Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dollar a Day

dollaraday.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Dollar a Day

#51

Post by cortesoft »

ernestipark wrote: post #44
TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my perspective I will never donate to an unknown entity regardless of filtering criteria. I have limited resources and believe I can have the impact I want to have by chosen where to use those resources. That's your choice, of course, but then I think you're not their target audience. This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective n…

> This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective non-profits on their own. That's really the problem. If you would gladly give money to charity, but don't care enough to even research who you're giving to, the chance that you help create lasting change and a shift in thinking about yourself versus others is unlikely. Don't get me wrong, be…

I am not going to argue that it isn't BETTER to have your heart invested in a cause you believe in, there are going to be a lot of people who just don't want to spend that time or effort, for whatever reason. In addition, even if a person has the time and effort available, not everyone in the world is capable of effectively researching and vetting a charity; in fact, I think most people will probably not have that ability. It makes sense to choose to place that decision making responsibility to a group who has the proper training, time, and access to vet a charity properly.

Re: Dollar a Day

#52

Post by jleader »

richbradshaw wrote: post #43
wtracy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless they start donating to ISIS or KKK Or an organization that provides family planning support, or that funds stem cell research.

At first I thought you were joking, then realised you likely live in the US. I guess each country has it's share of things that other countries don't understand!

I don't know about whether they were joking or serious, but I think their point was that for any person, there are probably some charities they'd object to funding. I know people who won't donate to Habitat for Humanity (US charity that builds houses for poor people) because of their religious proselytizing. There are Catholic charities; there are charities that distribute birth control; there are even white supremacist charities. Aside from religious considerations, while charities in the US generally can't directly engage in political activity, there are lots of charities that are connected to political organizations, all across the political spectrum. Pick any controversy (climate change, gun control, religious freedom, reproductive rights, etc.) and I bet you could find charities aligned with either side of the question.

Re: Dollar a Day

#53

Post by timdierks »

mankyd wrote: post #2

Not saying this isn't valuable, but I believe that Google did this a year or two ago: https://onetoday.google.com/ What's the differentiation?

Google has a bunch of non-profits, and you are suggested one each day, and can choose to donate to it (or any other). It doesn't pool all One Today users into a single donation recipient per day, and there's no pre-commitment.

Dollar a Day looks great, but it basically boils down to you donating to a non-profit that grants to other non-profits and sends you a daily report: they direct the funds and curate the recipients.

One Today also has a nice challenge-match feature.

Re: Dollar a Day

#54

Post by IkmoIkmo »

exacube wrote: post #19

I hate the whole credit processing fee bit -- Why are 2+% of all donations going towards VISA? There should be a direct deposit through your bank card or something!

They actually use a payment processor and the full charge is 4%.

It states they also disburse the donations, which may actually end up being a rather good deal. That is, collecting money via creditcard AND getting that money to a local NGO in Mali is not going to be cheap.

But regardless, 4% does sound like a lot, especially if they disburse to e.g. US based organisations that work abroad.

If the bitcoin ecosystem matures it'd be able to help a huge deal in this regard. Circle just launched offering free and instant purchase using bank or credit, and Bitpay offers 0% payment processing in 33 countries.

Anyway, I hope people consider checking out the give well foundation. Giving well is extremely important, and I'm concerned that getting a daily email with some organisations, without any data, analysis etc, we'll be giving very ineffectively to the guys with the most magical story, and perhaps, to the guys with the most money spent on marketing vs aid. Now I definitely am of the opinion that this is okay (great Ted talk on this), BUT if you could spend better, I'd encourage that.

The best example for me was this. Millions of people worldwide are blind due to cataracts, often due to malnutrition. You can largely and often completely 'cure' these people from their blindness with a cheap $20 operation that commonly happens in countries like India. Alternatively, you have blind people who can't be cured, often born blind. We can improve their quality of life, but in say the US it'd cost $20k to completely raise, nurture and train a guide dog.

So we have a choice to either cure someone's blindness completely, or literally spend three orders of magnitude (1000x) more to improve a blind person's life.

As you can imagine, getting one million donors to drop $20 would be a hugely successful campaign. But if they all spent it on guide dogs, it'd have much less of an impact of merely 1000 people donating $20 to completely cure the blindness of a similar number of people.

That's why giving well is so important. I fear apps and services like these diminish that. I hope we all appreciate our influence and act accordingly by carefully considering who to give your money to.

Re: Dollar a Day

#55

Post by TeMPOraL »

ernestipark wrote: post #44
TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my perspective I will never donate to an unknown entity regardless of filtering criteria. I have limited resources and believe I can have the impact I want to have by chosen where to use those resources. That's your choice, of course, but then I think you're not their target audience. This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective n…

> This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective non-profits on their own. That's really the problem. If you would gladly give money to charity, but don't care enough to even research who you're giving to, the chance that you help create lasting change and a shift in thinking about yourself versus others is unlikely. Don't get me wrong, be…

> this is the kind of shallow giving that doesn't create lasting change. I believe true impact comes not just from dollars but people having their hearts invested in causes they believe in.

