In this case it’s definitely counterfactual (it wouldn’t have gone to a GiveWell charity)
I don’t think that should count as counterfactual, actually. Even though the money would not have gone to a GiveWell charity, it would have done something similarly valuable, so the donor cannot reason that their impact is higher. Compare this to when an employer offers to match $X per person, and doesn’t put any restrictions on what charity you donate to. In the latter case, this really is more impact, and should factor into decisions like “should I be earning to give”.
Ah, yes. In the case of something like “should I be earning to give” that is a very different situation.
There’s two uses of counterfactual here:
Is the total impact triggered by donor A whose donation is being matched by donor B counterfactual once you take into account what donor B would have done otherwise?
Were the actions of donor B counterfactually impacted by donor A (i.e. they would have given somewhere else but that might have been similarly impactful, or less impactful).
In the case of #2 it is not misleading to donor A to say that their donation was matched IMHO. But it isn’t the full story for impact.
(I’d love it if you crossposted that post, but commenting here until then.) I think there’s another category before 9, which is “Donate to a charity not commonly supported by EAs, such as the World Wildlife Fund or Habitat for Humanity.” So this allows for Giving Tuesday to count as counterfactual. I would hope GiveWell’s was of this type (though I sympathize with Luke’s points).
Then we have another question, which is who are these people that are ~indifferent between any EA charity? They’re probably not the first time donors that GiveWell’s targeting.
I think there’s another category before 9, which is “Donate to a charity not commonly supported by EAs, such as the World Wildlife Fund or Habitat for Humanity.”
Yes, I think that’s fine as long as we all agree that the impact of donating to an AA charity is very much higher than donating to one of those charities.
I don’t think that should count as counterfactual, actually. Even though the money would not have gone to a GiveWell charity, it would have done something similarly valuable, so the donor cannot reason that their impact is higher. Compare this to when an employer offers to match $X per person, and doesn’t put any restrictions on what charity you donate to. In the latter case, this really is more impact, and should factor into decisions like “should I be earning to give”.
( I wrote some about this a few years ago, with some discussion: https://www.jefftk.com/p/what-should-counterfactual-donation-mean)
Ah, yes. In the case of something like “should I be earning to give” that is a very different situation.
There’s two uses of counterfactual here:
Is the total impact triggered by donor A whose donation is being matched by donor B counterfactual once you take into account what donor B would have done otherwise?
Were the actions of donor B counterfactually impacted by donor A (i.e. they would have given somewhere else but that might have been similarly impactful, or less impactful).
In the case of #2 it is not misleading to donor A to say that their donation was matched IMHO. But it isn’t the full story for impact.
(I’d love it if you crossposted that post, but commenting here until then.) I think there’s another category before 9, which is “Donate to a charity not commonly supported by EAs, such as the World Wildlife Fund or Habitat for Humanity.” So this allows for Giving Tuesday to count as counterfactual. I would hope GiveWell’s was of this type (though I sympathize with Luke’s points).
Then we have another question, which is who are these people that are ~indifferent between any EA charity? They’re probably not the first time donors that GiveWell’s targeting.
Done! https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nz2scND85oFyTXTGo/what-should-counterfactual-donation-mean
Yes, I think that’s fine as long as we all agree that the impact of donating to an AA charity is very much higher than donating to one of those charities.