The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
This does not help end hunger? It doesn't make a difference to anyone? It does not feed a hungry person? It's not in support of the United Nations World Food Program?
The only part that could be wrong is where he states freerice makes no money off of it, and that would be if he's lying about how much he makes.
Because, at least in this forum, spouting off baseless information is kind of frowned upon.
If RandomEngy had just said "fuck this crazy ass bullshit" I'd agree. But he or she backed up his or her position. You don't have to agree, but (let's just assume he) hasn't shit all over the thread with whining. He made a point. Got stomped on. Defended said point. Got more stomped on. Then shut up. Very polite. And although I enjoy the game I appreciate the perspective.
There are plenty of charities over the years that have been criticized for raising money under certain pretenses, but only donating a small fraction of the money to the cause in question. I don't see why this should be any different.
And as points out, each time someone gets an answer right, which amounts to one new page with multiple ads, they donate the equivalent of 1/100 of 1 cent. I highly doubt that they're only breaking even.
I think the point is that while this is great that it's getting people to do something about hunger, it would be much more effective if you maybe worked an extra hour instead of sat at home and did this and then donating more money to charity. Of course, some people prefer to do this while they should be working, and in that case it's fine by me.
Little Freddie finishes a big piece of chocolate cake. Wanting more and knowing his mom won't allow it, he shrewdly asks her if he can bring some cake next door for his friend Donny. Mom readily agrees and while handing Freddie the piece of cake she praises him for his generosity. As soon as mom walks out of view, Freddie devours most of the cake but is careful to leave a few crumbs to bring to his friend.
Freddie, like most kids who have been taught by their parents not to lie, may feel that he technically did not lie to his mom because he fulfilled his agreement to give some cake, albeit only a few crumbs, to his friend. In AIP's opinion, Freddie did lie, a lie of omission, by failing to inform his mom that he would eat most of the cake that she was led to believe would be for Donny. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court may not agree.
According to a recent Supreme Court case, Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, it is okay if fundraisers keep nearly all the money raised as long as they don't falsely claim that a larger portion of contributions is going to the charity. So fundraisers can avoid getting into trouble with the law by not stating what portion of a donor's money goes to the charity. Just as Freddie can avoid getting into trouble with his mom by avoiding telling her what portion of the cake he gave to Donny.
Basically, the issue in this article is whether or not it's okay to raise money for a worthy cause, where most of the donations you recieve are in the persuit of that cause, while pocketing the bulk of the money for yourself. Technically, you did not lie. However, a false impression has been created.
Of course, there are two main differences between these situations:
1) In the above case, you donate currency. In the case of freerice.com, you donate time and page views. While time and page views might not be worth anything to you, it is worth something to the advertisers. Which means that someone else can quantify a dollar value for what you're giving to them, although you yourself probably cannot.
2) The above charity gets away with it by failing to disclose how much they will give towards the cause, when the given to them is known. In the case of freerice.com, it's the opposite. You know how much rice they will give towards the cause (10 grains.). But you don't know how much you have given them, e.g., what the average click will generate for them in ad revenue.
However, before we can go about comparing the differences, we should first look at the similarities. Can we agree that underlying conflict about raising money under false pretenses is wrong? If not, then we should focus on that. If so, then we should look at whether or not the differences are enough to modify our judgement.
No, we get what you're trying to say. But if you're arguing that this is why you've defending RE's position, you have to actually give some evidence that freerice.com is engaging in this practice. If you don't have any, then there's really no reason to bring it up.
It's a way to kill time, and simultaneously donate a little food to some hungry people(through the collective power of thousands of people playing at the same time). I have a hard time believing anyone is playing this for 10 minutes and then running around telling everybody they've done their part to end world hunger.
IloroKamou on
"There are some that only employ words for the purpose of disguising their thoughts."
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
No, we get what you're trying to say. But if you're arguing that this is why you've defending RE's position, you have to actually give some evidence that freerice.com is engaging in this practice. If you don't have any, then there's really no reason to bring it up.
Well, if they're not actually registered as a charity, that's pretty damning.
No, we get what you're trying to say. But if you're arguing that this is why you've defending RE's position, you have to actually give some evidence that freerice.com is engaging in this practice. If you don't have any, then there's really no reason to bring it up.
Well, if they're not actually registered as a charity, that's pretty damning.
They might not be a non-profit, but for-profit charities certainly exist. The Republican party is a prime example.
You don't have to have an all-volunteer employee base to be designated non-profit. The only thing that makes it "non-profit" is that creating profit is not it's purpose. The issue here with freerice is that the rate they are donating at may be far from optimal, if the ad revenue is enough. It's absolutely legal, but perhaps not so ethical.
I know that when I've worked/volunteered for charities in the past, there were a lot of people who wanted to believe that all charities were actually evil cons in order to feel better about how little (me included) of our wealth we give away.
