Both usually come down to the same thing. You’re in a different workspace than you think. Here’s how workspaces work, plus the two rules that trip people up most.

What Are Workspaces?

A workspace is a separate container that belongs to a single owner. Each one holds its own projects and groups, so different areas of work stay cleanly divided.

Every group owner has their own workspace, with its own title, logo, and plan level. The plan shows up as a small tag right next to the name. Settings live behind the cog wheel in the sidebar.

Step 1 Sidebar Cog Wheel: Where to click to reach workspace settings. The cog wheel sits in the sidebar next to the workspace name and its plan tag.

Step 2 Workspace Settings: The settings panel for a workspace, where the owner sets the title and logo everyone in that workspace sees.

Only the workspace owner, or the account administrator in charge of it, can edit those settings. Everyone else just uses the workspace.

How It Works

The plan comes from the owner

This is the part people misread most often, so here it is plainly. Everything inside a workspace runs on the workspace plan, and the workspace plan is the owner’s plan. Groups, projects, all of it.

So if you belong to your own workspace and to someone else’s, the two can be on different plans. The projects in their workspace run on their plan, not yours. Your plan doesn’t travel with you when you switch.

The tag next to the workspace name always tells you which plan you’re looking at. If something you expect isn’t there, check that tag first.

Switching between workspaces

If you belong to two or more workspaces, a switcher appears so you can jump between them. If you only belong to one, you won’t see a switcher at all. That’s normal, not a bug.

Step 3 Workspace Switcher: The switcher expanded in the sidebar, showing each workspace you belong to with its own logo and plan tag.

Here’s what happens when you pick a different one:

1. Freedcamp checks with the server.
2. It clears out the projects, groups, and apps you were looking at.
3. It loads the ones that belong to the new workspace.
4. If the page you were on belongs to a project or group that isn’t in the new workspace, you land on that workspace’s default page.
5. A small toast confirms which workspace you’re in now.

That redirect isn’t an error. It just means the thing you were looking at lives somewhere else.

All Workspaces

There’s also an All Workspaces option. Pick it and you see everything across all of your workspaces at once, instead of one workspace at a time.

Step 4 All Workspaces: Selecting All Workspaces from the switcher, which shows the projects and groups from every workspace you belong to in one view.

Filters are saved per workspace

The second thing people get caught by. Some personal preferences, like saved filters and sort order, are saved per workspace, so what you set up in one doesn’t affect another. That covers the filters on all the board pages: Tasks Board, Projects Board, and the rest.

So when you switch and your filters look like they vanished, they didn’t. They’re still in the workspace you set them in.

That’s the point. A client-work workspace and a personal workspace can have completely different board setups without fighting each other.

Benefits of Workspaces

• Different areas of work stay in separate containers instead of one long list
• Each workspace has its own title and logo, so you can tell at a glance where you are
• The plan tag next to the name tells you which plan everything inside is running on
• Jump between workspaces with the switcher, or see everything at once with All Workspaces
• Filters and sort order are remembered per workspace, so board setups don’t collide
• Owners and account administrators control the settings, everyone else just works

Let Us Know Your Thoughts

If you’ve hit a moment where it wasn’t obvious which workspace you were in, tell us exactly where that happened. Same goes for any preference you expected to be saved per workspace but isn’t. Those are the details we can act on.

Get Started Today!

Open the switcher in your sidebar and look at the plan tag next to each workspace name. Then click the cog wheel on the workspace you own and give it a title and logo you’ll recognize instantly. Go to Freedcamp →

It also brings CRM onto Freedcamp’s shared design system, so the app now feels at home beside Tasks, Calendar, Discussions, and the rest of your workspace.

CRM now looks like Freedcamp

The refreshed interface uses the same typography, spacing, colors, and controls found throughout Freedcamp. Familiar patterns reduce friction when you move between apps and make the CRM easier to scan.

Review records in a drawer

Click a contact, lead, task, call, or campaign and its details open in a drawer over the list. Close the drawer and you return to the same view, with your position and working context intact.

This makes sequential review simple: filter the list, open the first result, take action, close it, and move to the next.

Narrow every list with relevant filters

CRM filtering now reaches across its subapps and supports the fields available in each area. Combine criteria to turn a large database into a practical queue for the work at hand.

