3 ms·

The article argues that charity can be counterproductive, but we don't have to give to random charities where no one is paying attention to whether they're maki

by jefftk 4y ago

The article argues that charity can be counterproductive, but we don't have to give to random charities where no one is paying attention to whether they're making things better. Instead of "never give money to charity" what about "always check charity reviews first"? As the article does eventually get to, the reviews on https://givewell.org https://givewell.org can help you avoid the kind of disasters they open with.

yunwal 4y ago
In my experience, charity reviews are great for telling you if a charity is outright fraudulent, but not great at evaluating effectiveness. The best thing to do is either become involved with a local charity and evaluate for yourself, or do something like givedirectly and understand that occasionally the money will be poorly spent.
- jefftk 4y ago
  Have you looked at GiveWell's reviews? They're really thorough and do try to evaluate effectiveness: https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf The main issue with local charity is that wealth is distributed very unequally around the world, so if everyone primarily helps those around them then the poorest people get the least help.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    It’s a fair argument but ultimately not one I subscribe to. Time and time again global charities become vehicles for corruption, exploitation, and power-seeking [0]. They become critical infrastructure replacing things that should be provided by democratic institutions. No one elected Bill Gates as head of global health and yet here we are allowing him to make life or death decisions for the entire earth because he owns all of the infrastructure[1]. The last thing I want is for the EA movement and orgs like givewell to be elevated into a similar position. While I believe they have good intentions, I don’t believe they listen to their beneficiaries or have an accurate view of the effects of their work, nor do I believe they are immune to corruption. For one thing, neither givewell nor the AMF give testimonials from their beneficiaries on their website. I’m a big believer in trust and feedback loops in charitable giving and the tough truth is that that’s really tough to maintain in global orgs with complicated missions. There are certain orgs that do a great job at this. Givedirectly (one of givewell’s recommended charities) actually does a great job at this, partially because their mission is pretty simple. I can look at their recipient stories page[2] and know for sure my money goes to exactly what I expect. [0] - https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56670162 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56670162 [1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandemic-response-bill-gates-partners-00053969 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandem... [2] - https://www.givedirectly.org/covid-19/us/recipient-stories/ https://www.givedirectly.org/covid-19/us/recipient-stories/

by jefftk 4y ago

yunwal 4y ago

In my experience, charity reviews are great for telling you if a charity is outright fraudulent, but not great at evaluating effectiveness. The best thing to do is either become involved with a local charity and evaluate for yourself, or do something like givedirectly and understand that occasionally the money will be poorly spent.

jefftk 4y ago
Have you looked at GiveWell's reviews? They're really thorough and do try to evaluate effectiveness: https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf The main issue with local charity is that wealth is distributed very unequally around the world, so if everyone primarily helps those around them then the poorest people get the least help.
- yunwal 4y ago
  It’s a fair argument but ultimately not one I subscribe to. Time and time again global charities become vehicles for corruption, exploitation, and power-seeking [0]. They become critical infrastructure replacing things that should be provided by democratic institutions. No one elected Bill Gates as head of global health and yet here we are allowing him to make life or death decisions for the entire earth because he owns all of the infrastructure[1]. The last thing I want is for the EA movement and orgs like givewell to be elevated into a similar position. While I believe they have good intentions, I don’t believe they listen to their beneficiaries or have an accurate view of the effects of their work, nor do I believe they are immune to corruption. For one thing, neither givewell nor the AMF give testimonials from their beneficiaries on their website. I’m a big believer in trust and feedback loops in charitable giving and the tough truth is that that’s really tough to maintain in global orgs with complicated missions. There are certain orgs that do a great job at this. Givedirectly (one of givewell’s recommended charities) actually does a great job at this, partially because their mission is pretty simple. I can look at their recipient stories page[2] and know for sure my money goes to exactly what I expect. [0] - https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56670162 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56670162 [1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandemic-response-bill-gates-partners-00053969 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandem... [2] - https://www.givedirectly.org/covid-19/us/recipient-stories/ https://www.givedirectly.org/covid-19/us/recipient-stories/