Frankly, it's starting to remind me of the rape law thread. The percentage of these things which are cons is very very small, and those who worry about getting ripped off overly are, to me, in the same league as people who won't give money to homeless beggars 'because they'll just spend it on booze'.
In order for a valid analogy, the game maker would need to market his game under a comparable premise. For instance, if the maker of absolute poker managed to rake in millions of dollars, but he "only" donated a small fraction of that money to charity, I seriously doubt anyone would complain. Because he's not using charity efforts to draw in visitors. The reason that people are complaining in this case is because it's called freerice.com, and because the guy is trying to market himself and his visitors as major humanitarians.
It goes both ways. If the site was named "freevocabulary.com", it would receive far less visitors and thus feed fewer people. One could make the case that the site is using charity efforts the draw in visitors because that is the best way to feed as many people as possible.
Look, the fact is, we don't really know his expenses, his exact deal with the United Nations, and how much revenue he is gaining from the ads, and how much profit he makes. It's all guess-work. Trying to base arguments on guess-work is dumb.
But hey, this goes to show that there will always be someone out there complaining about something. It is, after all, their job: to complain.
Look, the fact is, we don't really know his expenses, his exact deal with the United Nations, and how much revenue he is gaining from the ads, and how much profit he makes. It's all guess-work. Trying to base arguments on guess-work is dumb.
Well, each click is worth about 1/100th of one cent, assuming they get the answer right. And there are at least three ads per page, from two different sources.
If the click-through rate was 0.1%, and they made ten cents per click, then they would be breaking even. If the click-through was 1%, and the made ten cents per click, then they're pulling in ten times as much money as they donate.
I'll admit, I don't know much about web finances. But perhaps someone else can tell me what a realistic estimate might be? Yes, we don't know enough to damn them in a court of law, but we might know enough to say that something is fishy.
Schrodinger on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Posts
The only part that could be wrong is where he states freerice makes no money off of it, and that would be if he's lying about how much he makes.
And as points out, each time someone gets an answer right, which amounts to one new page with multiple ads, they donate the equivalent of 1/100 of 1 cent. I highly doubt that they're only breaking even.
49, but words are my job.
Also I'm whoring this site to my students and teachers.
Basically, the issue in this article is whether or not it's okay to raise money for a worthy cause, where most of the donations you recieve are in the persuit of that cause, while pocketing the bulk of the money for yourself. Technically, you did not lie. However, a false impression has been created.
Of course, there are two main differences between these situations:
1) In the above case, you donate currency. In the case of freerice.com, you donate time and page views. While time and page views might not be worth anything to you, it is worth something to the advertisers. Which means that someone else can quantify a dollar value for what you're giving to them, although you yourself probably cannot.
2) The above charity gets away with it by failing to disclose how much they will give towards the cause, when the given to them is known. In the case of freerice.com, it's the opposite. You know how much rice they will give towards the cause (10 grains.). But you don't know how much you have given them, e.g., what the average click will generate for them in ad revenue.
However, before we can go about comparing the differences, we should first look at the similarities. Can we agree that underlying conflict about raising money under false pretenses is wrong? If not, then we should focus on that. If so, then we should look at whether or not the differences are enough to modify our judgement.
It's a way to kill time, and simultaneously donate a little food to some hungry people(through the collective power of thousands of people playing at the same time). I have a hard time believing anyone is playing this for 10 minutes and then running around telling everybody they've done their part to end world hunger.
Well, if they're not actually registered as a charity, that's pretty damning.
Geeze I need to go read some books. In Sanskrit.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And time absolutely does equal money.
Yeah thats a great idea! I'll do that right now! *Never gets around to doing it*
Frankly, it's starting to remind me of the rape law thread. The percentage of these things which are cons is very very small, and those who worry about getting ripped off overly are, to me, in the same league as people who won't give money to homeless beggars 'because they'll just spend it on booze'.
It goes both ways. If the site was named "freevocabulary.com", it would receive far less visitors and thus feed fewer people. One could make the case that the site is using charity efforts the draw in visitors because that is the best way to feed as many people as possible.
Look, the fact is, we don't really know his expenses, his exact deal with the United Nations, and how much revenue he is gaining from the ads, and how much profit he makes. It's all guess-work. Trying to base arguments on guess-work is dumb.
But hey, this goes to show that there will always be someone out there complaining about something. It is, after all, their job: to complain.
I put forward whatever the assumption of factchecking NPR does as suggestive evidence.
Well, each click is worth about 1/100th of one cent, assuming they get the answer right. And there are at least three ads per page, from two different sources.
If the click-through rate was 0.1%, and they made ten cents per click, then they would be breaking even. If the click-through was 1%, and the made ten cents per click, then they're pulling in ten times as much money as they donate.
I'll admit, I don't know much about web finances. But perhaps someone else can tell me what a realistic estimate might be? Yes, we don't know enough to damn them in a court of law, but we might know enough to say that something is fishy.
Oxfam takes credit cards online. Very easy to donate. They also set up monthly donations, which are pretty convenient.