GiveWell specifically was started with a focus on smaller donors, but there was a always a separation between them and EA.
… I’m confused by what you would mean by early EA then? As the history of the movement is generally told it started by the merger of three strands: GiveWell (which attempt to make charity effectiveness research available for well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners), GWWC (which attempt to convince well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners to give to charity too), and the rationalists and proto-longtermists (not relevant here).
Criticisms of ineffective charities (stereotypically, the Make a Wish Foundation) could be part of that, but they’re specifically the charities well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners tend to donate to when they do donate, I don’t think people were going out claiming the biggest billionaire philanthropic foundations (like, say, well, the Bill Gates Foundation) didn’t knew what to do with their money.
Quickly: 1. Some of this gets into semantics. There are some things that are more “key inspirations for what was formally called EA” and other things that “were formally called EA, or called themselves EA.” GiveWell was highly influential around EA, but I think it was created before EA was coined, and I don’t think they publicly associated as “EA” for some time (if ever). 2. I think we’re straying from the main topic at this point. One issue is that while I think we disagree on some of the details/semantics of early EA, I also don’t think that matters much for the greater issue at hand. “The specific reason why the EA community technically started” is pretty different from “what people in this scene currently care about.”
… I’m confused by what you would mean by early EA then? As the history of the movement is generally told it started by the merger of three strands: GiveWell (which attempt to make charity effectiveness research available for well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners), GWWC (which attempt to convince well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners to give to charity too), and the rationalists and proto-longtermists (not relevant here).
Criticisms of ineffective charities (stereotypically, the Make a Wish Foundation) could be part of that, but they’re specifically the charities well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners tend to donate to when they do donate, I don’t think people were going out claiming the biggest billionaire philanthropic foundations (like, say, well, the Bill Gates Foundation) didn’t knew what to do with their money.
Quickly:
1. Some of this gets into semantics. There are some things that are more “key inspirations for what was formally called EA” and other things that “were formally called EA, or called themselves EA.” GiveWell was highly influential around EA, but I think it was created before EA was coined, and I don’t think they publicly associated as “EA” for some time (if ever).
2. I think we’re straying from the main topic at this point. One issue is that while I think we disagree on some of the details/semantics of early EA, I also don’t think that matters much for the greater issue at hand. “The specific reason why the EA community technically started” is pretty different from “what people in this scene currently care about.”