At exactly the same time Ernesto was trying to convince me that his clicking daily for hunger, literacy, breast cancer whatever … whatever … makes a difference for the positive in the world, a friend posted on my facebook wall “Help the people in Chile now … just by clicking”.
What a wonder! With nothing more than very quick flick of a thumb, children are fed, quake victims are relieved of some related burden, cancer is cured … and owner of said thumb feels so much better. Just imagine what could be accomplished by legions of thumb flickers online for hours every day combing the www for click-philanthropy, and the guilt-assuaging self-satisfaction washing around the globe in the process.
Promising, and probably delivering, a contribution from sponsors with every click, sites like The Hunger Site offer a feel good moment.
So … ease-of-good-deeding-provider or marketing ploy designed to cater to affluent computer owners in need of guilt-assuaging self-satisfaction, or something in between? This is my question.
To expand on that a bit … does click donating make it less likely that people will contribute in other ways, having already “given at the office”?
Pardon my skepticism, but I can’t help but think this is all too simple. Is there some genetic remnant of Puritanism forcing me to feel benefactions should pinch a bit and not come with free gifts? Maybe.
“Get a daily reminder to click … and a FREE bracelet!”
“Nepali Cotton Floral Wrap Skirt Back in Stock!”
Okay …
But here’s the pitch:
The Hunger Site was founded to focus the power of the Internet on a specific humanitarian need: the eradication of world hunger. Since its launch in June 1999, the site has established itself as a leader in online activism, helping to feed the world’s hungry. On average, over 220,000 individuals from around the world visit the site each day to click the yellow “Click Here to Give – it’s FREE” button. To date, more than 300 million visitors have given more than 671 million cups of staple food.
No doubt that 671 million cups of staple food has filled some stomachs … a good thing … and perhaps it’s only my curmudgeonly side that stirs me to think that “300 million visitors” could have done so much better had they been moved to do more than flick a thumb at a cause.
Or am I missing a point?
Online donating is now possible, so maybe we can really click up a better world. I’m most interested to hear thoughts, so if you have ’em, please share …
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
I’m a clicker.
With no real income (other than my husband’s) and a tight family budget, I’ll admit that I click every day and it helps me to feel like I’ve helped a bit. Believe me, nothing would please me more than joining the Peace Corps and stacking bags of rice the clickers click for but with small children, that just isn’t an option.
When I volunteered for Habitat for Humanity, I was the smiling face that went out and hustled meals and brewed coffee for the builders. I also published the monthly newsletter. Thanks to my blue collar family, I know how to build a house from foundation to roof but wielding a hammer didn’t interest me. I helped the cause in other ways.
When the earthquake rocked Haiti, I literally “phoned in” my support by sending a text that automatically donated cash.
I’m not saying I deserve awards for any of this. I’ll freely admit to clicking & phoning it in but for now, it’s all I can really do.
I think clicking & phoning it in provides people who don’t have the means or the time to match their desire an opportunity to do something. It may be a little, but it is something.
It also helps all of us to raise awareness in those who are simply oblivious to the need. When I tell an animal lover to click to feed rescued animals, they’ll do it. Then, hopefully, they’ll notice the other click sites and click there too.
My vote: Clicking is good.
Sandra, it’s a start at least and well done Lisa it’s more then a lot of people have done.