That made me notice that I hadn't heard much about effective altruism lately (but isn't it always hard to notice what is not being said?).
I went looking for recent SBF stories that talked about effective altruism. Hard to find anything — that is, I found the absence of talk — but I did find this at CoinDesk: "Sam Bankman-Fried Demonstrates Ineffective Altruism at Its Worst/The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
That sounds like it's going to be the he-did-it-wrong "bleat" that the Metafilter commenter was predicting, but it's not:
[SBF] pledged to pursue “effective altruism” by donating most of this wealth to popular causes... [B]y skipping the effort of honestly earning the money he gave away (or which he spent on lavish properties, celebrity endorsements, stadium naming rights and sponsorships of extravagant galas), [SBF] never actually performed a genuinely altruistic deed. These good intentions were a major part of the publicity campaign that differentiated his company from its competitors.... If the pressure to appear altruistic was not so important, SBF might actually have focused his efforts on laying the foundation of building a sound business....
Here's the Wikipedia article "Effective altruism." SBF shows up in the first paragraph:
Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis." People who pursue the goals of effective altruism, called effective altruists, may choose careers based on the amount of good that they expect the career to achieve or donate to charities based on the goal of maximising impact.... Philosophers influential to the movement include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill. Prior to late 2022, a major funder of the movement was Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, though the bankruptcy of FTX was a source of controversy and criticism of the movement.
পোস্টগুলি
৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
[B]y skipping the effort of honestly earning the money he gave away (or which he spent on lavish properties, celebrity endorsements, stadium naming rights and sponsorships of extravagant galas), [SBF] never actually performed a genuinely altruistic deed.
They left off the Democratic Party, of which he was one of the largest donors.
This was also not an altruistic deed.
His parents got and kept millions. They used him. And they certainly are planning the ineffective assistance of counsel appellate argument.
Prediction: Joe Biden will pardon SBF. He’s been paid millions in crypto.
Remember this prediction.
Soon he will be able to practice effective altruism in prison.
"If the pressure to appear altruistic was not so important, SBF might actually have focused his efforts on laying the foundation of building a sound business...."
Hahahahah. C'mon. Really?
It's part of the faith in technology and commerce to say: the finite deaths and suffering we inflict today cannot compare to the infinite improvements in longevity and comfort we will deliver in the future.
I’m so glad I’ve never heard of ‘effective altruism’ until now. Fortunately it sounds like it will be gone soon…
I learned about Effective Altruism from discussions at Less Wrong and Scott Alexander's place back in the 2000's. It well pre-dates SBF. It has two parts: 1) do a business analysis of charity, so for example score how many lives are saved by $100 to mosquito nets vs the Metropolitan Opera. 2) The other was to live your own life so as to maximize the money you have to give to mosquito nets. I agree with #1, for #2 I think it misses the importance of having a family that will continue the mission. I don't know how SBF's disgrace discredits it any more than Bernie Madoff discredited Judaism. Predators look for a disguise. I guess one possible critique is that EA is a movement of atheists, and distrusts religious charities, while I think religious charities are the safest from exploitation, at least when the staff actually believes their religion. I'm pretty sure the people I know in Catholic Relief Services are the real deal. It might be easier for snakes like SBF to slither into an atheist movement. Easier to fake believing?
I can just hear SBF’s legal ethics professor screaming at one of Biden’s people, “We paid for a pardon!”
Joe won’t be running for re-election. He’s in his 80s. He’s the worst President in US history. Openly corrupt. Why not pardon SBF? Not like it will ruin his reputation.
The only effective altruism, I know of, is finding poor people who need money and giving it to them.
Oso Negro said...
"Soon he will be able to practice effective altruism in prison."
Can I make a shank for ya?
It's just a veneer to make amazing personal wealth seem like something that you're actually doing for the long-term good of society. "Someday I'll put some of this money towards non-business projects that sound interesting, and I'll call them socially useful."
Scott Alexander, the logorrheic and painfully earnest writer at Slate Star Codex has been a strong advocate / useful idiot for these guys.