Rather than browsing every record, you can focus on a segment such as leads from one source, calls assigned to one person, or contacts matching a custom field.

Shape contacts around your process

Contacts now support custom fields. Add the details unique to your organization—such as customer tier, renewal month, region, or onboarding stage—and keep that structured information on the contact.

Discuss and measure campaigns in one place

Campaigns now include comments, so decisions and follow-up notes can stay attached to the campaign instead of being scattered across separate conversations. Campaign results also have a dedicated interface for clearer outcome tracking.

The update at a glance

• A refreshed interface built on Freedcamp’s design system
• Drawer-based record review that preserves list context
• Broader filtering across CRM subapps
• Custom fields for contacts
• Comments on campaigns
• A dedicated campaign-results interface

Open CRM and build a filter around the records you need to address today. Then work through the results in the drawer without leaving the list.

If you own the account, the answer to all of those is you. Owning an account and administering it have always been the same job here, and on a team of any real size that makes you the bottleneck.

Account administrators split the two apart.

What Is an Account Administrator?

It’s someone you name to do the administrative work on your behalf. The disclaimer they see in the product says it plainly:

Account administrators can manage all groups and projects you own, as well as create new groups for you. They can also manage all settings listed in the Manage System. They cannot manage your billing details or your account plan.

That last sentence is the point of the whole feature. The admin work moves. Your billing doesn’t.

This one is rolling out gradually, so if you don’t see it on your account yet, it’s on the way.

How It Works

Adding and removing an account administrator is staff tooling for now, so ask us and we’ll set it up on your account.

Once someone is added, they’re set up as a group admin on every group you own. Remove them and that comes back off.

Your administrator sees a banner at the top of Manage System naming whose account they’re working in. We deliberately didn’t put it in My Account, because My Account is for your own personal things, and administering somebody else’s account isn’t one of them.

Step 1 Manage System Banner: Where an account administrator is told they’re acting as one, and for whom.

Groups and projects

On a group you own, your administrator gets the group admin field on the group’s edit screen, so they can change who runs it. The Delete Group button is there for them too.

They can also see Deleted Projects, and restore projects and groups from it.

Step 2 Group Editing: A group’s edit screen as an account administrator sees it, with the group admin field and Delete Group available.

Step 3 Deleted Projects: The list of deleted projects, with restore available for projects and groups.

Manage System and Add-Ons

Manage System opens up for them: Global Teams, All users, Global Modules, and application settings.

The Add-Ons page carries the same disclaimer, and it shows your apps the way you have them, installed and toggled state included.

They get the change permission system button as well.

Step 4 Add-Ons Disclaimer: The Add-Ons page for an account administrator, with the same disclaimer and your apps reflected correctly.

Templates, invites, and dashboards

Templates work for them the way they work for you. They can create private templates and use custom fields and custom statuses inside them. Building a template from one of your existing projects works too, with the right source project already filled in.

Invites got fixed along the way. Your administrator now sees the same invite form you’d see, not a different variant of it. And you’re no longer suggested as somebody to invite to your own account.

On your dashboards they can add widgets and manage custom columns. Every dashboard operation is available to them.

Half that list is really bug fixes. A new permission tier turns up every place the code quietly assumed only the owner would be there: a form showing the wrong variant, an app toggle ignoring your setting.

Benefits of Account Administrators

• Someone else can create groups for you, delete them, and change group admins
• Deleted Projects is visible to your administrator, and they can restore projects and groups
• Global Teams, All users, Global Modules, and application settings, all reachable in Manage System
• Private templates with custom fields and custom statuses, built without going through you
• Add-Ons reflects your installed apps, not theirs
• Full dashboard control, including widgets and custom columns
• Your billing details and your account plan stay yours

Only a workspace’s owner, or the account administrator in charge of it, can edit that workspace’s settings.

Let Us Know Your Thoughts

If your administrator lands on a screen that still treats them like an ordinary member, tell us which screen it was. Naming the screen is what makes it fixable.

We’d also like to know how many administrators your account actually needs. That’s still an open question on our side, so tell us.

Get Started Today!

