[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.