[brandelune]

The question is, would Watsi work if the only thing it offered were pooling of donations to anonymous care receivers. The article suggests that it would not.

But that is the same idea as taxes. Taxes, that a lot of people like to hate, offer that service already, and they are pretty efficient (except when lawmakers prefer to make business owners richer by crippling public services).

So Watsi is only offering voyeurism as a business model. And that's what sucks about Watsi, and that's why this article is 100% correct.

[fapjacks]

What on Earth are you talking about? You don't seem to have any idea what the world is like outside the West. Taxes there go to whatever nepotistic dictator or warlord is "in office", and the people widely suffer for it. Violence is a part of everyday life for a lot of people on this planet. In these places, medical care of any kind besides the local witchdoctor is a luxury completely out of the means of most people. There are even places where the Red Cross/Crescent and Doctors Without Borders will not go. Those places exist! If nothing else, this comment is exactly why Watsi is doing good in the world: Some people are ignorant of how the rest of humanity lives.

[brandelune]

Except that I don't live in the "West". And I've seen my share of the world, and done my share of NGO work at home and in the places where it's directly helpful. I also know that taxes are used especially in the West to fund the military industry that contributes to killing people all over the place. So I am well aware of the ambivalence of "taxes". But that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about "taxes" as a way to create a strong public service, not as taxes to create even stronger dictatorships. Also, places where the Red Cross/Crescent and BWB won't go are also very unlikely to be places where Watsi will go.

[d0lph]

OC is moreso talking about taxes as a concept.

[golangnews]

I use watsi to send money to fund healthcare abroad in countries with less equitable systems than the one I live in (where taxes pay for universal healthcare, as they should).

For me they’re a trusted partner who vets healthcare professionals in another country and allows them to allocate funds to fund everyday treatments for people who can’t afford them. I also give to msf but like that watsi is not disaster relief but healthcare. I use the universal fund so rarely choose a specific patient.

The stories and photos I’m ambivalent about and do see why one might object, but also how they drive engagement and build trust. I’d still give money without this - what you call voyeurism.

Cheap cynicism is really easy; making a difference is hard. I think Watsi makes a difference.

[brandelune]

Just like NGOs are making a change. And that's what's criticized in the article. You can't just click away misery.

The idea of online donations is nothing new. The idea of online donations to support people with health issues is nothing new. Give to your local Red Cross. Give to the Army of Salvation. Give to your local groups. Help the people in need in your neighborhood.

There are plenty of things you can do locally to alleviate people's pain and suffering, and it does not involve sending money through a site that feeds on voyeurism.

[golangnews]

Not like other ngos, as I already pointed out. Also see the universal scheme - people don’t choose recipients.

People didn’t ask for or need your direction on who to give money to, nor is watsi mutually exclusive with local charity or healthcare. Perhaps find a better target for your self-righteous preening about virtuous giving.