[dtp]

The idea of being presented with the names and faces of people in need and asked to choose who to give money to is so repellent to me that, if I encountered Karmabox on a website, I would choose not to donate at all.

Seriously. This makes me so incredibly uncomfortable. It's like you're forcing these people to compete with each other to get medical care.

I realize that donating to all of them is an option, but it doesn't make the presentation any less icky to me.

When I give to charitable causes, I want to feel like I'm entrusting it to people capable of making informed and compassionate decisions about the most impactful way the money can be put to use. I know that charities often fall short of this ideal in reality, but I don't think the solution is to present me, a rich white Westerner, with a menu of suffering third-worlders to choose from. That's just gross.

[chaseadam17]

1. There is no competition to receive medical care. If you read Watsi's FAQ, all patients on the site are guaranteed funding before their profiles are posted. Thus, doctors are the only ones that decide who gets care and who doesn't, not donors. Also relevant: http://www.quora.com/Watsi/How-does-Watsi-grapple-with-the-e...

2. If non-transparent giving is what you like, then that's great, there are thousands of charities to give to and I'd be happy to recommend some top ones. But there are a lot of people (myself included) that like to know who their donations are helping and how. Establishing meaningful connections between people is as much a part of Watsi's mission as simply funding medical care.

3. I don't think that establishing a connection between someone that needs medical care and someone that can contribute is gross. I think it is one of the most meaningful connections possible, and we establish these connections in the United States every day via TV, school fundraisers, churches, etc. (eg "XYZ's cancer fund"). Over $20MM has been raised on giveforward.com for medical expenses by people paying a fee to use the service.

Watsi is a 100% opt-in program. Why should poor people be denied the same fundraising tools rich people have access to? Why should they be denied the opportunity to share their stories with the world? I've personally explained Watsi to patients in the developing world, and it's funny how the only people who ever seem put off by the model are "wealthy Westerners" who for some reason feel so guilty about their status in the world that they fail to see Watsi patients as other human beings and only as a "menu of suffering third-worlders" who should be hidden out of sight.

I understand where you're coming from, I just happen to disagree. I'm very happy Karmabox donated their time to try and make the world a better place, and I respect them tremendously. Even if you don't like the execution, I think they at least deserve a dignified debate and not a rude and dismissive critique of their work. Would you write a comment like that under your real name?

If you have any other feedback on Watsi, you can reach me at chase at watsi.org and I'd be happy to listen and/or answer any questions you have.

[dtp]

Sorry if that sounds too harsh. I shouldn't shit on you too hard for trying to do something good. I've never written any software that does anything even remotely as good for the human race as this, so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut.

I really did have a strong "oh wow this is kind of messed up" reaction to Karmabox, though, and I suspect I'm not the only one who will. Maybe it would be worthwhile to offer an alternative interface that would be less jarring to people like me?

[manume]

I absolutely understand your reaction and yes, we realize it is a bit unusual to present the profiles like we do (and Watsi does) with the names and large images. However, I think in this case, "unusual" might be a good thing, because it gets people to actually click on the widgets and learn about Watsi.

Initially we didn't even have the headline above the profiles ("Spread the health! Fund low-cost, high-impact medical treatments for people in need."), and it was very unclear what the purpose of presenting the profiles actually was, so we added the headline to give some context.

And of course it's more "comfortable" to donate to a charity with a nice website, design and public image, and not actually see the faces of the people that are supposed to benefit from your donation. Watsi (and thus Karmabox) takes a different approach: there is no layer in the the middle, deciding for you who receives your money and who doesn't. With Watsi you can (and you're actually forced to) make that decision yourself. It's an uncomfortable one, but it has to be made, either by you or by somebody you don't know who works at the organization you donate to. I'd rather decide myself.

So in closing: yes, it's an unusual way to "do something good", and it has to be done carefully and tastefully, and we're always open to constructive feedback on how we can improve the website and the widgets to reach that goal!