I don't really agree with this. Whether or not this "shallow giving" creates a lasting change depends on what DaD does with the money.

It's true that "people having their hearts invested in causes they believe in" can have an enormous impact when they act on their feelings. E.g. I care deeply about the current spread of Ebola, or the war that is raging 350 kilometers from my home, but since I'm doing exactly nothing about any of this, my state of heart has absolutely zero impact on anything.

You said "the chance that you help create lasting change and a shift in thinking about yourself versus others is unlikely", but I believe it is important to explicitly separate those two concerns. When one considers donating to charity, one can have multiple reasons for that (usually at the same timie) - like a) "creating lasting change", and b) "shift in thinking about yourself". And maybe c) "positive emotions from helping people". All those reasons are good, but I endorse the idea that one should consider and maximize them separately, or in other words "purchase fuzzies and utilons separately"[0]. The post I linked is a very good take on this topic.

Dollar a Day is not a good way to optimize for a). There are definitely more effective charities out there. It can be an decent way to c) purchase fuzzy feelings cheaply, especially for those who don't have much experience donating or helping people in general. As for b), I think it might have a good enough effect given how strong the human need to stay internally consistent is. You find yourself spending money on charity, therefore you start thinking about yourself as a kind of person that donates to good causes.

> If you're willing to trust Dollar A Day to spread your money to charities, why not just cut out the middle-man and find one charity you trust and believe in to give to?

That was the point of my comment. Between people who don't give to charity at all and people who are willing to "cut out the middle-man" there will always be a group who would give if someone handled the cognitive burden for them. By reducing the process to just subscribing somewhere, Dollar a Day has an opportunity to capture this group, and thus increase amount of money that is given to charities.

So TL;DR: if you think this idea is too cheap a charity for your taste, you're probably not the target audience - you already are willing to be more effective at donating. So give to whom you think you should, and let DaD guys help capture people who otherwise wouldn't donate at all.

[0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa...

Re: Dollar a Day

#56

Post by [deleted] »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #30
travisfischer wrote: post #21

I was hoping this would be implemented as: - I sign up to donate at least a dollar a day. - There is a growing list of non-profits supported. - I get emails with newly added ones. - For each non-profit I get to choose to either: a) add a full additional dollar a day for that organization or b) add the new organization to a list of organizations that split my daily existing donation amount. or c) skip it. I dislike th…

I have to agree. If I don't know where my money is going, I simply can't countenance giving money to a nonprofit (or a company for that matter). I don't know what their selection process is. The one nonprofit they show on their site, Shelterbox, I've seen in action in the Philippines and I have a lot of issues with how they run their operation and the efficacy of their solution. I've actually looked into that model.…

[deleted]

Re: Dollar a Day

#57

Post by TeMPOraL »

cortesoft wrote: post #51
ernestipark wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective non-profits on their own. That's really the problem. If you would gladly give money to charity, but don't care enough to even research who you're giving to, the chance that you help create lasting change and a shift in thinking about yourself versus others is unlikely. Don't get me wrong, be…

I am not going to argue that it isn't BETTER to have your heart invested in a cause you believe in, there are going to be a lot of people who just don't want to spend that time or effort, for whatever reason. In addition, even if a person has the time and effort available, not everyone in the world is capable of effectively researching and vetting a charity; in fact, I think most people will probably not have that ab…

Yeah, it's basically outsourcing effective giving. Makes economical sense for everyone involved.

Re: Dollar a Day

#58

Post by TeMPOraL »

jleader wrote: post #52
richbradshaw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first I thought you were joking, then realised you likely live in the US. I guess each country has it's share of things that other countries don't understand!

I don't know about whether they were joking or serious, but I think their point was that for any person, there are probably some charities they'd object to funding. I know people who won't donate to Habitat for Humanity (US charity that builds houses for poor people) because of their religious proselytizing. There are Catholic charities; there are charities that distribute birth control; there are even white supremac…

That's why they explicitly stated that they are excluding charities with religious and political affiliations. But there is only so much you can do to avoid controversies - there will always be someone who want to earn a quick buck on a scandal, or sometimes someone who just wants to watch you burn. Controvery is something people manufacture. At some point you have to stop caring.

Re: Dollar a Day

#59

Post by TeMPOraL »

king_jester wrote: post #39
TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my perspective I will never donate to an unknown entity regardless of filtering criteria. I have limited resources and believe I can have the impact I want to have by chosen where to use those resources. That's your choice, of course, but then I think you're not their target audience. This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective n…

> I think it will only be a distraction to people who like to participate in stupid controversies. Unless they start donating to ISIS or KKK, the only source of controversies will be trolls and "journalists" trying to make a quick buck. There have been plenty of stories over the years of non-profits that do shady things with donations or engage in activities against parts of the population, should this site ever acci…

Well, this sounds like something that people will ignore unless someone purposefully blows it out of proportion. It falls under "journalists trying to make quick buck" and people being generally stupid in their reactions.
Post reply on HN