This is a great post!
I assume that you are, but better safe than sorry: Are you discussing this with Chris Lloyd at Good Impressions who's currently " investigating whether paid ads can be an effective fundraising tool" for EA organizations?
Thank you Eda for posting this. This must be a horrible situation to be in and I am so sorry for the losses and suffering.
Could you please give more pointers on why these organizations were chosen? While you can't vouch for their effectiveness, I guess you are very comfortable with them doing relevant work and having a solid track record of similar activity? (To be extra clear, this is not criticism, just understanding the extent of efforts.)
At Ge Effektivt (Swedish effective donations platform) we wrote a blog post about it partly because we get questions from donors about how to approach the current crisis, but also for SEO purposes and to have more people discover EA/effective charities. We did mention some organizations that we were comfortable with naming, but as I've also seen Ahbap recommended elsewhere I'd be happy to extend/replace the charities we're currently naming.
Best of luck in the fundraising efforts!
Listened to it while doing other stuff so might not be 100 % accurate.
To my understanding Tegmark appears for 10 minutes, doing a normal AI-risk spiel. I think the angle relevant to the podcast is the risk of concentration of power in the hands of a few. So some accusations of big tech capturing AI conferences etc.
There's a small segue talking about covid where Tegmark states he felt it was such an infected discussion that he couldn't talk about it openly in some work environments for fear of repercussions.
As a Swede who is somewhat familiar with the publication Expo, I would maybe put the risk of forgery of that document at <5%. They are specifically known for their digging journalism, and I would be very surprised if they screwed up something basic like that.
Also, wouldn't it be extremely strange behavior from FLI if that document actually was a forgery? Would be the go-to defense rather than what they are doing now.
I agree with this, there's both a communication and a memory-hogging issue for each new Slack workspace you bring in.
So many conversations you're in include a "Yeah, I think I'm in that Slack space, not sure" since a few of them look alike.
That aside, I applaud the creation and hope to contribute.
Thank you for being transparent and insightful about the lessons learned. I found this post useful!
Would you be comfortable sharing some more statistics? I'm thinking things like...
You've nudged me one step closer to writing a similar thing about learnings from a Swedish charity startup I worked with in 2017-2020.
This is something that has been on my mind, and my organization Ge Effektivt has sometimes received questions about it, so I am very happy that you are doing this. Looking forward to your work, and hope it can improve the work of the effective giving landscape in more than one way!
Cool! Looking forward to the post. Would you mind sharing briefly what you're (paying for) lobbying for?
Answering quickly and informally for Ge Effektivt (sorry, I hadn't seen this earlier).
When I used something like 1h to try to estimate the counterfactuality of our donations I ended up around 50%. This is removing users who say they found us through Effective Altruism Sweden, Giving What We Can pledgers (although some signed up because of us), people who found us through webpages of charities we donate to, people I know are in the EA Sweden network (some of who I think give more than they otherwise would), and then adding some on top of that. I'm open to suggestions on how to get even closer to the right answer, without spending too much time.
We're raising a total of ~$700k on a ~$105k budget this year, so in the end, I think our counterfactual multiplier might be around 2-3x.
With that said, I expect the next 12 months to include a more in-depth analysis of counterfactual funds raised for us and similar sites. I am looking forward to sharing the results with you!
Emm sorry, what? Out of 8,000 GWWC pledgers, who have at least pledged to give 10%, very few earn $1M?