More things not discussed:
1. Who is on Jeffrey Epstein's list?
2. What was in the Nasville shooter's manifesto?
3. What was the Las Vegas shooter's motive?
4. Where was the military after the Lahaina fire?
5. What's the likelihood that ballot counting in the 2020 election would legitimately stop in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions -- and only in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions -- in multiple key swing states -- and only in key swing states -- at the same time with the same claim that counting would restart in the morning causing Republican observers to leave for the night, only to all restart in the middle of the night with huge, statistically improbable ballot dumps in favor of Biden?
I am sure there are other things that could be added to the list.
Prior to late 2022, a major funder of the movement was Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, though the bankruptcy of FTX was a source of controversy and criticism of the movement. [My emphasis]
As it certainly should be. There’s a reason why it’s called fiduciary duty.
I don't think Biden can afford, politically, to pardon SBF, unless he's on his way out of office after the election. Obama might have gotten away with it, though. The thing about Effective Altruism is that there usually is some indication that altrusim has actually manifested somewhere, and it's done something. All SBF managed to accomplish is a teenager's Fantasy Island dream house, with lots of embezzlement for the purpose of lifestyle and influence-peddling. I guess if there was such a thing as a political charity, that is, a charity for needy politicians, then he could be said to be a devoted practitioner.
I just finished Ron Chernow's biography of John D. Rockefeller -- if you want to identify a person who truly practiced what we now call "effective altruism," it was he. After accumulating his huge fortune, Rockefeller was committed to giving it away, but always with a laser focus on what his donation could achieve. He just didn't write checks willy-nilly. Everyone knows that he underwrote the University of Chicago, but his donations also revolutionized medical education in the US, which prior to his involvement was shockingly primitive and unscientific. The book has plenty more examples.
Remember this prediction.
Nope. What has already happened is that someone in this administration has spoken to someone, who spoke to someone, who dropped a word or two in someone’s ear, who talked very briefly to the judge. Bankman-Fried potentially faces 110 years in prison — he probably won’t see 110 weeks. And he won’t be serving time in a Supermax like Florence, it’ll be in some low security “country club” prison that the government maintains around the country.
You have to live in or around Washington, DC, for a while to become sufficiently cynical.
@Crack. The only effective altruism is not to give money to the poor, it’s to teach the poor how to be self-sustaining.
I haven't followed this dude's story except insofar as I know he has to do with crypto and has wacky hair. I have no idea whether he's one of the New Atheists.
But this Effective Altruism thing sounds right up their alley. Whenever I listen to Harris (it's usually Harris; he, like Jordan Peterson, does talk a lot) talking about an atheist moral code, I think, "Taking a lot on yourself, aren't you, buddy?"
The entire idea seems to be that through reason alone, you can determine a rational basis for morality. If you put human beings, the thoughtful ones, of course, at the top of the moral hierarchy, then as long as you direct your thoughts toward human thriving, you will be able both to create a set of rules that will keep all people on the moral straight and narrow most of the time, and deal with any tricky moral situations that arise in the moment.
Human thriving: that's the ticket.
So, if you think humans (the ones who are left, anyway) will thrive better if the human population is cut in half - more resources to go around, don't you know - that's cool, isn't it? And you don't have to murder anyone to get there - you can do it through attrition. But the old, those no longer productive and no longer needed for their wisdom since the world changes too fast for them to process anyway, those people can be encouraged to take themselves out of the picture a little early. Hasten the thriving.
If you think Trump is a demon (which Harris doesn't, because he doesn't believe in demons, but his remarks on Trump would certainly lead a rational person to wonder whether Harris is entirely rational on this subject), then, to advance human thriving, shouldn't you do all in your power to defeat him? And you don't have to murder him, you can just gut the media and social media so that only anti-Trump, pro-your-version-of-human-thriving messages are elevated. People will come to their own conclusions... with a little help. You can deal with what you wrought on the communications system later.
If you think human thriving will be furthered by a vegan diet, what actions can you justify? If you think human thriving will be furthered by women's being compelled to care for children throughout their adult lives - maybe their own, maybe not; rationality will give you that answer if you just keep thinking about it - what actions can you justify?
Effective Altruism sounds like "what I think will inevitably be the best thing to do, because I am a Thinker." Eugenics, anyone? Also, circular much?
"... John D. Rockefeller...."
