5% Fundraising

11% Administration

84% Programs and Services

At the bottom of the same sidebar are links to their past financial documents, up to 2010 ( http://www.freetheslaves.net/Document.Doc?id=251 ). In that are their compensations per-employee on page 7 and 8. Of the 12 employees listed, no one received compensation of more than $36,000, and the total compensation for all of them was less than $80,000. Most received zero compensation. The average hours each work per week are also listed, so one can take an educated guess about the corporate structure.

Their total revenue (~$2.9 mil) and expenditure (~$3.1 mil) are listed on page 12. For that year, they operated at a ~$200k loss, leaving them with ~$1.1 mil in assets at the end of the fiscal year. More itemized details are available within.

I think it's good to be skeptical of charitable organizations given the corruption that has been exposed in some non profits. As to why 2010 is the last available? The 2011 returns were due in April 2012. Perhaps they're waiting on approval from the IRS before publishing it. Someone else could chime in here with a better reason.

As for the "don't spend money on <x> until <y> is resolved" mentality...I see it all the time:

"It's such a shame that people spend money on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter when space travel/clean energy/cancer research/etc is such a greater cause..."

The communist anti-capitalism rhetoric of the mid 1900s was similar: comparing the luxuries of the rich against the suffering of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps there was a similar pitch on the capitalist side against communism--I just don't see it.

I think the beauty of this organization (and most non-profits) is that it's based on voluntary participation. They're not forcing anyone to donate. Their emotional manipulation is on par with the typical commercial for weight loss, beer, cologne, anti-depressant medication, etc...and in my opinion, their cause is more noble.

Black and white much? This idea that everything that's anti-capitalist or anti-stupid-ways-we-spend-money is communist is absurd.

The anti-capitalism rhetoric of the "mid-1900's" was a full-on propaganda campaign put out by government agencies and supported by the very real threat of nuclear total annihilation. Comparing a complaint about the stupid ways we spend money and organize our priorities to the Cold War is a bit of a stretch. I fear communist comparisons are becoming the new Godwin's law.

In reality, the guilt mentality discussed above is much more similar to the ultra-realist perspective of the comedy of Louis CK— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk —in that it is ridiculous that we have the immediate concerns that we do, but is, in fact, entirely true, and it's observant and useful to point that out.

It is not, however, communist.

This does not mean that such arguments are not straw manning the issue. However, it does mean that they're more nuanced than whatever the argument is that you're trying to debate with above.

Communism is being described as "A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."[1] Hence, no rulers. Communism in its essence is a form of Anarchist society.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Etymology_and_termino...

(You won't get any refund until you file the full return, you'll get hit with penalties if your estimated payments undershot the actual tax due by very much, and shorter deadlines may apply in particular cases, like people filing from overseas. But most folks can get the full six months.)

Taxes are due in April, usually on the 15th. Income returns and information returns are nominally due in April but the filing deadline can be extended to September. Extending the filing deadline does not extend the deadline for payment, so taxpayers seeking extensions should pay their estimated taxes by April and will receive a refund if they later discover that they overpaid.

A plug for a charity that's three clicks in, and occupies, what, 5% of the copy written for this site, can hardly be considered the main point of the site.

The site is a parody of App.net. Simple as that. He also offers an alternative thing to throw $50 at if you have a spare $50 to throw around.

I'm not sure why the LLC owns the site though.

Probably because it's the most poorly presented social statement... ever. Requiring users to go as far as to try and sign up (with no indication it's anything other than a developers idea of a dumb joke) is... silly.

That's the best position to get someone in to give a few bucks for something good. Even if it's not the full amount of $50.

(Also if you think that $50 can wipe out slavery you're incredibly naïve. At least the return on investment when you spend that $50 on “virtual crap” is more clear. That's why people will continue to spend more money on “virtual crap” rather than charities, however undeniably noble their intentions are.)

I am sponsoring an eight year old boy from Kamrabad Uchcha Vidyalaya (East India) for 20 euros monthly. That includes school material (for the whole class), health insurance (for his whole family) and nutrition support (again for the whole family). And no, I've never seen him personally.

But my sister did when she was a volunteering doctor for one year in his area. I really don't want to argue with you, but I believe that it is less naïve to at least try to help with $50 than not to try it at all.

Now let's back those awesome 3d glasses on kickstarter...!

Came to HN to find my answer. I guess that may work given that app.net users will eventually know what's up.

Yes, "everything" also includes "taking hipster photos of my meals and sharing them with my hipster friends", and that's closer to why I actually signed up, but the implicit claim that $50 towards a project as ambitious as App.net does _nothing_ to solve the world's social ills is very questionable.

50 dollars for social problems, like states that still have death penalty. 50 dollars to allow people to get education and make the world better.

Oh, if everyone who has 50 dollars spare would spend them, we could transform the world into a global utopia by just using what we have and waste anyway. You know what? It could even be done for free if everyone would spend a little of time and his/her skills. Like really, we could just fix problems by moving things around. Best example: Current (as inefficient as it is) food production could RIGHT NOW feed everyone on this planet THRICE(!) (says the WHO, not some random person). It just needs to get there, which also isn't a huge deal if we simply would use the infrastructure we have RIGHT NOW. I don't know, maybe we could even do it without much effort if we would just take use of what's wasted here anyways (because nobody invests into people using that infrastructure, because of the financial crisis that (in a way) forces people to do nothing).

So, if it is that simple, why don't we and change things to finally be able to do something we all want and can be really proud of?

Maybe I am a dumb idiot, but I honestly don't know.

What about getting together and just try to do it? Anything we've got to lose? I mean most people here I guess know to value the experience you get from failing.

Which is an ongoing problem, given perpetual interference by politicians. Consider Sam Kinison's solution: If 10 people pitched in $50 each, they could move one of those people to where the food is.

...and war lords.

It starts with the belief system which is more or less Social Darwinism, even though many people don't want to admit that.

If you can correct that flawed perspective and make the world truly more egalitarian, the next basic problem is figuring out how to create a system or fundamental operating principles for a system which results in holistic efficiency while at the same time supporting local adaptation and evolution.

I was thinking it should have been called 'i had fifty dollars, but i gave it to these people'