Paul GrahamVerified account

I see, that makes sense. We did contemplate making Prolific a non-profit back in the day. Decided against it because you're too dependent on other people's mercy. Better to be self-sufficient!

Oligopsony is more accurate.

There seems to be some fundamental law in economics resulting in that and in the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

Influence on non profits is worse, because usually it will be buried under the garb of apparent good deeds, and hence difficult to fathom the real intentions. Especially important to ensure donors have no say. In ancient India, donee never knew the donor who would be anonymous !

But there are in fact many big donors, at least by the standards we use to judge concentration in markets.

This same and maybe even worse applies to research. Federal government dominates - especially fundamental research - and dictates who gets paid and how much.