Pick the person who should be creating your groups and restoring your projects, and tell us who it is. Adding an administrator is still on our side. Once they’re set up, everything above is waiting for them in Manage System. Go to Freedcamp →

The conversation every PM is about to have

Sometime in the next 18 months, if it hasn’t happened already, you’re going to be in a planning meeting where someone, probably an executive, possibly a board member, asks a version of this question:

“How many of these roles can AI absorb?”

How you frame the answer is going to matter more than you think. Not just for your team. For the much bigger question of whether the AI transition becomes a generational catastrophe for knowledge workers or the most productive collaboration between humans and tools in modern history.

The honest answer to that question is buried in 250 years of automation history. I just spent serious time going through the academic literature, David Autor at MIT, Daron Acemoglu (the Nobel winner), Anton Korinek at the IMF, the Anthropic Economic Index researchers, the team at Epoch AI. What the historical record actually says is uncomfortable, and most of the loudest voices in the AI-and-jobs debate are getting it wrong.

It says project managers, team leads, and the people who design how work gets done, the people who use tools like Freedcamp every day, are going to be the deciding variable in how this wave plays out.

Here’s why.

The story everyone tells about automation, and the part they leave out

You’ve heard both halves of the debate. AI is going to take everyone’s job and we’re heading for mass unemployment. Or, AI is just another tool wave like electricity and personal computers, disruptive in the short term, net positive in the long run, nothing to worry about.

Both halves are wrong, and the historical record tells us why.

Start with the Industrial Revolution between 1750 and 1850. Everyone’s favorite “see, automation works out fine” example. The British economy industrialized, productivity exploded, the modern world was born, life is dramatically better now than in the 18th century. All true.

Here’s what gets left out. Between roughly 1790 and 1840, British per-capita GDP rose by 46%. Working-class real wages rose by 12%. The economist Robert Allen called this “Engels’ Pause”, fifty years during which the gains from industrialization flowed almost entirely to capital owners while ordinary workers’ living standards barely moved. Life expectancy in industrial cities actually fell. Child labor in textile mills exploded. Skilled artisan weavers, whose craft had taken years to learn, were replaced by power looms tended by 10-year-olds.

The Luddites, popularly remembered as irrational machine-haters, were skilled workers facing specific, identifiable machines that were destroying their trades during a wartime depression. They were trying to negotiate. The British state’s response was to deploy 12,000 troops to crush them, more than Wellington commanded at the Battle of Vitoria. Hobsbawm called it “collective bargaining by riot.”

The Industrial Revolution wasn’t a smooth handoff. It took two generations. It broke a lot of people along the way. And the political consequences, socialism, the labor movement, decades of class conflict, outlasted the technological transition itself.

This pattern repeats. Every major automation wave follows the same shape: the aggregate economy benefits, eventually. The specific people in the path of the change pay the bill, immediately.

The 6.7 million person example that nobody talks about

The largest single-occupation mass displacement in modern American history didn’t happen in a factory. It happened on farms.

In 1950, the United States had 7.6 million self-employed and family farmworkers. By 2000, that number was 2.06 million, a 73% reduction. Add another 1.2 million hired farmworkers displaced. Roughly 6.7 million people, in the lifetime of someone now collecting Social Security, watched their occupation disappear.

There was no permanent unemployment crisis. Why?

Because of an extraordinary policy bundle that we now treat as background scenery: the New Deal’s social insurance, World War II war production absorbing millions, the GI Bill putting a generation through college, federally subsidized suburbanization creating millions of construction jobs, and a fifty-year run of services-sector growth.

Without that bundle, the agricultural transition would have looked like contemporary opioid-crisis Appalachia: mass abandonment, generational decline, communities that never recovered. The transition worked because institutions worked. The institutions worked because we built them, most of them as direct responses to the Great Depression, which was itself partly a symptom of the previous wave of unmanaged displacement.

The lesson is not “markets clear.” The lesson is “markets clear conditional on institutions that take decades to build, and those institutions don’t appear spontaneously when needed.”

For AI? No equivalent policy bundle is currently on the table. Not in the United States, not in Europe, not anywhere.

