Amazon closing AmazonSmile to focus its philanthropic giving to programs with greater impact

post by Gordon Seidoh Worley (gworley) · 2023-01-19T01:15:09.693Z · LW · GW · 8 comments

Contents

8 comments

8 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Matt Goldenberg (mr-hire) · 2023-01-19T02:41:00.882Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think that the email doesn't actually support your title - they make no claim of counterfactual focus. It seems more to me like the mention of other programs they're already investing in is trying to signal "hey we're still good, even though we're shutting down this program". I suspect that the decision is probably primarily profit-driven in that running a whole nother version of their website which donates lots of little amounts to tiny charities is a large infrastructure cost.

Replies from: gworley
comment by Gordon Seidoh Worley (gworley) · 2023-01-19T04:52:11.889Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The title of this post is the same title they used for the notice on their website with basically the same text as the email.

Replies from: MondSemmel, pktechgirl
comment by MondSemmel · 2023-01-19T13:39:54.957Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Please don't use PR titles as LW post titles. A factual: "Amazon closes AmazonSmile" would be way better.

comment by Elizabeth (pktechgirl) · 2023-01-19T07:19:02.833Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm surprised to see you quoting that literally? I don't see how we can take their word for that and there's no other evidence source.

Replies from: gworley
comment by Gordon Seidoh Worley (gworley) · 2023-01-20T00:53:34.118Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Eh. I feel like I'm just sharing what they posted because I think people here are interested. I'm not trying to make any claims.

Replies from: Kenny
comment by Kenny · 2023-02-07T18:56:36.637Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think I'd opt to quote the original title in a post here to indicate that it's not a 'claim' being made (by me).

comment by Gordon Seidoh Worley (gworley) · 2023-01-19T01:19:07.207Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

My personal commentary: probably not much of a loss, but directionally sucks. No charity was receiving much money this way as far as I know, but was a nice way to feel a bit better about shopping on Amazon since you got to pick where their charitable giving went, and I'm sure it had some marginal impact for some charities. I'm also sure there's a backstory, like wanting to not be neutral on where the funds go because they leave it up to customers to choose from any registered charity, but that's not present in the announcement.

Replies from: lahwran
comment by the gears to ascension (lahwran) · 2023-01-19T02:02:08.261Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

it probably wasn't coming close to offsetting use of amazon vs less monopolizing/moloch-loving competitors.