NGO Nonprofit Criticism

nonprofit groups have a vested financial interest in not solving the issues they are working on?

The problem with the highlighted organizations is not (only) that they are irrelevant to Wikipedia's mission and the intent of the funders, it's that they don't seem to be doing anything which raises the question of why this specific group is being given free money. The answer can well be corruption or nepotism. Whatever it is, it doesn't look good.

I hate to be the one naysayer, but it seems to me like the benefits of this influx of funding and scope has very few tangible benefits, while predisposing them to a standard failure mode of large and well-funded tech activist organisations where the means (the organisation) are confused for and eventually put ahead of whatever goal they were founded for: see e.g. Mozilla support for EME, the continuing negative news pertaining to Pocket and trying to collect user data. (On the ground, part of th

Mozilla is a great comparison. Compare how CEO pay goes up while Firefox users are down 85% [1].The Red Cross has also been mired in controversy (eg [2]). Eventually such organizations just seem to collapse under the weight of their bloat and have very little effective spending on the things they fund raise off.I'm also reminded of Yes, Prime Minister [3].[1]: https://calpaterson.com/mozilla

This is a GO masquerading as an NGO. A caveat lector is appropriate whenever someone brings them up.

Even "legit" NGOs have a huge overhead.

I know this might sound crazy but leftist orgs are revenue driven too.

Except, again, there are sponsored non-profits in this space. What further distortion do you expect?

Serious money is a huge temptation.Have you noticed the path down which the ACLU and SPLC have gone?Do you notice how Mozilla have shed staff despite the lack on any major dent in their income?I'm sorry but these types of "activist" companies have a way of going wrong when there are huge sums of money involved.Just leave them where they are and let them continue as usual.

Wrong.It's entirely irrational to give this level of attention and resource to an issue with such relatively little impact, particularly when noting the contributing events that led up to this issue were largely ignored (and directed by the same presidential candidate many of these organizations openly supported). Virtue signalling is the correct description. This is more about image than substantive change.