It could be that 80K shouldn’t recommend highly political charities even if they’re effective. If so, that seems like a PR/communication problem which could be fixed by distancing themselves from the recommendations. They seem to have already done this, but could do it further by making it as clear as possible that they’ve outsourced this recommendation to OpenPhil.
They could also not include them in a document titled “The effective altruism guide to donating this giving season”, a title which implies a high level of endorsement from the movement.
They could also not include them in a document titled “The effective altruism guide to donating this giving season”, a title which implies a high level of endorsement from the movement.
Did you read the intro to that post? They do the exact thing I recommend in the quote you provided.
People in the effective altruism community aim to use evidence and careful reasoning to work out how to best promote the wellbeing of all. To find the highest-impact charities this giving season, they’ve done tens of thousands of hours of research and published over 50,000 words of analysis this month. We read it all, and summed up the main recommendations by area below (not in priority order):
It is the EA guide because they synthesize the recommendations of people in EA. They say this from the outset, which is precisely what I think they should do.
They could also not include them in a document titled “The effective altruism guide to donating this giving season”, a title which implies a high level of endorsement from the movement.
Did you read the intro to that post? They do the exact thing I recommend in the quote you provided.
It is the EA guide because they synthesize the recommendations of people in EA. They say this from the outset, which is precisely what I think they should do.