This post and the reactions to it will be an interesting test for my competing models about the value of giving detailed explanations to supporters. Here are just two of them:

One model says that detailed communication with supporters is good because it allows you to make your case for why your charity matters, and thus increase the donors' expectation that your charity can turn money into goods that they value, like poverty reduction or AI risk reduction.

Another model says that detailed communication with supporters is bad because (1) supporters are generally giving out of positive affect toward the organization, and (2) that positive affect can't be increased much once they grok the mission enough to start donating, but (3) the positive affect they feel toward the charity can be overwhelmed by the absolute number of the organization's statements with which they disagree, and (4) more detailed communication with supporters increases this absolute number more quickly than limited communication that repeats the same points again and again (e.g. in a newsletter).

I worry that model #2 may be closer to the truth, in part because of things like (Dilbert-creator) Scott Adams' account of why he decided to blog less:

I hoped that people who loved the blog would spill over to people who read Dilbert, and make my flagship product stronger. Instead, I found that if I wrote nine highly popular posts, and one that a reader disagreed with, the reaction was inevitably “I can never read Dilbert again because of what you wrote in that one post.” Every blog post reduced my income, even if 90% of the readers loved it.