[a_puppy]

> Unfortunately, one of the specific examples that gets the most attention is to go into high-frequency trading (instead of another career) so you can earn money to donate.

If this is the argument, then the criticism should focus on HFT, not on EA.

Most HFT employees aren't earning to give, and donate little to none of their income to effective charities. If HFT is harmful, then those non-EA HFT employees deserve at least as much criticism as EA HFT employees. So if you're worried about HFT, you should start with criticism of HFT, and if someone tries to defend HFT by bringing up EA, _then_ you can debate whether the benefits of earning-to-give outweigh the damage done by HFT.

But this article, and your comment, are doing the exact opposite -- you're _starting_ with criticism of the EA movement, and only mentioning HFT in passing! It comes across as looking for an excuse to criticize EA, rather than being genuinely concerned about harm caused by HFT.

[zestyping]

EA advocates of earning to give are telling people to _switch_ to an HFT career _as an ethical choice_.

The criticism here is of the claim that _earning to give_ is charitable, not a claim that HFT is charitable.