Why AI is genuinely different (and why that matters for knowledge work)

Most “AI is different” claims dissolve under inspection, they turn out to be restatements of existing economic frameworks. But there are three places where the current AI wave genuinely diverges from every prior pattern, and all three of them matter directly to project managers and knowledge workers.

First: this wave is coming for cognitive work, not physical work.

From the Spinning Jenny through industrial robots, automation hit physical and routine cognitive tasks first while sparing creative and high-end cognitive work. AI does the opposite. The Anthropic Economic Index, which analyzed more than four million real-world AI conversations, found that 37% of usage falls in computer and mathematical occupations, 10% in arts, design, media, and writing. Farming, fishing, and forestry register 0.1%. This is the precise inverse of the robotics era.

Eloundou and colleagues at OpenAI reached the same conclusion from the task-exposure angle: roughly 80% of the US workforce has at least 10% of their tasks exposed to large language models, and, this is the part that should make any knowledge worker pay attention, higher-income occupations face more exposure, not less.

The tasks that show up most heavily in current AI usage are precisely the tasks that fill modern project management work: status updates, meeting summaries, document drafting, requirements gathering, ticket triage, stakeholder communication, sprint retrospectives, project documentation. If you’re a PM reading this, you know which of your own tasks I’m describing.

Second: the diffusion speed is unprecedented.

Personal computers reached 20% adoption three years after the IBM PC launched. The commercial internet reached 20% adoption two years after NSFNET decommissioned. Generative AI reached 39.4% of US adults in less than two years. The structural reason matters: AI rolls out as software over an already-ubiquitous digital infrastructure, with a natural-language interface that requires zero training. Prior general-purpose technologies needed new factories, new wiring, expensive hardware. This one doesn’t.

For organizations, this means the adoption curve will outpace your change-management cycle. The traditional pattern, pilot, then small-scale rollout, then broad deployment, assumed technologies that diffused over years. AI is diffusing in months. Most companies’ adoption is being driven bottom-up by individual workers using free tiers of consumer products, not by any formal process.

Third: the capital structure is concentrated in a way no prior wave was.

Training a frontier AI model now costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and the required compute is growing roughly 4-5× per year. The result is an oligopoly of frontier providers, OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta, plus a few Chinese labs, with no historical analogue. Anyone with a factory could buy electric motors. Anyone with a phone line could connect to the internet. Not anyone can train a frontier model. The gains from frontier AI accrue in the first instance to the compute owners, not to the workers using the tools.

This is the structural reason the labor share of national income, the fraction of GDP that flows to workers rather than to capital owners, has been declining for forty years, and why most credible scenarios suggest AI accelerates that trend.

What the serious researchers are actually arguing about

The credible literature on AI and jobs clusters into three identifiable camps. They disagree sharply about outcomes but agree remarkably on the parameters of the disagreement, which is what intellectual progress looks like before a question is fully resolvable.

The skeptics, led by Daron Acemoglu, apply standard task-based macroeconomic models to existing AI productivity estimates and conclude the aggregate effect is bounded, no more than about 0.66% in total factor productivity gains over a decade. He explicitly calls out the Goldman Sachs forecast of a 7% global GDP boost as unsupported by data or theory. Tyler Cowen adds a related deployment-friction skepticism: the bottleneck isn’t the technology, it’s the humans, institutions, and processes that have to adapt around it.

The moderates, with David Autor at MIT as the leading voice, argue aggregate employment will probably be fine but distribution will be brutal. Autor’s framing is precise and worth memorizing: the labor market might be 5% better on average, but it could be 90% worse for some people and 95% better for others, with no one actually experiencing the average. His recent work argues that AI could plausibly expand middle-skill employment by lowering the expertise barrier for high-end tasks, but only if deployed deliberately. That conditional carries the entire argument.

The accelerationists, including Anton Korinek’s formal NBER work, Carl Shulman’s interviews, and Epoch AI’s growth modeling, take seriously the possibility that the next decade or two brings transformative AI. Epoch’s GATE model, under what they call conservative assumptions, finds compute investment could exceed 10% of world GDP and growth rates could be 2-20× the historical average. The median forecaster timeline for artificial general intelligence compressed from 2042 in 2022 surveys to 2032 in 2024 surveys. That’s a data point, even if you discount it.

