The Nonlinear Library LW - FarmKind's Illusory Offer by jefftk
Aug 9, 2024
04:12
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: FarmKind's Illusory Offer, published by jefftk on August 9, 2024 on LessWrong.
While the effective altruism movement has changed a lot over time, one of the parts that makes me most disappointed is the steady creep of donation matching. It's not that donation matching is objectively very important, but the early EA movement's principled rejection of a very effective fundraising strategy made it clear that we were committed to helping people understand the real impact of their donations.
Over time, as people have specialized into different areas of EA, with community-building and epistemics being different people from fundraising, we've become less robust against the real-world incentives of "donation matching works".
Personally, I would love to see a community-wide norm against EA organizations setting up donation matches. Yes, they bring in money, but at the cost of misleading donors about their impact and unwinding a lot of what we, as a community, are trying to build. [1] To the extent that we do have them, however, I think it's important that donors understand how the matching works.
And not just in the sense of having the information available on a page somewhere: if most people going through your regular flow are not going to understand roughly what the effect of their choices are, you're misleading people.
Here's an example of how I don't think it should be done:
I come to you with an offer. I have a pot with $30 in it, which will go to my favorite charity unless we agree otherwise. If you're willing to donate $75 to your favorite charity and $75 to mine, then I'm willing to split my $30 pot between the two charities.
How should you think about this offer? As presented, your options are:
Do nothing, and $30 goes from the pot to my favorite charity.
Take my offer, and:
$75 goes from your bank account to your favorite charity
$75 goes from your bank account to my favorite charity
$15 leaves the pot for your favorite charity
$15 leaves the pot for my favorite charity
While this looks nice and symmetrical, satisfying some heuristics for fairness, I think it's clearer to (a) factor out the portion that happens regardless and (b) look at the net flows of money. Then if you take the offer:
$150 leaves your bank account
$90 goes to your favorite charity
$60 goes to my favorite charity
If I presented this offer and encouraged you to take it because of my "match", that would be misleading. While at a technical level I may be transferring some of my pot to your favorite charity, it's only happening after I'm assured that a larger amount will go to mine: you're not actually influencing how I spend my pot in any real sense.
Which is why I'm quite disappointed that Charity Entrepreneurship, after considering these arguments, decided to build FarmKind:
This is essentially a white-labeled GivingMultiplier. [2] It's not exactly the same, in part because it has a more complex function for determining the size of the match, [3] but it continues to encourage people to give by presenting the illusion that the donor is influencing the matcher to help fund the donor's favorite charity.
While setting up complex systems can cause people to donate more than they would otherwise, we should not be optimizing for short-term donations at the expense of donor agency.
I shared a draft of this post with FarmKind and GivingMultiplier for review before publishing, and before starting this post I left most of these points as comments on the EA Forum announcement.
[1] I think participating in existing donation match systems is generally fine, and often a good idea. I've used employer donation matching and donated via Facebook's Giving Tuesday match, and at a previous employer fundraised for GiveWell's top charities through their matching system.
In the latter case, in my fundraising I explicitly ...
While the effective altruism movement has changed a lot over time, one of the parts that makes me most disappointed is the steady creep of donation matching. It's not that donation matching is objectively very important, but the early EA movement's principled rejection of a very effective fundraising strategy made it clear that we were committed to helping people understand the real impact of their donations.
Over time, as people have specialized into different areas of EA, with community-building and epistemics being different people from fundraising, we've become less robust against the real-world incentives of "donation matching works".
Personally, I would love to see a community-wide norm against EA organizations setting up donation matches. Yes, they bring in money, but at the cost of misleading donors about their impact and unwinding a lot of what we, as a community, are trying to build. [1] To the extent that we do have them, however, I think it's important that donors understand how the matching works.
And not just in the sense of having the information available on a page somewhere: if most people going through your regular flow are not going to understand roughly what the effect of their choices are, you're misleading people.
Here's an example of how I don't think it should be done:
I come to you with an offer. I have a pot with $30 in it, which will go to my favorite charity unless we agree otherwise. If you're willing to donate $75 to your favorite charity and $75 to mine, then I'm willing to split my $30 pot between the two charities.
How should you think about this offer? As presented, your options are:
Do nothing, and $30 goes from the pot to my favorite charity.
Take my offer, and:
$75 goes from your bank account to your favorite charity
$75 goes from your bank account to my favorite charity
$15 leaves the pot for your favorite charity
$15 leaves the pot for my favorite charity
While this looks nice and symmetrical, satisfying some heuristics for fairness, I think it's clearer to (a) factor out the portion that happens regardless and (b) look at the net flows of money. Then if you take the offer:
$150 leaves your bank account
$90 goes to your favorite charity
$60 goes to my favorite charity
If I presented this offer and encouraged you to take it because of my "match", that would be misleading. While at a technical level I may be transferring some of my pot to your favorite charity, it's only happening after I'm assured that a larger amount will go to mine: you're not actually influencing how I spend my pot in any real sense.
Which is why I'm quite disappointed that Charity Entrepreneurship, after considering these arguments, decided to build FarmKind:
This is essentially a white-labeled GivingMultiplier. [2] It's not exactly the same, in part because it has a more complex function for determining the size of the match, [3] but it continues to encourage people to give by presenting the illusion that the donor is influencing the matcher to help fund the donor's favorite charity.
While setting up complex systems can cause people to donate more than they would otherwise, we should not be optimizing for short-term donations at the expense of donor agency.
I shared a draft of this post with FarmKind and GivingMultiplier for review before publishing, and before starting this post I left most of these points as comments on the EA Forum announcement.
[1] I think participating in existing donation match systems is generally fine, and often a good idea. I've used employer donation matching and donated via Facebook's Giving Tuesday match, and at a previous employer fundraised for GiveWell's top charities through their matching system.
In the latter case, in my fundraising I explicitly ...