$500/âmonthly user is actually pretty reasonable. As an example, Facebook revenue in the US is around $200/âuser/âyear, which is roughly in the same ballpark
Facebook ARPU (average revenue per user) in North America is indeed crazy high, but I think misleading as for some reason they include revenues from Whatsapp and Instagram, but only count Facebook users as MAU in the denominator. (edit: I think this doesnât matter that much) Also, they seem to be really good at selling ads
In any case:
I donât think this is a good measure of value, I donât think the average user would pay $200/âyear for Facebook. (I actually think Facebookâs value is plausibly negative for the average user. Some people are paying for tools that limit their use of Facebook/âInstagram, but I guess thatâs beside the point)
Redditâs revenue per user in the US is ~$20 /â user /â year, 10x less
This doesnât take into account the value of the marginal dollar given to the EA Forum. (Maybe 90% of the value is from the first million/âyear?)
Iâm not sure if $6000 is in the same ballpark as $200 (edit: oops, see comment below, the number is $500 not $6000)
But I strongly agree with your other points, and mostly I think this is a discussion for donors to the EA Forum, not for users. If someone wants to donate $2M to the EA Forum, I wouldnât criticize the forum for it or stop using it. Itâs not my money.
Users might worry about why someone would donate that much to the Forum, and what kind of influence comes with it, but I think thatâs a separate discussion, and Iâm personally not that worried about it. (But of course, Iâm biased as a volunteer moderator)
I think criticizing CEA for the Forum expenditures is fair game. If an expenditure is low-value, orgs should not be seeking funding for it. Donors always have imperfect information, and the act of seeking funding for an activity conveys the organizationâs tacit affirmation that the activity is indeed worth funding. I suppose things would be different if a donor gave an unsolicited $2MM/âyear gift that could only be used for Forum stuff, but thatâs not my understanding of EVFâs finances.
I also think criticizing donors is fair game, despite agreeing that their funds are not our money. First, charitable donations are tax advantaged, so as a practical matter those of us who live in the relevant jurisdiction are affected by the choice to donate to some initiative rather than pay taxes on the associated income. I also think criticizing non-EA charitable donors for their grants is fair game for this reason as well.
Second, certain donations can make other EAâs work more difficult. Suppose a donor really wants to pay all employees at major org X Google-level wages. Itâs not our money, and yet such a policy would have real consequences on other orgs and initiatives. Here, I think a pattern of excessive spending on insider-oriented activities, if established, could reasonably be seen as harmful to community values and public perception.
(FWIW, my own view is that spending should be higher than ~$0 but significantly lower than $2MM.)
I think the $500 figure is derived from ($2MM annual spend /â 4000 monthly active users). The only work monthly is doing there is helping define who is a user. So I donât think multiplying the figure by 12 is necessary to provide comparison to Facebook.
That being said, I think thereâs an additional reason the $200 Facebook figure is inflated. If weâre trying to compare apples to apples (except for using revenue as an overstated proxy for expenditure), I suggest that we should only consider the fraction of implied expenses associated with the core Facebook experience that is analogous to the Forum. Thus, we shouldnât consider, e.g., the implied expenditures associated with Facebookâs paid ads function, because the Forum has no real analogous function.
Facebook ARPU (average revenue per user) in North America is indeed crazy high
, but I think misleading as for some reason they include revenues from Whatsapp and Instagram, but only count Facebook users as MAU in the denominator.(edit: I think this doesnât matter that much) Also, they seem to be really good at selling adsIn any case:
I donât think this is a good measure of value, I donât think the average user would pay $200/âyear for Facebook. (I actually think Facebookâs value is plausibly negative for the average user. Some people are paying for tools that limit their use of Facebook/âInstagram, but I guess thatâs beside the point)
Redditâs revenue per user in the US is ~$20 /â user /â year, 10x less
This doesnât take into account the value of the marginal dollar given to the EA Forum. (Maybe 90% of the value is from the first million/âyear?)
Iâm not sure if $6000 is in the same ballpark as $200(edit: oops, see comment below, the number is $500 not $6000)But I strongly agree with your other points, and mostly I think this is a discussion for donors to the EA Forum, not for users. If someone wants to donate $2M to the EA Forum, I wouldnât criticize the forum for it or stop using it. Itâs not my money.
Users might worry about why someone would donate that much to the Forum, and what kind of influence comes with it, but I think thatâs a separate discussion, and Iâm personally not that worried about it. (But of course, Iâm biased as a volunteer moderator)
I think criticizing CEA for the Forum expenditures is fair game. If an expenditure is low-value, orgs should not be seeking funding for it. Donors always have imperfect information, and the act of seeking funding for an activity conveys the organizationâs tacit affirmation that the activity is indeed worth funding. I suppose things would be different if a donor gave an unsolicited $2MM/âyear gift that could only be used for Forum stuff, but thatâs not my understanding of EVFâs finances.
I also think criticizing donors is fair game, despite agreeing that their funds are not our money. First, charitable donations are tax advantaged, so as a practical matter those of us who live in the relevant jurisdiction are affected by the choice to donate to some initiative rather than pay taxes on the associated income. I also think criticizing non-EA charitable donors for their grants is fair game for this reason as well.
Second, certain donations can make other EAâs work more difficult. Suppose a donor really wants to pay all employees at major org X Google-level wages. Itâs not our money, and yet such a policy would have real consequences on other orgs and initiatives. Here, I think a pattern of excessive spending on insider-oriented activities, if established, could reasonably be seen as harmful to community values and public perception.
(FWIW, my own view is that spending should be higher than ~$0 but significantly lower than $2MM.)
I think the $500 figure is derived from ($2MM annual spend /â 4000 monthly active users). The only work monthly is doing there is helping define who is a user. So I donât think multiplying the figure by 12 is necessary to provide comparison to Facebook.
That being said, I think thereâs an additional reason the $200 Facebook figure is inflated. If weâre trying to compare apples to apples (except for using revenue as an overstated proxy for expenditure), I suggest that we should only consider the fraction of implied expenses associated with the core Facebook experience that is analogous to the Forum. Thus, we shouldnât consider, e.g., the implied expenditures associated with Facebookâs paid ads function, because the Forum has no real analogous function.