These three camps are not arguing about ideology. They’re arguing about three specific parameters: how substitutable AI capital is for human labor, how fast complementary investment can be made, and where the upper bound is on task complexity in the human comparative-advantage set.

Where project managers come in

Here’s the part the AI-and-jobs debate keeps missing.

Autor’s “deploy deliberately” conditional is not a philosophical observation. It’s an operational one. It’s a choice that gets made, task by task, project by project, sprint by sprint, by the people who design how work gets done inside organizations. That’s project managers, team leads, operations leaders, and the senior individual contributors who shape team workflows.

The economics literature treats AI deployment as if it’s an exogenous variable, something that happens to companies. It isn’t. It’s a hundred thousand decisions about whether to use AI to augment a human’s work or replace it. About whether the productivity gains from AI go into higher output with the same headcount, or the same output with lower headcount. About whether the tool gets adopted as a partner that lowers the barrier to high-skill tasks, or as a substitute that erases junior roles.

That choice gets made by people running projects. Not by economists, not by policymakers, not by AI labs.

The ATM is the canonical case study. Everyone trots out the same statistic: bank teller employment in the United States rose from roughly 300,000 in 1970 to nearly 600,000 by 2010, even as ATMs proliferated. The story goes that ATMs lowered the cost of operating a branch, banks opened more branches, and the role of the teller shifted from cash-dispensing to relationship-selling.

What the story usually omits is why that happened. The teller-to-relationship-manager pivot wasn’t automatic. It required banks to redesign the job, to define new responsibilities, to retrain staff, to restructure compensation. Banks that did it well grew employment. Banks that didn’t, shrunk it. Same technology, different operational choices, different labor outcomes.

The AI version of that decision is being made right now, in every organization, every quarter. And it’s being made by the people closest to the work, which means project managers and team leads have more leverage over the macroeconomic outcome of this transition than they probably realize.

What “deploying deliberately” actually looks like

This is where the historical record translates into operational practice. The pattern that produced reabsorption rather than displacement, in every successful prior transition, has the same shape regardless of the technology:

Redesign jobs around the tool, instead of optimizing the tool to eliminate jobs. The bank-teller-to-relationship-manager pivot. The clerk-to-business-analyst pivot of the early computerization era. The blacksmith-to-machinist pivot of the early Industrial Revolution. None of these happened spontaneously. They required management decisions about what people would do with the time the tool freed up.

For a PM running AI deployment on a team, the operational question is: when AI cuts the time required for a task from four hours to forty minutes, where does the saved time go? Into shipping more work with the same team? Into raising the quality bar on the work you already ship? Into giving the team time for the higher-judgment work that the tool can’t yet do? Or into headcount reduction?

The first three are the bank-teller path. The fourth is the hand-loom-weaver path. The choice is yours to make.

Map task-level exposure, not job-level exposure. Autor’s framework matters here: jobs are bundles of tasks, and AI substitutes for some tasks within a job while complementing others. The job rarely disappears wholesale; the composition of the job shifts. PMs who can do task-level mapping of their team’s work, which tasks are now AI-assisted, which remain pure human judgment, which require the new skill of validating AI output, can intentionally rebalance roles before the rebalancing happens to them.

This is operational work. It’s the kind of thing you do in a project management tool. It’s a planning exercise. PMs are uniquely positioned to do it because they already think this way.

Invest in the human side of the workflow at the same speed as the AI side. Every prior automation wave produced a productivity boom when, and only when, complementary organizational investments matched the technological ones. David’s “dynamo and the computer” paper is the canonical demonstration: electric motors were available from the 1880s, but manufacturing productivity statistics didn’t register their effect until the 1910s and 1920s, thirty years later, after factories had been physically redesigned around unit drive instead of being retrofitted around the central shafts of the steam era.

The AI equivalent is the workflow redesign that needs to happen around the tool. Most organizations are currently retrofitting AI onto existing processes. The productivity payoff and the labor outcomes both improve dramatically when the process gets redesigned around the tool’s actual strengths. PMs are the people who design those processes.

