Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
jacobpfau1
0
0

Would it make sense for the Giving Tuesday organization to send out an annual reminder email? I have re-categorized all of my EA newsletters, and so they don't go to my main inbox. Maybe most people have calendar events, or the like, set up. Maybe though for people who almost forgot about Giving Tuesday (like me) a reminder email could be useful!

Reply
2
Avi Norowitz
Hi Jacob. If you complete our sign-up form or our pledge form, then you'll be added to our mailing list and should receive reminders in future years. * Sign-up form: https://eagiv.org/signup * Pledge form: https://eagiv.org/pledge You may also want to add a filter to direct emails from contact@eagivingtuesday.org into your primary inbox.
1
jacobpfau
Ah great, I have pledged. Is this new this year? Or maybe I didn't fill out the pledge last year; I don't remember.
Gina_Stuessy🔸2
0
0

Hey Jacob, not new this year. The EA GT team has done an email list at least the past 2 years, but I bet all 3 past years they were involved in the Facebook match.

This year we also have an option for pledgers to receive text reminders (U.S. phone #s only).

Reply
See in context
by Gina_Stuessy🔸
2 min read 5

67

Building effective altruismCommunityEffective givingEA Giving TuesdayDonation matchingRequests (closed)Effective altruism funding
Frontpage

Summary: Facebook is matching donations made on December 1, 2020, and the EA Giving Tuesday team has updated, well-researched advice for donors to give them the best chance of getting matched. Join hundreds of EAs on this day to collectively direct Facebook’s matching funds toward EA-aligned organizations.

Prepare now for this year’s match

The day which many EAs refer to as their favorite holiday of the year—Giving Tuesday—is coming up fast!

The EA Giving Tuesday team has put together instructions to improve donors’ chances of getting matched by Facebook. To take advantage of this uncommon, counterfactual matching opportunity, please read our instructions and complete the recommended preparation steps. Please do this as early as you can, and no later than November 30.

Facebook is again matching donations up to $7 million, though this year they are matching the first $2 million in donations at 100%, and (we believe) the next $50 million in donations at 10%, resulting in the remaining $5 million in matching funds. The EA Giving Tuesday team is focusing on the 100% match, and we expect it to run out within seconds.

In response to this year’s match terms and what we’ve learned in past years, we have a new recommendation to submit donations 1–2 seconds before the match begins (our whitepaper explains why we recommend this). Donating quickly is especially important this year, and our new donation simulator makes it easier to improve through practice.

To get ready for the match, we recommend that donors promptly start preparing:

  • Pledge your donations as soon as possible: The pledges allow us to do what we can to avoid reaching the maximum limit Facebook sets for any one nonprofit.[1]
  • Prepare no later than Nov 30: Read through our detailed instructions, which include setting up your computer, setting up payment method(s) in Facebook, making fast donations, and learning to prepare for a possible extra confirmation dialog for your donation(s).
  • Practice test donations no later than Nov 30: Practice your donations either on Facebook or on our fancy new simulator.
  • Donate carefully and quickly on Dec 1: On Giving Tuesday, start preparing your donation(s) several minutes before the match, visit our website for any last-minute announcements, and follow the other specifics (e.g., on timing) you learned from our instructions to complete your donation(s) within as few seconds as possible.

Questions? Please read our FAQ, comment below, email us at contact@eagivingtuesday.org, or ask in our Facebook group.

You can also add the event to your Google Calendar here.

About EA Giving Tuesday

EA Giving Tuesday, a project of Rethink Charity, supports and encourages donors and EA-aligned nonprofits to participate in Facebook’s Giving Tuesday donation matching program. Between 2017 and 2019, EA Giving Tuesday has helped direct $1 million in matching funds from Facebook to EA-aligned nonprofits.

Related EA Forum posts about Giving Tuesday:

    1. In some cases, we are working with multiple nonprofits who could accept donations on behalf of others, so we are able to do some rebalancing for those nearing the $100,000 limit per nonprofit. ↩︎

67

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments5


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
agent181
0
0

Just also want to point out that I have not subscribed to their mailing lists but was aggressively pursued by ads from CE (or other) and other posts on EA forum which made me aware that I should participate in this.

Reply
jacobpfau1
0
0

Would it make sense for the Giving Tuesday organization to send out an annual reminder email? I have re-categorized all of my EA newsletters, and so they don't go to my main inbox. Maybe most people have calendar events, or the like, set up. Maybe though for people who almost forgot about Giving Tuesday (like me) a reminder email could be useful!

Reply
Avi Norowitz2
0
0

Hi Jacob. If you complete our sign-up form or our pledge form, then you'll be added to our mailing list and should receive reminders in future years.

You may also want to add a filter to direct emails from contact@eagivingtuesday.org into your primary inbox.

Reply
jacobpfau1
0
0

Ah great, I have pledged. Is this new this year? Or maybe I didn't fill out the pledge last year; I don't remember.

Reply
Gina_Stuessy🔸2
0
0

Hey Jacob, not new this year. The EA GT team has done an email list at least the past 2 years, but I bet all 3 past years they were involved in the Facebook match.

This year we also have an option for pledgers to receive text reminders (U.S. phone #s only).

Reply
More from Gina_Stuessy🔸
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Relevant opportunities
97
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
9
An International Collaborative Hub for Advancing AI Safety Research
Cody Albert
· · 6m read
0
0
View more