There's a big difference between a man who pursued business goals, got rich, and *then* turned to philanthropy and a man who sought money for the sake of giving it away.
I have skimmed the title twice now as "effective autism." Seems more applicable.
I think the theory of effective altruism is that some people are better at piling up money than at directly performing activism, so those people should concentrate on piling up money to transfer to others who are better at doing the activism. It's not effective to just have a lot of activists, including a lot of people who could put their time into raking in money to fund the activism.
"Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis.""
"Effective altruism," the same as regular altruism but with a dash of quant pomposity thrown in.
Its interesting/predictable that so much of SBF's effective altruism involved lining the pockets of the usual political grifters.
sbf not only filled the dems coffers but helped sabotage the ivm and hcq therapies,
Add to the list of total b.s., along with crypto currency, SBF, and the concept of "effective altruism" now also "philosophers influential to the movement" for effective altruism.
As for the idea of someone "who sought money for the sake of giving it away," please. Diogenes with his lamp couldn't find a one.
My choice for great benefactor would be Andrew Carnegie. Made money the old-fashioned way (including even screwing over his workers) but then used it to give towns and cities all across the land very nice libraries. Where they could read and improve themselves and find out about all the people in history who did actual good. Not a one of whom was an effective altruist.
Jim Cramer posted that he would be found innocent yesterday @ 9am.
You could make a good living shorting Cramer
Do you want to know when the last time American blue collar workers on a single salary could afford to buy homes and send their kids to college? It was when the effective tax rate was 80% for wealthy people. Forced altruism is more effective.
Does a simple concept like effective altruism really need its own fancy name? Isn't it just the commonsense notion that charitable giving should focus on causes that deliver the most bang for the buck?
Also, what difference does it make if someone makes a lot of money with the original purpose in mind of giving a lot of it to charity vs. making a lot of money for other reasons and then giving a lot of it to charity? The only things that matter in this regard are how much money did you give to charity in absolute terms and perhaps how much did you give in proportion to your wealth.
The more middlemen between you and the ultimate target of your philanthropy, the more likely your donations will be stolen. It really is that simple.
And I will add this- any charity whose goal is not the direct aiding of the poor or unfortunate individuals of the world is 100% a grifting operation.
“There's a big difference between a man who pursued business goals, got rich, and *then* turned to philanthropy and a man who sought money for the sake of giving it away.”
What you are saying, then, is that there is no redemption, you must be perfect before the fact, perfection after the fact does not count.
But this big difference is not a real world effect, because your example of the rich turned good vs the good turned rich have exactly the same effect on helping people. It is only a moral distinction. But would you not consider it cheap virtue for someone to say in advance, I am poor but when I get rich I am going to help people? And if they did do this over a lifetime, how would you know, unless they made a record in advance proving they said it, and that would not be a good moral thing to do, but only preening.
I'd never heard, specifically, of "effective altruism" before SBF was busted; sounds like a clinical term to describe something which has always been around -- individuals using their wealth for the common good in some fashion. What strikes me as weird about this case is that SBF doesn't seem to hold any rational conception that what he did was wrong.
I truly believe that the most effective and moral “activism” is when the poor widow puts her small coin in the donation box. Rich people donating money don’t put themselves out. When Warren or Bill or Al Gore give out so much money that they have to move to a one flat and walk to the quickie mart I might consider them altruists. And giving money to political parties is never altruistic.
The most altruistic person I can think of is Andrew Carnegie, building free libraries for the common person in the early 20 th century when books were expensive is the greatest of gifts. I had a Carnegie built library in my town as a lower class kid and I was there once a week.
Yes, Howard, and the LA smog of the 1970s could have been alleviated by going back to the cars of the 1930s.
To be more clear: correlation<>causation, and starting conditions play a huge role.
"There's a big difference between a man who pursued business goals, got rich, and *then* turned to philanthropy and a man who sought money for the sake of giving it away."
Hmm.... searching the memory banks for an example of the latter....
I was looking for an example so that I could form a comparison of 'effectiveness'. Not saying they're not out there, but they're certainly not showing or placing in the race.
counting would restart in the morning causing Republican observers to leave for the night, only to all restart in the middle of the night with huge, statistically improbable ballot dumps in favor of Biden
A painful way to learn what we were all told as children: You snooze you lose.
