[washappy]

I used to donate regularly to Watsi, but recently I have churned, as they have de-emphasized the p2p aspect over universal healthcare. They now seem to be in an awkward split between two projects, where I'd like to see them stand firmly in either side of the camp.

I really enjoyed being able to see the patients, hear their story, get updates on their progress, and receive a "thank you" from their loved ones. Is that voyeuristic, bad, playing God? Perhaps. Should you be able to give blindly, with just an abstract generic result in your mind's eye? I'd agree that is better.

But it worked for me. It worked for Watsi. It worked for multiple patients receiving around 1000$. It just does not work for the hate and outrage brigade who want to signal that: doing good is not good enough if doing good makes you feel good.

I don't care that the SV elite commercializes/optimizes foreign aid to the point of a one-click-checkout meat market at Amazon. I don't care that it is probably predominantly white people giving to black people in a weird reverse kind-of cultural appropriation (black guilt: why can't we solve our own problems?). I don't care that people suffer after Christmas donations dry up a few months later. Keep hammering these points though and I may quit charity all together: I don't want to think about things such as race when donating. That is just no fun, not easy on the mind, not comfortable.

Exploit it. All commercial companies are doing so (Watsi is competing for my attention). Why not manipulate people into giving instead of clicking on advertisements? That only hurts my oversized wallet (and the refined taste of the outrage brigade).

[RobertoG]

"I used to donate regularly to Watsi, but recently I have churned, as they have de-emphasized the p2p aspect over universal healthcare."

It's my understanding that the their "other projects" are not being funded from the same bag that the p2p healthcare. I don't see the problem if they want to expand their activities.

[washappy]

The author makes mention of being able to flick through hundreds of patients to find "the saddest case". (I think this is really only telling of how the author views the world).

This used to be possible, but now there is just a "meet a patient" button, showing a single random patient at a time, which works more like StumbleUpon than Amazon product listings.

Now I need to actually invest way more time to find the "saddest case" (in more polite terms: A case that resonates with me, usually a child with a life threatening disease, but a perfectly viable treatment option). Also, skipping patients was mentally easier for me when they were collections on a page, than when there is a single patient on the page, and skipping to the next may mean you never see the patient again.