I get why this guy is engaging with Peter Singer, I think, because they're both academic philosophers, but I'm not sure that is really the major driver of EA, but perhaps I'm just blinded by the communities I'm adjacent to.
This doesn't seem to be a fair characterization of EA at large, though. I can't speak for Singer specifically, but this is missing a few things. 1) Forget the tithing aspect. A lot of that is just guilt alleviation for relatively well off people, but the reality is a whole lot of people already donate a whole lot of money, but most of it to Harvard and the Metropolitan Museum of New York, already fabulously wealthy institutions that don't need money and are mostly using it to entertain or educate people who are also rich. EA is largely about redirecting the existing flow of charity to better uses. 2) The Moneyball aspect. Unless you're a Koch brother, how much of an influence can you make politically? Massive, massive resources are already thrown into attempting to influence government. There is little point in trying to add to the heaping pile of cash and time and effort and mindshare already being thrown at hot button political issues. You can stretch the impact of a marginal dollar much further by focusing on the issues that nobody else is paying attention to. 3) Where to focus charitable giving says nothing about what else you direct energy and effort in general toward. Scott Alexander is probably getting linked here more often lately than any other outspoken EA advocate. The writer here may notice that Scott is somehow able to exert quite a bit of effort attempting to nudge policies and particularly his own field of healthcare is better directions while also managing to give a percentage of his income to malaria nets. One doesn't preclude the other. It just precludes giving that money to Harvard or the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or whatever local congress wannabe has been spamming my SMS the most lately.