In particular, all the charities and initiatives they list seem to be USA-focused only
I’ve seen (can’t find the link atm) to a claim/research that ‘Amazon Smile was net-profitable for Amazon, because it generated more than 0.5% in additional profits’. If that was true then shutting down Smile would be Amazon shooting itself in the foot. But that might have been a motivated explanation; I’m not sure who/how could have actually estimated this and shared it publicly.
Just seeing this, now that it’s taken effect.
Pro’s of Smile (cons of it’s shutting down)
Some of the funds could/did go to effective charities, or charities I think are likely to be somewhat effective even if not assessed by GiveWell
E.g., I guess at least $650k per year went to MSF/Doctors without Borders … Charity: Water is aslso high on the list
EA’s could/did use this
Maybe it could have been used raised awareness for effective charities
Cons of Smile
I suspect there may have been some moral-licensing or crowding out ere on both sides:
People might have given less to charity ‘because I’m already giving through Amazon Smile’, and may have overestimated how much this was
Amazon/Bezos might also have done this (‘we are giving through Amazon Smile, that is taking care of our obligation and PR’)
Other puzzles and thoughts
Amazon’s page notifying people about this seems to decidedly suggest a lack of a future effectiveness-focus
In particular, all the charities and initiatives they list seem to be USA-focused only
I’ve seen (can’t find the link atm) to a claim/research that ‘Amazon Smile was net-profitable for Amazon, because it generated more than 0.5% in additional profits’. If that was true then shutting down Smile would be Amazon shooting itself in the foot. But that might have been a motivated explanation; I’m not sure who/how could have actually estimated this and shared it publicly.