The author of the article isn't playing fair. He opens with SBF's downfall and then says even without that, there are so many reason EA is suspect. But then he

The author of the article isn't playing fair. He opens with SBF's downfall and then says even without that, there are so many reason EA is suspect. But then he keeps reintroducing SBF into the narrative, and conflates the billions that SBF swindled with the millions he gave to EA, shading it to seem that the total amount was dirty EA money. He also says things like, "leading EAs were spending large sums of money on Oxfordshire palaces". One is bad enough and I don't fully trust his reporting on it when he blithely claims that that multiple palaces were bought. I've recommended "The Life You Can Save" to multiple people because the book had a great impact on me. Most of the things being claimed critics make of EA sound completely alien to me, such as justifying getting filthy rich because at some point you will be giving half of it away. I'm sure people use EA in that way, but does EA promote that view? In the same way, the eugenics movement try to hijack the theory of evolution to justify behavior that the theory itself says nothing about.