I agree the original concept is fine. I think we can mostly split criticism of the movement from criticism of the ideas. We can look at the SBF thing and this a

I agree the original concept is fine. I think we can mostly split criticism of the movement from criticism of the ideas. We can look at the SBF thing and this article and the links posted by GP to see a lot that has gone wrong with the movement. But then we have to split the ideas that have attached themselves to EA, because I don't think Peter Singer was talking about 10^54 simulated consciousness or whatever. So the article seems to agree with the most basic idea of EA, which I feel even the average person on the street would agree with, the "donate money with maximum effectiveness". And your example is from a group that believes in "earn to give", which is way more controversial and one of the big excuses for SBF and crew. Also, assuming a random social worker could just choose to go into business and make millions seems just incorrect.