. You can help people still, but you are not getting as far. There is nothing more pure about charity that does not have publicity.