[khazhoux]

Sorry, but I don't understand your original comment. The person above you suggested a donation, because obviously this thread has HN readers thinking about how to prevent suicides (if you don't understand why, you may research Aaron Swartz). A donation is a common way for people who care about an issue, to indirectly have some effect on it -- by empowering others who directly devote time to it.

Certainly, one may choose to research the institutions they donate to, if they don't trust them by name. That is not unique to suicide prevention, therefore it's an unnecessary qualifier in the current discussion.

Likewise, perhaps it's expensive. But even a single ad that reaches someone in need, leading to that person seeking professional help, is something.

[yikesshescute]

> Certainly, one may choose to research the institutions they donate to, if they don't trust them by name. That is not unique to suicide prevention, therefore it's an unnecessary qualifier in the current discussion.

I agree that there are many claims regarding “donations” that suffer from the same defect. But the fact that many claims have the same problem doesn’t indicate that it’s not worth pointing out the problem. In fact, quite the opposite possibly.

[remram]

You haven't explicitly stated that there is something wrong with the suicide prevention foundation's operations, and definitely haven't provided any reason (even anecdotal) you have to believe so. I don't think your comments are "claims", valid or otherwise.

I think no one here understands what you are trying to say.

[yikesshescute]

I think the burden is on the person suggesting I take an action (eg, donate money to charity X) to provide evidence that the action will have some desired effect.

My position is that all actions have mostly unintelligible effects until demonstrated otherwise.