Dave Begley:
Prediction: Joe Biden will pardon SBF. He’s been paid millions in crypto.
So, something akin to the Deutsche Marks after WWII unless you're purchasing something like stolen goods or drugs or.... Wait... Hunter...
why all the obfustration around Bankman-Fried? THis guy was a crook and a liar. He stole peoples money and then tried to bribe politicians with it.
But he had the right politics and the right views (son of Two leftwing Stanford Law Professors) on everything, so we're supposed to feel sorry for him.
Yeah, he took a "Shortcut", but his heart was in the right place. Sorta like Epstein. A good guy who just cut some corners.
Incredible.
"If the pressure to appear altruistic was not so important, SBF might actually have focused his efforts on laying the foundation of building a sound business...."
I agree with boatbuilder: Really?
This is a purposeful reversing of cause and effect:
"He wanted a cover for his planned theft, so he chose to appear altruistic."
If SBF’s legion of lawyers and PR flacks had any skill they’d have recast him as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and effectively, altruistically giving to the poor.
Just to make it more clear. Bankman-Fried wasn't giving money to charity and pols because his heart was in the right place, he was bribing the Pols and trying to win goodwill and cover for his fraud.
How many people ended up getting ripped off because they believed his company was legitimate and OK because they saw its charitable contributions and Tv commercials with Lovable spokesmen.
"he-did-it-wrong"
Always the prog fallback. Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Chavez, they "did-it-wrong." Next time, we'll do it right.
No more "pinning the weasel" (DO NOT google this) for him. Now he's gonna be the weasel!
Honestly, he'd probably cozy up to some bull nazi in a prison minute just to get a keister-stashed cell phone with a pay-by-minute plan. The lack of internet will kill him in 24 months.
The Crack Emcee:
The only effective altruism, I know of, is finding poor people who need money and giving it to them.
Agreed, but only if they use it for something other than drugs, which has been done.
The Crack Emcee:
Can I make a shank for ya?
I don't think this boy has that kind of talents. I think it will be a much more intimate altruism.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat drinking beer all day.
Humperdink said...
@Crack. The only effective altruism is not to give money to the poor, it’s to teach the poor how to be self-sustaining.
Sure as a long-term goal that is the priority, but in the meantime make sure they have a hot meal, clothes and a roof over their head.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat drinking beer all day.
Ann Althouse:
There's a big difference between a man who pursued business goals, got rich, and *then* turned to philanthropy and a man who sought money for the sake of giving it away.
Yes there is, but in neither case is that describing SBF.
Howard:
Do you want to know when the last time American blue collar workers on a single salary could afford to buy homes and send their kids to college? It was when the effective tax rate was 80% for wealthy people. Forced altruism is more effective.
Now do the effective tax rate on the blue collar worker in the same time period and see the real reason along with inflation of college fees.
There's some enforced altruism.
See: Robin Hood Foundation. Leftists and rightists like me both have the same critique.
"Will this scatter the Effective Altruism herd? Or will they bleat that he Did It Wrong, and the movement can never fail only be failed by the weak, &c.?"
Substitute Communism, Socialism or Big Government and you have the left's views.
"Do you want to know when the last time American blue collar workers on a single salary could afford to buy homes and send their kids to college?"
It was also just before the Democrats flooded the country with illegal aliens.
"Howard said...
Do you want to know when the last time American blue collar workers on a single salary could afford to buy homes and send their kids to college? It was when the effective tax rate was 80% for wealthy people. Forced altruism is more effective."
80% was the nominal tax rate (actually 91% during the Eisenhower years). However, due to tax loopholes the rich did not pay anything close to that tax rate. The top 1 percent of income earners paid an average effective income tax rate of 16.9 percent in the 1950s, according to data compiled by the Tax Foundation from a 2017 paper by economics professors. That figure includes all federal, state and local income taxes.
https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-taxes-eisenhower-1950s/
For-profit altruism, non-profit effect, with empathetic appeal.
Affordable caring with shared, progressive prices ("inflation") is government dominion.
Forced altruism is more effective.
