Amazon's Charity 'AmazonSmile' Funds Anti-Vaccine Groups (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian: Amazon appears to be helping fund anti-vaccine not-for-profit organizations through its charity arm, the AmazonSmile Foundation. The AmazonSmile fundraising program -- through which Amazon donates 0.5% of the purchase price of a shopper's Amazon transactions to an organization of their choice -- is promoted on the websites of four prominent anti-vaccine organizations... Numerous other anti-vaccine organizations are also listed by Amazon as eligible for the donations.

Amazon's donations are just the latest example of how US tech companies have -- wittingly or not -- helped to promote and finance the anti-vaccine movement... Not-for-profit organizations are key players in the anti-vaccine movement in the U.S.

Comments

Must be a 501(c)(3) charity

[jfdavis668]

To receive donations, the organization must be a 501(c)(3) public charitable organization. If these groups get approved by the IRS for this status, it would be hard for Amazon to stop it.

Re:Must be a 501(c)(3) charity

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, they could remove it from the options of their system on a whim. The 501 status has nothing to do with whether or not Amazon offers that option, it's at their own discretion entirely.

Re:Hate Groups

[bferrell]

Maybe because anti-vaxer stupidity has triggered extremely dangerous outbreaks of disease?

Just a thought.

Well, customer stupidity is good for business

[gweihir]

This is just one instance where this becomes glaringly obvious. Personally, I would not mind so much that a lot of people are complete morons. But the anti-vaxxers do harm others and that is not acceptable.

Re:Well, customer stupidity is good for business

[gweihir]

But the anti-vaxxers do harm others and that is not acceptable.

You see this argument a lot. What it leaves is the question of why you don't trust the vaccine you got?

First, the measles vaccine is known to "only" be 97% effective. Second, there are children too young to be vaccinated and third, some people cannot be vaccinated because of medical issues. Also, herd immunity for Measles is at 93...95%, so there is not a lot of margin. Also, who said they would harm me? I find it completely unacceptable that some people have the arrogance to endanger others without any good arguments on their side. I think we need these restrictions on non-vaccinated (by choice) people as well, for example no access to public places like schools, restaurants, shops, etc.

And if they block "your choice"...

[WoodstockJeff]

... it kind of defeats the "charity of your choice" nature of the program. "Your choice of the charities we approve of" isn't what they advertise.

Re:And if they block "your choice"...

[Gavagai80]

If I choose to have Amazon donate to the charitable wing of Islamic State (which kills fewer Americans than anti-vaxxers), then they should?

Re:40 years ago

[GameboyRMH]

40 years of generously giving these nutjobs a seat at the debate table under the "marketplace of ideas" school of thought, and then social media connecting these sparsely spread nutjobs together and giving them a megaphone.

Do you hear yourself???

[SuperKendall]

Bullshit, they could remove it from the options of their system on a whim.

Holy shit are you even listening to your own words.

Yes they could remove anything "on a whim". So maybe someone who works there decides to remove pro-gay charities "on a whim". Or a charity giving aid to refugees...

Once you start doing things "on a whim" it ends badly for everyone.

What is you damage that you even care if these groups get money? Don't like it, contribute or form a pro-vaccination group and get out the word! Don't start blocking out everything you personally find wrong or crazy for anyone else to view.

Re:40 years ago

[omnichad]

The vaccines worked too well. There's very little living memory of just how bad these diseases were or the relative risk compared to potential vaccine complications.