In the internet age, attention is like oxygen or life. That’s especially true for a charity, but everyone lives on clicks and views, and a common strategy is to trick people into going ‘hey check out this awful thing.’
If they hadn’t been funded, or their name had been obscured by the veto, I wouldn’t have included their name at all (as I didn’t for several others that I mention briefly, but weren’t funded.)
In that case, perhaps copy/paste a longer description of the organization in a footnote, so the reader can figure out what the organization is trying to do, without having to look them up?
This makes some sense. On the other hand, not naming such organizations means you can’t share your skepticism about specific organizations with the rest of us, who might benefit from hearing it.
In the internet age, attention is like oxygen or life. That’s especially true for a charity, but everyone lives on clicks and views, and a common strategy is to trick people into going ‘hey check out this awful thing.’
If they hadn’t been funded, or their name had been obscured by the veto, I wouldn’t have included their name at all (as I didn’t for several others that I mention briefly, but weren’t funded.)
In that case, perhaps copy/paste a longer description of the organization in a footnote, so the reader can figure out what the organization is trying to do, without having to look them up?
This makes some sense. On the other hand, not naming such organizations means you can’t share your skepticism about specific organizations with the rest of us, who might benefit from hearing it.