Slavery? Perhaps diversity, too. How very Democratic.
@Dave Begley. Yep, remember Clinton pardoned Marc Rich.
Anyone who thinks Bankman-Fried did what he did with good intentions should stop breathing now and save us some oxygen. It was always a political embezzlement and graft scheme.
in the meantime make sure they have a hot meal, clothes and a roof over their head.
And, I would add, explicit instruction on how to gain and retain these things.
We had a very interesting speaker at a weekly Lent speaker series at my church some years ago, who pointed out the difference between the life skills that the non-poor learn versus the life skills that the poor learn - and gave us, the non-poor, some humbling examples of things we wouldn't know how to do if we were suddenly rendered poor. (Because generally speaking, lifelong poverty doesn't "just happen," one could have a reasonable expectation that a non-poor person who had not been born into f-you wealth could learn poverty-related life skills pretty quickly, but it would still be a very disconcerting experience.)
So, similarly, it could help a born-poor person, or a person who oscillates along the poor/non-poor boundary through life, to be shown and taught the skills that help people stay on the easier side of that boundary: budgeting, paying bills on time, not using credit for anything if possible but only for absolute essentials if not (and what constitutes "absolute essentials"), places where economizing gives the greatest benefit, impulse control (to the extent that it can be taught). It's paternalistic, but it might be helpful to the non-addicted, mentally stable newly housed.
Growing up rich, it seems to me, doesn't prepare you well for being poor; growing up poor doesn't prepare you for being rich. Growing up somewhere in the middle class can be useful, but doesn't solve all your problems, if you find yourself at either extreme.
Humperdink said...
"@Crack. The only effective altruism is not to give money to the poor, it’s to teach the poor how to be self-sustaining."
I think (most of) the poor know that, but they gotta eat. Prioritizing, like that, is why they do better at handling their problems.
Here, I can think of my own education growing up, with teachers trying to tell me something, while outside of the door - not the school grounds, mind you, but their classroom door - more bullet-written chaos was going on than even they knew, starting with rapes in the bathroom and gangsters, waiting in the hallway, to rob the students as soon as class was over. Now, what do you think the teacher's priority was? Arithmetic - or developing a strategy for me to get out of there intact? What do you think their priority should've been? What do you think MY priority actually was? Put it this way: I'm still here, but I'm poor and still suck at math. And can't you just see me, getting a bad grade, as I did my best under the circumstances? Even Thomas Sowell talks about the tragedy that results, after people get put in situations they're not ready for, by well-meaning outsiders trying to "help," who eventually give up, or even make more trouble, because they didn't make room for the reality of the poor person's life.
A poor person may have to move or something - before they do anything else - in order to have a chance at survival. If you put somebody else in charge of their money, they may not grasp what the true order of that person's priorities are, and the poor usually get penalized for what others don't understand.
All I say is, if you're going to give, find someone worth investing in and give generously - because, no matter who it is, mistakes will be made. But - as anyone can see - that's not a problem for Elon Musk when it happens to him. So just assume more is needed than thought.
“A painful way to learn what we were all told as children: You snooze you lose.”
Yes when honest people believe the lies of corrupt election officials we all loose. In machine politics you either become your enemy or you loose, the honest Joe is a sucker. The courts won’t help you. This is the source of vigilance committees.
@ The Vault Dweller. True, it is a given you must feed and care for them while you’re nurturing them into a sustainable lifestyle. Unfortunately, in my experience in dealing with the poor and otherwise homeless individuals, a substantial portion are not interested in a long term plan. They are comfortable in their current situation. A spiritual awaking can be successful. I’ve witnessed it personally.
FTX was an exchange not a bank, all customer deposits should have been backed 1-to-1. He was collateralizing trades in Alameda using FTX's own token and then directing FTX client deposits into Alameda.
Up to 1m customers lost everything. I hope the court throws the book at him.
Remember, when you wonder what the point of crypto is beyond money laundering, buying fentanyl precursors and worse on the internet, and participating in a Ponzi scheme, they will always counter with: "you don't get it."
Oligonicella said...
"Agreed, but only if they use it for something other than drugs, which has been done."