Make the augmentation-vs-substitution choice explicit and surface it to leadership. This is the hardest one. The current default in most organizations is that the augmentation-or-substitution decision gets made implicitly, project by project, often by people without the standing to push back when leadership defaults to substitution. The PMs who survive this transition best, and the ones whose teams survive it best, will be the ones who make the choice explicit and force the conversation upward.

The honest forecast

Across the credible literature, the modal scenario for the next 10–20 years is this: aggregate employment stays near historical norms. Occupational composition shifts dramatically. Wage polarization deepens. The labor share of national income, already in a four-decade decline, continues to decline and possibly accelerates. The cost concentrates on specific cohorts, junior knowledge workers, mid-career professionals in language-intensive jobs, recent entrants to translation, copywriting, paralegal work, junior programming, customer service, and graphic design.

A meaningful minority probability attaches to a more disruptive scenario where cognitive automation outpaces capital adjustment and produces broader wage compression. A small but non-trivial tail probability attaches to transformative scenarios where the standard task-based framework breaks down entirely.

The variable that determines which scenario your team actually lives in is not the technology. It’s the operational choices made by people who run projects.

The Luddites were right about themselves

The quietly devastating fact from all this research is that the Luddites were not wrong about what was happening to them. Their trade was destroyed. Their livelihoods were destroyed. Their political power was destroyed by 12,000 government troops. In the aggregate and over a long enough time horizon, the Industrial Revolution worked out fine, but not for them, and not for their children.

When people argue today that AI is “just like every other automation wave,” they’re making a true statement about the aggregate that is consistent with the historical record producing devastation for specific identifiable groups of people. The question the next twenty years actually asks, the one the academic literature can’t answer for us, is whether the institutions, the operational practices, and the daily decisions of the people who design how work gets done can make this transition something other than another generation paying for everyone else’s productivity gains.

That’s not a technology question. It’s a management question. It’s an organizational design question. It’s a project management question.

It’s the kind of question the people who use Freedcamp every day are uniquely qualified to answer, because the answer doesn’t get worked out in white papers or congressional hearings. It gets worked out in the next sprint planning meeting, the next roadmap review, the next quarterly headcount discussion.

The choice you make about how to deploy AI on your team this quarter is, quietly, one of the small decisions that adds up to whether the 2030s look like the 1830s or the 1950s.

Choose deliberately.

This essay draws on a 9,000-word research synthesis covering the work of David Autor, Daron Acemoglu, Pascual Restrepo, Carl Benedikt Frey, Anton Korinek, Joseph Stiglitz, Erik Brynjolfsson, Tyler Cowen, Carl Shulman, Epoch AI, and the Anthropic Economic Index team, alongside the historical record of major automation waves from 1750 to 2020. Full citations available on request.

Freedcamp has been one of the longest-running free project management platforms, long enough to have seen the SaaS wave, the mobile wave, the remote-work wave, and now the AI wave reshape how teams plan and ship work. The pattern of “what survives a wave is the discipline, not the tool” is one we’ve watched up close.

What is Freedcamp MCP?

The Model Context Protocol is the emerging standard that lets AI assistants safely call real tools on your behalf. Freedcamp MCP is a hosted, multi-tenant MCP server that exposes the Freedcamp REST API as a clean catalog of tools your AI can discover and call directly.

Instead of tab-hopping between your AI and Freedcamp, you just ask:

“Create a ‘Fix login race condition’ task in the API project, due Friday, assigned to me, In Progress.”

“Show all tasks I’m assigned to that are overdue, grouped by project.”

“Log 45 minutes against today on the Acme refactor and mark it billable.”

Why it matters

• Hosted, no install. Point your client at the endpoint. No Docker, no cron, no server to maintain.
• Per-user credentials. Each request carries your own Freedcamp API key and secret as headers. Sessions never mix, credentials are redacted from logs, and nothing is persisted to disk.
• One endpoint, every Freedcamp app. Tasks, lists, comments, calendar events, discussions, files, issues, milestones, CRM (tasks and calls), time tracking, wikis, notifications, projects, linked items, favorites, custom fields, and users.
• Stateless and rate-limited. 60 requests per minute per credential pair, TLS end-to-end, HMAC-signed upstream calls.

