You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
This isn't to criticise anti-malaria efforts, but to respond to the ideology of 'effective altruistm' which claims that it's "doing the most good" while mostly focusing on shallow metrics that ignore deeper structural problems in society.
But isn't this just making an argument to continue with utilitarianism, while making deeper predictions about the likely impact of either course of action? I.e. the problem is the shallow metrics, not the utilitarianism.
I realise that malaria nets was just an example, but on the issue of malaria in particular, it's been proposed that the disease could be eradicated within 30 years. That seems like a structural change that could have an effect on billions of lives over the coming centuries.
I agree, eradicating Malaria is something very worthwhile. I have no issue with people fighting against Malaria. I have issue with people who say "fighting Malaria should overshadow any attempt at justice reform because of this one metric". (Sadly, I've spoken to a few this week)
This is why I distinguish "utilitarianism" - the specific informal methodology loosely based on the von neumann axioms, from "consequentialism" which is the broader philosophical tradition in which utilitarianism is situated.
I hadn't heard of consequentialism before, but I would be broadly supportive of that sort of analysis. It gets problematic when an unequal burden lands on one group in the short ("predictable") term for a greater benefit in the long ("speculative") term.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
