[cuttooth]

Way to shill for yourself.

"But along with the cash, Watsi has also raised eyebrows. To some critics, there’s something distinctly neocolonialist and off-putting about the spectacle of well-off do-gooders in the U.S. choosing which brown people live and die in the developing world based on who has a cuter picture on Watsi. Others wonder whether focusing donations on individuals, no matter how worthy, diverts funding and attention from efforts aimed at tackling the more systemic causes of inadequate healthcare in impoverished parts of the world. Watsi must also bear the misfortune of coming of age during a simmering backlash against Silicon Valley. We’ve gotten tired of hearing the name brand Silicon Valley bigwigs who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Watsi talk about the merits of “disrupting” existing industries, when all that really seems to end up happening is that a few people get rich while the competitive screws tighten on the many."

You have an urge to save a life? Make a direct donation yourself or to one of the hundreds of charities that exist. Some charities are certainly better than others, but the options are out there. Watsi is a pathetic excuse for a "company" where this sort of pick-and-choose comes across as a form of good when it's really quite creepy and saddening.

Startups don't need to exist in order to do good, and you don't need to hide behind the veil of backing a company in order to seem like a good person. Give someone the money yourself or go visit those countries if you really give a shit, because there's more to their problems than individuals who happen to need medical care. Most of them don't have any at all.

[yawgmoth]

Watsi is simply another avenue to accomplish goals - just because you personally find them "quite creepy and saddening" reflects more upon yourself than Watsi. It's remarkable that you find Watsi "pathetic" simply because you disagree with their means.

I am a homosexual. I donate to the Salvation Army on occasion. The Salvation Army is known for condemning homosexuals along with a litany of other things I truly disagree with. However, having been to Harbor Light/Acres of Hope in Detroit and seeing that they are willing to provide shelter and food to those in need allows me to support them, in some way. The concept of "this isn't ideal - I want NOTHING to do with it" is simplistic and doesn't reflect real-world situations.

I have found that torch-bearing zealotry with regards to ideals only works in the abstract world.

[pg]

If you're going to be this nasty, you'd better be right, and in this case you're not. If I went in person to Nepal to find people who need help, I still wouldn't do as good a job as Watsi.

The one useful thing about your comment is that it gives us a way to measure the background radiation of mean-spiritedness online. Watsi is about as good as anything ever gets. The founders are as selfless as anyone I've known. And they are not merely unrealistic do-gooders. They know well what things are like in the field. If people wholly focused on doing good and very effective at it still manage to get attacked online, that's therefore the baseline for being attacked online.

[Natsu]

From what I've seen, no matter how much of one's life is spent trying to help, people who stick out will have detractors. And there will always be some lazy bum who thinks they know how to do it better... but who isn't actually doing anything at all.

Personally, I think the best response to such is show me. If you can do it better, JUST DO IT instead of telling me how much better your ideas are. Because mostly those people just want to be heard when they have half-baked opinions and no experience whatsoever.

[cuttooth]

It still doesn't mean that their implementation is right, because it's not.

Here, let me elaborate: Stop trying to tie yourself to the individual and look at the greater problem. It's a west coast elitist mentality that gives you the "hey, look at this person I'm helping out!" Ever see those commercials they've been doing for decades now where you make an generic donation, and the charity sends you photos of people you're helping? That's a much better approach.

[read]

I am trying to understand you.

You might be genuinely interested in helping others but other people might not. People are not equally determined in overcoming any obstacle in their way to help someone in need. So making it easier for people to help would let more people receive help.

Do you agree this would be helpful to more people?

What striked me as interesting in your comment is how passionate you are about it. It's the kind of comment someone honest and genuinely caring makes after they've been burned. If someone treated you unfairly it can become an impetus for you to do great things.

I also wish HN readers tried to be more understanding.

(Note: I did not downvote you.)

[cuttooth]

P.S., I love the arbitrary down votes because I don't agree with the HN hivemind.

[Blahah]

It sounds like you're living on a different planet. Watsi allows people who are dying to raise money for treatment that will save their lives, which they otherwise couldn't afford. It's a direct intervention - high impact giving. Few charities have such direct impact.

[lnanek2]

Many religions/philosophies claim lack of compassion comes from lack of knowing. In that regard, if putting pictures and stories and whatnot on this site gets people more knowledge of poor people's plight, then it can invoke compassion that wouldn't have occurred from just looking at a Unicef box. From a clean engineer point of view it seems stupid to have another company when we already have charities, but another company simply means more people and more PR and more stories getting out there to potential donors, so I don't think it is particularly harmful.

[networked]

>You have an urge to save a life? Make a direct donation yourself or to one of the hundreds of charities that exist. Some charities are certainly better than others, but the options are out there. Watsi is a pathetic excuse for a "company" where this sort of pick-and-choose comes across as a form of good when it's really quite creepy and saddening.

The "pick-and-choose" mechanism Watsi uses is a (pretty brilliant) psychological hack to grab attention and elicit empathic concern [1]. I suspect a lot of Watsi's donors would not have donated to a similar cause otherwise; if so, Watsi isn't competing for their money with traditional charities.

I would love to see the statistics on how many of the people donating to Watsi are first-time donors to any charity.

[1] Phrased this way it might sound like a bad, manipulative thing to do but I don't think it necessarily is one -- at least in this case.

[mistercow]

I especially don't think it's a bad thing because it's a hack that provides significant value to the donor. My wife and I made a small donation (we are fairly poor by US standards) a while back, and I teared up when they emailed me to tell me the girl was fully funded a few hours later. I probably would have gone back and donated to another case right then if they'd had any left (it was right after the Boston Marathon bombings, so I think they were seeing a spike in donors).

[kmfrk]

Simply put, charitable giving isn't a zero-sum game; people who don't donate to/through Watsi might not donate at all.

It's intellectually dishonest to argue - without substantiation - that Watsi diverts funds from other charities.

We can argue about improving their efficiency, but the zero-sum argument is counterproductive.

[justinsteele]

I cannot take time off or buy a plane ticket to go do "something" (the heck do you expect me to do exactly, that is higher impact than donations?).