A Cause Close to Our Hearts

Our journey began in Santa Barbara, a place that holds the very roots of Freedcamp. The spirit of community and collaboration we found there still inspires us every day. By sponsoring LA Help Now, we’re not only extending our support to an organization that organizes volunteers efficiently but also reaffirming our belief in the power of unity during times of crisis.

Organizing Volunteers for Lasting Impact

LA Help Now is on the front lines—coordinating volunteers and resources to provide vital assistance to individuals and families affected by the devastating fires. Their dedication ensures that help reaches those who need it most, and through our partnership, they now have access to tools and platforms that streamline their incredible work. At Freedcamp, we understand the importance of structure in chaos; every organized effort can mean the difference between despair and hope.

Supporting Thousands of Non-Profits

This sponsorship is just one chapter in our ongoing commitment to the non-profit community. We proudly support thousands of non-profit organizations, empowering them with the systems they need to manage operations, engage volunteers, and drive impactful change. Our mission is to help every organization thrive—so they can focus on what truly matters: making a positive difference in the world

A Call to Action

Now more than ever, it’s time to stand together. Whether you’re a long-time supporter or new to the cause, we invite you to join us in uplifting the lives of those touched by the LA fires. Every volunteer, every donation, and every shared moment of kindness contributes to a stronger, more resilient community. Let’s harness the power of organized volunteerism and prove that, together, we can overcome any challenge.

Join us and LA Help Now on this journey of hope and healing. Because when communities unite, miracles happen.

We’re excited about this new chapter and look forward to sharing more updates as we work together to rebuild lives and restore hope.

We are pleased to announce that our GDPR compliance is now managed by the Data Privacy Framework (DPF) Program. The EU-U.S. DPF, UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and Swiss-U.S. DPF were respectively developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission, UK Government, and Swiss Federal Administration. These frameworks provide U.S. organizations with reliable mechanisms for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union, United Kingdom, and Switzerland while ensuring data protection that is consistent with EU, UK, and Swiss law.

You can check Freedcamp’s status by visiting the Data Privacy Framework website and searching for “Freedcamp”.

To reflect this change, we have updated our privacy policy, which you can review here.

For more details about our previous updates, please refer to our older post.

We look forward to continuing to be a part of your productivity. If you have any questions about our privacy policy, please reach out to our support team.

To get started, visit the Manage System and open either the Custom Field for Tasks page or the Custom Field for Projects page where you can edit your existing templates and add icons to dropdown values.

For example, in the screenshot below, we:

1. Opened the Custom Fields for Tasks page.
2. Edited an existing template.
3. Navigated to our template dropdown value and expanded its fields.
4. Clicked the placeholder for an icon.
5. Selected the appropriate icon from the list.
6. Set its colour.

Once the template is saved, the end result in your project tasks will look as shown below.

If you have suggestions for icons, please contact customer support. Send us the icons you think we should add and provide examples from the internet if possible. We will work to add them promptly.

Voice Messages: Adding a Personal Touch

One of the most exciting additions in this update is the support for voice messages. You can now attach voice messages to your comments in the app. This feature allows you to convey your thoughts and emotions more effectively, adding a personal touch to your interactions. Whether you want to share a quick update or express gratitude, voice messages make communication more dynamic and engaging.

Seamless Voice Message Playback

In addition to recording voice messages on the go, we’ve also added support for playing voice messages recorded via the web version. This means you can listen to voice messages from the app, ensuring you stay connected and informed regardless of the device you’re using.

Efficient Notification Management

Managing notifications just got easier with the new ability to mark notifications as read in bulk. We understand how overwhelming it can be to keep track of numerous notifications, and this feature aims to simplify your workflow. With just a few clicks, you can clear out your notifications and focus on what matters most, saving you time and reducing stress.

Bug Fixes and Performance Improvements

Our team is committed to providing you with the best possible experience, which is why we’ve addressed various bugs and made performance improvements in this update. These changes ensure that the platform runs smoothly and efficiently, offering you a more reliable and enjoyable user experience.

We hope you find these new features and improvements as exciting as we do. Voice messages add a new dimension to communication, while bulk notification management and performance enhancements make the platform more user-friendly. Stay tuned for more updates as we continue to innovate and enhance your experience. Thank you for being a valued member of our community!