91–100 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but I'm wondering why Google is giving out ChromeOS at (presumably) no cost to hardware vendors. That means they must make their money from the customer somehow through e.g. extensive tracking.
Sure, that's why one of the options we consider might be Ubuntu. Chromebooks were fast and cheap solutions to start with.
You might be starting with the wrong question. You are assuming internet access is a good thing and that extending its supply will be best for everyone. Consider the following: - the internet makes people dumber (low attention spans, group think, advertising driven content, addictive behaviors promoted, etc) - the internet makes us consumers instead of creators - the internet makes people depressed and anxious - the…
You might be starting with the wrong question. You are assuming internet access is a good thing and that extending its supply will be best for everyone. Consider the following: - the internet makes people dumber (low attention spans, group think, advertising driven content, addictive behaviors promoted, etc) - the internet makes us consumers instead of creators - the internet makes people depressed and anxious - the…
Do you think we, those who are connected, should give up our internet connections? If not should we leave the rest of the world's population without it?
You might be starting with the wrong question. You are assuming internet access is a good thing and that extending its supply will be best for everyone. Consider the following: - the internet makes people dumber (low attention spans, group think, advertising driven content, addictive behaviors promoted, etc) - the internet makes us consumers instead of creators - the internet makes people depressed and anxious - the…
The LGBTQ crowd is benefiting tremendously from online dating.
People with weird health issues are benefiting tremendously from the ability to do research and safely talk to others with their condition, something that would be difficult or impossible to arrange and potentially quite dangerous to do in person due to cross contamination issues.
I'm not going to sit here and try to point-by-point rebut your points, but, man, what a gloomy, glass-half-empty point of view. There is zero attempt at all to be even-handed about it.
Perhaps I'm the asshole here, but until internet companies feet are really held to the fire on pricing, I don't feel like giving is going to make a substantial difference. If suddenly the money becomes available to sponsor millions of people's internet, the price of the internet will magically jump 50-500% in cost. Additionally, while we want to magically give internet to all nations and I think that is a wonderful g…
Maybe tech companies would contribute based on the extra money they can make. If Google can earn $5 for each additional user, they should be willing to pay 4.99 to create new users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why start with the students, instead of the 9/10 schools that lack internet access? (From your website: "In the poorest countries, only 1 out of every 10 students has Internet access at school.")
According to educators and researchers, there is a huge difference whether a student has access to the internet at home or in a public place where access is limited. In terms of creativity having internet access whenever you need it and how long you need it makes a meaningful difference. But this doesn't mean we only provide students with access. Sometimes we have projects where we connect educational community cente…
It might be a fun experiment to let donors choose either school or individual.
The most difficult challenge will be demonstrating effectiveness relative to other charities operating near this space. Computer Aid International focuses on refurbishing used computers and providing them to those living at income levels 1 or 2, spending only around $42 per recipient. Room to Read specializes in building low cost libraries and schools, serving communities at a cost of $5 or $25 per child respectively, and they are really highly rated on transparency and effectiveness.
I think you can justify the focus on Internet and Georgia, but I think you should be mindful of where the bar is set and aggressively try to push towards that. That might involve some hard choices, like whether Chromebooks can help as many students as lower cost options.
Emphasizing that donors choose how much is allocated to administrative costs seems like another odd choice to me. If you are serious about that, then you could get in an unstable situation. Donors could easily have unsustainable preferences here, because they generally lack experience running charities.
If you're just trying to convince donors that you are not wasting their money, I'd focus instead on independent audits on effectiveness. Then be vocal when you make hard choices about expenses, like through a blog of some kind, so you can show you're trying to save money where possible, and trying to spend money in ways that will maximize your impact.
Spreading access to information can be incredibly powerful, so I hope you find a way for your program to take off, thanks for taking on this challenge.