You may see it differently having profited but I think good riddance. Shoppers shouldn't get the false sense they're doing something good by buying at Amazon. We spend $100 and they donate 50 cents but the remaining 99.5% of the money is spent in ways that do not benefit us common folk, often to the contrary. Better to be mindful what and where you buy, shopping at Amazon and then letting them do a small donation seems a bit like they're handing out indulgence certificates.

People can make donations in their own name and get tax deductions for it, unlike with Smile where Amazon claims the deductions for itself. And why should a giant multinational corporation decide for us a list of eligible donation receivers? Some of those "charities" are very questionable and I doubt the average customer looks much into if what they do with the money even aligns with their own vision of a better world.

People could donate before Amazon Smile existed why would that increase now it's gone? I'm sure many people like the ease of donating through this program.

Finally the last part of your comment is so disturbing.

"I doubt the average customer looks much into if what they do with the money even aligns with their own vision of a better world."

Why is that disturbing? There are a lot of "non-profit" "charities" that are corrupt.

"I doubt the average customer looks much into if what they do with the money even aligns with their own vision of a better world"

Where does this say anything about corrupt charities.

Says "looks much into if what they do with the money". Corruption means doing bad things with the money, which is what most people don't look much into. Sentences.

> I'm sure many people like the ease of donating through this program.

This is exactly the controversy. Customers are not making donations in these types of programs. Whether a portion of the proceeds are donated or not, the customer pays the same price. Hence, all of it is the retailer's income. The customer only influences to whom the retailer donates and how much. And because the customer is not the donor in the transaction, organizations do not get contact information.

Despite this arrangement, customers often consider themselves a donor anyway, and some have argued this can lead to a reduction in overall donations as a result.

> Finally the last part of your comment is so disturbing.

It is disturbing. Myths abound, and organizations sometimes struggle to educate donors about the basics of philanthropy, especially the larger numbers of donors with smaller pockets.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-amazon-is-smiling-and_b_4...

In the case of AmazonSmile, I think it's hit or miss. Plenty of organizations get paltry payouts. We've averaged less than $20 a quarter since we've been participating over the last four years, and almost of third of those quarters had no payout at all.

How is that even disturbing? Can you elaborate?

That they use their view of the world in order to determine who to donate to

This doesn't make sense to me. Charities arnt just magically forces for good. I'm sure there are a great deal of charities who do things you would consider to be bad things, as their entire mission statement. And I'm sure some of those charities have names that sound very good on a Amazon smile list.

Tax deductions for charitable donations are not a thing everywhere in the world. Here in the UK it kind of is, but the charity has to claim it, ands back 25p on each £1.

But more to your point: I have six committed monthly donors for the PTFA for which I’m treasurer. I have at least a couple dozen individuals signed up for AmazonSmile and Easy Fundraising.

They couldn’t say that because saying it explicitly would hurt their core business

Which is ridiculous. Why would clear communication like that hurt their business?

Because that would lead to more customer outrage than this? What a ridiculous point we've reached as a society if we can't take clear communication and we give incentives to lie to us.

It's not that society, or even we as HN commenters, have decided that "this is fine" because they weren't as blunt as they could have been, but they're minimizing the overall negative emotions. By having excuses and saying they're still donating $x a year, some percentage of readers who would have started to look for products elsewhere will instead go "sad, but the impact is minimal" and likely won't second-guess using Amazon for purchases.

What if we legitimately object to the truth about their motives and/or behavior? Why would it be on us to coddle zillion-dollar corporations? It's not my job to make it easy for them to be terrible.

This announcement falls into a category I like to call “we are closing to serve you better.”

Sounds like one of those convenience fees I have to pay in the US all the time. Very convenient to me to have to pay more!