
Do Designers Actually Exploit The Poor While Trying To Do Good? - dwynings
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665635/do-designers-actually-exploit-the-poor-while-trying-to-do-good-jan-chipchase-responds
======
_dps
I enjoyed the piece and it echoed several thoughts I've had about the non-
profit model (and in general, the "do good" model of design/innovation which
poses many interesting ethical questions).

I thought I'd comment on one common sleight-of-hand I see in talking about
these projects (I say this as someone who has been active in several
charity/non-profit activities). The line about a non-profit organization's
"commitment [not to be evil]" being "written in law" is really a fig leaf;
there's very little in the law aside from a requirement that you not disburse
excess revenues, and that you follow various accounting and reporting
standards. Google's non-legal "don't be evil" directly implies things like
"don't abuse our users", whereas there is no legal requirement that a non-
profit not offer something potentially abusive like DRM'd mp3s (or whatever
pet abuse you might imagine).

Somehow the state-sanctioned non-profit status seems to flip a "do-goodery"
bit in a lot of people's minds even though it's primarily an accounting,
reporting, and financial restriction rather than a behavioral one.