Americans force Pharmacies to carry drugs that do not work, and thinks harshly of people for taking drugs that do. Bizarre. If drugs are not someone's problem, then I see no reason to make drug use a condition for helping them. In a society drenched in drugs.
People take drugs for all sorts of reasons, including addressing their real concerns. Which you may not be aware of. And they may not want to tell you. And there's nothing wrong with that: Everyone has a right to a private life. Don't make matters worse.
Jamie said...
"It could help a born-poor person, or a person who oscillates along the poor/non-poor boundary through life, to be shown and taught the skills that help people stay on the easier side of that boundary: budgeting, paying bills on time, not using credit for anything if possible but only for absolute essentials if not (and what constitutes "absolute essentials"), places where economizing gives the greatest benefit, impulse control (to the extent that it can be taught). It's paternalistic, but it might be helpful to the non-addicted, mentally stable newly housed."
Asking someone you care about what they need, and know, never hurt nobody. But, like I said, they may not tell you everything. Determining life skills late-in-life can be tricky. I'm a foster child who didn't know how to cook until I was in my 50s. How'd that happen? In foster home kitchens, boys are usually used for chopping things and washing dishes, if used at all. So I've had more cafeteria-style meals than most people, and I went into the Navy right afterwards, so that just continued for years after that. I also can be a slightly-intimidating presence, so, when my lack of culinary talents were noticed, most of my friends and lovers used my inability, and even my efforts to try, as a reason to lightly poke and humiliate me. So I made an effort to keep it to myself. For decades.
And then, one day, for some reason in conversation, I mentioned "I can't cook" to a black friend, and he was the first person not to treat it as a weapon or a joke or anything. He seemed to take it personal that someone of my caliber could go through life without this valuable tool. He took me home, showed me some basics, a few new ways to think about food, and stayed in touch - because he cared. ("What are we eating today?") Easy Peezy. Now I can have a few ketchup packets, a celery, stick, and a wad of gum and whip up a meal (and if one of you bastards comes back with "That's a lie" I swear to God,...)
If you think the first thing someone's gonna do is try to put rims on a car, that's probably a red flag not to do anything at all. But helping someone is not trying to run their lives. It's plugging the holes in their boat, so the joy of sailing is available to all. Assuming they can swim.
1. SBF is a crook, no kind of altruist. He lived a fantasy life enabled by his parents (a type now dominant at once-respectable Stanford).
2. re: Very High Marginal Tax Rates...Richard has it right, as has been well known to anyone who cared to look since the 60s. I am sick of people making the argument around "effective tax rate around 80%.." Only an innumerate or mendacious person could make that argument.
Althouse @ 8:42 a.m.,
Why in the world are you conflating altruism and activism?
Sternhammer,
You are correct about Catholic Relief Services. They do not engage in "effective altruism", they are troubled by a similar malady called "pathological altruism".
"Why in the world are you conflating altruism and activism?"
"Activism" is "The policy of active participation or engagement in a particular sphere of activity; spec. the use of vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change" (OED).
I am using the word to distinguish one type of altruism from another. There is just contributing money — which is what "effective altruism" amounts to — and there is being personally active in the do-gooding.
Yeah, you read right past that dictionary abbreviation 'spec.'
"Effective Altruism" is a phrase with at least 3 meanings.
From a philosophical perspective, it's simply the view that we should maximize the good we do with the limited amount of charity money we have. To me, this is transparently obvious. We should examine the charities we donate to, and make sure they're doing something that is both worthwhile and reasonably efficient. There's a scientific bent to this as well, where EAers believe that you can assign numerical "scores" to various types of outcomes to compare, for example, building migrant housing in the US vs providing malaria nets in Africa. I'm less convinced about this.
There is, secondarily, a "community" of EA people who seem to have gotten stuck in an "AI risk" rut. To some extent they have fallen into something of a reverse pascal's wager. (This risk is so high, that it blows away every other consideration).
Thirdly, there is an EA "industry", which obviously comes out of the EA community and is basically a collection of EA thinktanks and charities, focused on whatever their charismatic leader thinks is most important. For the most part, this is what SBF was supporting.
I honestly don't see much difference between SBFs donations here and other celebrity/billionaire "donations to be seen".
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন