It was 2007 and Cyclone Sidr had just hit a few days prior. I had teamed up with a Western INGO (that was not Save the Children) that was one of the first to respond. Bodies and corpses were showing up everywhere – burying the dead hadn’t even begun yet.

This INGO was helping provide clean water to what was the equivalent of a Save the Children Child Safe Centre – a place for children to stay safe, get help, have shelter, and be protected from human trafficking during this post-disaster period. One of the kids, if I remember correctly, lost her last surviving parent and had become an orphan.

I remember timidly interviewing her on camera – choosing my words and my tone ever so carefully. This was quickly disrupted by the INGO that I had come with. The lead aid worker barked at me to stop filming and to pack up. The reason? “Their needs trump mine” and they want this girl for themselves.

The girl was quickly whisked from a private corner with me and her current guardian and plopped in the middle of a group of children. Why? Because it looked better on camera. She was then strung and wired up with AV gear – stuff she’d never seen in her life. Why? Because the audio was better.

Then one of the INGO’s aid workers/videographers propped this giant camera bigger than this girl’s head inches from her face. There, surrounded by a dozen kids, strangers, expat aid workers, and on-lookers she was instructed to talk about her dead parent. The girl, who just a moment ago was calmly talking to me, started gasping and crying.

I don’t have a grandiose point to make with this post. It just… angers me. There are more aid, development & relief organizations out there now than there have been in the history of the world. And the technology to arm each of these organizations with the gear to record video or capture images has never been cheaper.

And, maybe because it is so easy to go “into the field” with this gear, we assume that we have a sense of entitlement. Whether it’s to “capture the truth” or to “tell a story” or to “raise awareness” or to “raise funds” or to “promote the good works of an organization”.

But the purpose of a camera in the field shouldn’t be for the benefit of the viewer, or the donor, or the organization. It should be about serving and empowering those in front of the lens. And just because it’s a video and can have slick editing, music, and graphics doesn’t make it entertainment.

I wish more people understood that. That’s all.

When it comes to international aid and development, we are all biased. It doesn’t matter if you’re a donor reading pamphlets, a celebrity or YouTuber endorsing your favorite NGO, a journalist interviewing villagers, an academic outside of the ivory tower, an experienced aid professional talking about “good aid”, or even a free agent trying to be a bridge-maker.

There is nothing nefarious about this fact. We as human beings, while capable of untold capacities for empathy, will never have a complete verstehen and fully imagine the complexity of others. This is important because the arbiters of what is and is not “good aid” and what does and does not “harm the poor” must be the ones whom international aid is meant to serve.

This latest video, which among other things shows a project I did in collaboration with Save the Children, is my attempt to bring the poor one step closer to being able to speak for themselves. This is by no means the pinnacle of the kind of global voice I think the poorest of the poor should have. Rather, I see this as merely Step 4 out of a 5 Step Program.

This video also connects with a lot of things I’ve talked about on this blog – from mistrust of NGOs in Bangladesh, to raising overhead separately, to Islamic POVs on aid (which partly influences why many Bangladeshis talk about overhead), to the need for the poor to be more digitally and globally connected, to explaining the significance of the woman (near the end of the video) blessing the donors.

If you’re new to my work then I should point out this isn’t about raising as much money as possible. If you want to donate, I strongly suggest you consider donating to Save the Children instead of me. My goal has always been just to change the conversation on global poverty – that means less guilt, pushing for diversity, and letting the poor speak for themselves.

As I mentioned some charities, like the US-branch of Save the Children, have already stopped using “poverty porn”. I’d like to share something I’ve talked to them about behind closed doors.

I guess you can call it a 5 Step Program for NGOs using guilt:

Step One: Engagement via Guilt

Screenshot of a Charity Ad that Airs In Canada

Especially near Christmas, you need only turn on the television to see which charities are flooding the airwaves with “poverty porn”.

You can read about my thoughts on this here. But, basically, the defining feature of this type of messaging is that it dehumanizes those in need into objects of pity.

Step Two: Engagement via Celebrity Spokespeople

Bono in Africa

I’m not talking just about Bono – but I suppose that’s who everyone thinks about when talking about celebrities and charity. Although I’m not the biggest fan of celebrity-centric messaging, I still think this is better than “poverty porn”.

After all, when a celebrity is involved, the focus turns towards the celebrity. Whether the celebrity likes it or not, it becomes about them. This has the benefit of pushing aside (or at least subduing) the use of “poverty porn”.

Step Three: Engagement via “Average Joes”

Hank Green in Haiti with Water.org

Anyone whose been following my work for a while knows that this is exactly what I’ve been pushing towards for a long time now. But even as recent as a year or two ago, I was still getting lectured by those insisting only celebrities (following carefully scripted talking points) are suitable for being a spokesperson.

Since then, you need only look at Water.org taking Hank Green to Haiti, World Vision taking YouTubers to Zambia and India, or Save the Children UK taking Mommy Vloggers & Bloggers to Africa to see the success, authentic engagement, awareness, and even additional funds raised – all in a way that avoids guilt.

Step Four: Engagement via Bridge-Makers

Afia Reviews and Approves Footage Taken of Her

To an online observer, the difference between Step 3 and Step 4 is indistinguishable. However, whereas the primary function of a spokesperson (be it a celebrity or “average joe”) is to promote an NGO, the primary function of a bridge-maker is to be a digital and cultural intermediary to give those in need a direct voice to the global community.

The goal is to give those in need a stronger say to better shape how aid is delivered in their communities. Through this process not only does an NGO get some publicity, but it can also can help to overcome local distrust of NGOs. Sadly, there is no set quantitative formula as to how to do this – it’s qualitatively specific to context and culture.

What I can say is that, from my work as a bridge-maker in Bangladesh, there is a preference for aid to come from an individual instead of an institution, for a direct connection between donor and recipient, for trackable donations, and for overhead to be exogenous from donations “for the poor”.

This may not be a step that every NGO can take. An NGO needs to be confident enough that those they serve, if given a direct and unfiltered voice to the global community, won’t have bad things to say about their organization. It’s also not for NGOs that are unwilling to qualitatively tweak or modify how they implement projects in order to accommodate this global conversation.

Step Five: Engagement via Those in Need

Eventually, as the digital divide is being bridged, the poor will be able to speak for themselves to the world with little or no assistance.

Ideally, this means that both control of an NGO’s messaging and implementation of aid projects divests from the NGO directly into the hands of those in need.

When this happens, NGOs will not only have dropped the guilt – they’ll have replaced it with empowerment instead.

A Charity Guilt-Ad Currently Airing in Canada

It’s 2011 and we still live in a world where many charities think that the best way to raise funds to help those in need is by using guilt.

This needs to stop and here are three reasons why:

1) It insults aid workers

A charity guilt-ad where a celeb holds up two quarters to a montage of sad children saying they "need our help to survive" and that "these two quarters - it's never been easier to save a life of a child"

It may not take a lot of money to “save a life” or “make a difference”, but when a charity says that all it takes is “the cost of a cup of coffee”, you reduce the role of the aid worker to that of a Starbucks Barista.

The fact of the matter is aid work is complex. It doesn’t matter if you’re a 15 person organization or an organization with more money than a Fortune 500 Company. Things can go wrong – and I’ve seen it happen – even when everything is done right.

To quote John Green, “the truth defies simplicity”. And so if an organization boils the solution down to “just two quarters” or “just a cup of coffee a day” – they are being dishonest with you and what’s needed to truly make a difference.

2) It insults donors

An ad from a third charity featuring both a crying African child and a crying American celebrity.

Extreme poverty can be a depressing and guilt-inducing topic. But, by using intentionally guilt-inducing images, music, and presentation, charities are basically saying that people will only care about this issue if they are guilted.

This insults donors because it assumes donors can’t rationally understand and empathize with the situation. It suggests the only way to get a donation is to tap into the primal human emotion of shame and guilt. At worst, it exploits those who are particularly sensitive and emotionally vulnerable to being distressed by such imagery.

To paraphrase my friend and Rabbi, Avraham Berkowitz, kindness is about helping “them” whereas compassion is about recognizing there is no such thing as “them” and – instead – helping “us”. Charities need to tap into compassion – not kindness. It’s the difference between empathy vs sympathy.

3) It insults those in need

Taken from my most recent project with Save the Children. Where do charities find crying children anyways? I have a hard time finding them.

I can’t stress this enough. When a charity creates ads featuring sad crying and/or emaciated children, they are exploiting the poor. There is a reason many people call this “poverty porn”.

From my own personal experience, I’ve met Bangladeshi villagers who would rather not get any aid at all than receive one penny of aid that robs them of their dignity. I’ve met Bangladeshis who even refuse to be filmed if they suspect they will be used as an object of pity.

To quote Bauleni Banda, “NGOs come to the village here to take pictures of people. At church, at the market, on the road, at meetings. Only people who are dressed poorly”. When NGOs rob the poor of respect, the poor often lose respect for NGOs.

What You Can Do

Some charities (like the American branch of Save the Children) agree that “poverty porn” is bad. They simply don’t use that in their ads anymore. They aren’t alone and charities that take this stance need to be rewarded for taking this risk.

Similarly, charities that continue to use “poverty porn” need to learn that this doesn’t work and that they are losing donations. In fact, this will never stop – never – unless they realize they are losing money.

This Christmas donate wisely.

O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

The Qu’ran, for many Muslims, is considered to be the direct word of God. Not “divinely inspired” like the Bible – but the actual direct word-for-word message from God. As such, it’s considered perfect and constitutes a moral code by which all Muslims must adhere to.

As I’ve talked about before, there is a great deal of distrust and even hatred towards the aid industry and NGOs in Bangladesh (a country where the population is about 90% Muslim). I’ve also talked about how I’ve been trying to use my ethnicity and social media to bridge this gap. But part of this problem also stems from how those in the aid industry talk about aid.

Even in an open and democratic platform like the internet, aid discussions tend to suffer from groupthink and exclude minority voices. This exclusion can happen simply because of the snark, sarcasm, and personal attacks that are frequently thrown around in online aid conversations.

Blog post from a prominent aid blogger (working at a major International NGO). Post uses the word "douchenozzle" five times and ends the post with "Total. F-cking. Douche. Nozzle."

The definition of "douchenozzle" (as provided by UrbanDictionary.com)

I try to keep this blog G-rated, so I won’t provide more examples than what you can see in the above screenshots. But, comments like this are by no means an outlier. I have screenshots of aid bloggers using words and/or vulgar euphemisms for words like this, this and this on a myriad of topics, posts, and tweets. What makes it worse is that such words are actually condoned or, sometimes, applauded.

Comments left by other aid bloggers to the above cited blog post.

Complements were also sent via Twitter...

As the digital divide is being bridged, more of the world’s poor will be able to observe these online conversations. Unless organizations develop an internal professional code of conduct for their aid workers who use social media, this could be the next great liability for NGOs. Posting anonymously may not shield NGOs. Aid workers aren’t l33t haxxors and no one stays anonymous forever.

Many Bangladeshis already tell me that the aid industry and INGOs don’t reflect them, their values, or their way of doing things. If this tone is condoned and applauded by those working to help the poor…. then they may be right.

Today was one of those days:

What Dr. Easterly is referring to is the fact that, even if you had the power to control billions of aid dollars, this really can’t be about what “we” (in the developed world) can do to help “them” (those in the developing world).

But here is where I believe we need to change the conversation – and the thinking – on global poverty. When it comes to humanity, there is no “them” there are only facets of “us”. So we don’t have to help “them”, we have to help “us”.

And we can only help “us” if we understand “us” and talk to “us” and not second guess what will help “us”. This, of course, is what any good charity or NGO says they are already doing. But I believe we can do much more on this front.

For example, take the very medium in which Dr. Easterly is espousing his views on aid. Even if “we” derive an online consensus on what is and isn’t “good aid”, it is a consensus made without the inclusion of the poorest of the poor.

If the poor don’t even have a say in a “free and open” platform like the internet, what chance do they have of having a strong say anywhere else? In the classrooms of Western universities? In NGO boardrooms? In government?

“What can we do?” is really the only question that needs to be asked – but only if “we” is redefined.

This year I’ve been talking a lot about the “Digital Divide”. But what is that? And why does it matter?

The “Digital Divide” is basically a term to describe the technological gap which prevents the poorest of the world’s poor from participating in global online conversations that are occurring on the internet.

This is important because what we are doing on the internet is starting to have the power to shape our politics, our governments, our economies, and our own personal priorities, opinions, and tastes.

If the poorest of the poor are excluded from these global conversations, we can only use the internet to make a difference for the poor instead of using the internet to make a difference with the poor.

Aid bloggers sometimes deride photos like this one as "development and technology porn". From personal experience, villagers would rather you take their photos showing them fascinated at being connected than photos selected to show them crying, emaciated, and with flies on their faces. As I've written about before, what matters the most is making sure people are portrayed as they wish to be portrayed.

This is no more clear and apparent when it comes to international aid and development. Everyone from activists, aid professionals, and aid pundits are shaping how the poorest of the poor are served.

These aid discussions – ranging from polite and professional to snarky and snide – are shaping policies and practices on what is (and isn’t) “good aid”. But, due to the digital divide, the poor don’t have a say in this online discourse.

Although I’m no aid expert, I believe there are three things that are needed for the poorest of the poor to be brought into global conversations that directly affect them:

1. Charity can’t solve this problem alone: The infrastructure needed to connect low income and remote communities must be laid by either governments or (more realistically) for-profit companies. Similarly, devices that can plug into this infrastructure (like cellphones and low cost PCs) need to be made more affordable. This isn’t about dumping stuff on the poor, but rather making it a viable consumer choice.
2. There needs to be an incentive to get connected: Charities and NGOs will need to be a big part of this by giving developing communities a greater say and control in how they receive assistance. I believe using technology to connect donors and recipients together will go a long way to make this less about aid from an institution and more about people on opposite sides of the digital divide helping each other. Why does that even matter? As I’ve talked about before, the distinction between institutions and people can be important in many cultures and contexts.
3. Giving an IP address isn’t enough: Just because someone can participate in a global online conversation, doesn’t mean they will. For example, I’ve already written about how conservative Muslims in developing countries will most likely avoid online aid blogger discussions. This is because the snark, sarcasm, and personal attacks occasionally thrown around in that space directly contradict some interpretations on Islamic Codes of Conduct. I believe digital intermediaries – or bridge-makers – can go a long way to foster conversations (and impacts) that are inclusive and free of unintentional ethnocentrism.

This is basically what talked about when I – thanks to you guys – got the opportunity to go to the World Economic Forum. It’s also something I continually talk about whenever I get the chance.

For example, with the United Nations running a contest to select a set of UN Citizen Ambassadors, I submitted this video talking about the need to bridge the digital divide:

And, while attending the United Nations Foundations’ Social Good Summit, I was asked by Ericsson to pose a question starting with “How Come?”. It was for this campaign they are running. I decided to ask “How Come the Poor Can’t Video Blog?”:

The bottom-line (and perhaps a plus): once the poor start speaking for themselves and we start using the internet to make a difference with them instead of for them, the sooner people like me will have to shut up

But, I’d have to say my favorite was seeing Scott Harrison on stage. If you’ve been following my work for a while this probably comes as no surprise. I’ve been a fan of Charity: Water for a while now.

Charity: Water works on a very different model than most NGOs. They track where every dollar goes so you know exactly what you funded and, unless you specifically ask to do so, they will never use your donation to pay for their salaries or marketing overhead.

I had a chance to sit down with Scott 1-on-1 and ask him about his model, how they have quantitative data that shows their work has made an impact, and how raising overhead separately still means that good aid and development costs money to be done right.

The very first pilot of Star Trek (which didn

A few days back, I got a Skype Video Call from Sweden. It was from the head office of Ericsson – a global telecommunications company with over $30 billion dollars in revenue last year. By the time that call ended, I was left wondering at how the world has changed – but for different reasons.

Ericsson has given me a scholarship to come the United Nations Foundation’s Social Good Summit here in NYC. I’m here to attend the events as a VIP, listen to the speakers, and share my experiences as much as I can with you guys. Some of what I share will be posted on Ericsson’s official website.

Something like this would never have happened when my dad was my age. Back then, corporations (especially multi-billion dollar ones) would carefully craft, control, and curate their corporate message. Giving such control to a non-employee was corporate heresy back then. And, as you can see below, this kind of control didn’t always bring diversity into a corporation’s message:

But here I am. I wasn’t asked to tell you how great the company is – after all, they can’t fire me if they don’t like what I say. And they don’t care that I use an iPhone and that none of my friends own a Sony Ericsson phone – in fact, as I have learned, most of their business has nothing to do with making products for consumers like you and I to buy.

I’ve talked about how this is happening – albeit much more cautiously – in the non-profit world. Experts like Beth Kanter like to call this the “Networked Nonprofit”. But it turns out, for-profit corporations have been already doing this for a while. After all, with technology and social media, an individual’s voice can sometimes be louder than an institution’s.

I believe when it comes to solving some of the world’s most difficult problems – we need to imagine these problems complexly. And to imagine something complexly we need to have a diversity in conversation. That diversity means individuals, institutions (including NGOs), and international corporations have to work together, network together, and – hopefully – solve things together.

At home, I’ve been having a lot of debates and discussions with family about what constitutes being successful. As anyone from a South Asian or Asian family like mine already knows, success in my culture is defined by how big your paycheck is.

True for South Asian families as well.

So while I can list a whole bunch of good things I’ve done and the recognition I’ve received for it, there will always be relatives that will not see me as a success. I’ve kind of learned to live with that reality. And, others in my culture encounter the same thing (see here, here, here, and here for a story from Masarat – creator of the largest TEDx event in the world).

Though there are times when I feel my relatives are right and this week is one of them.

Last year, I was invited to speak at VidCon. I had about ten days notice but was able to come up with a presentation that I am grateful was very well received. Since then I’ve been developing a story about how momentum from last year’s VidCon led to even bigger things in Bangladesh.

Unfortunately, I will not be there to tell that story at VidCon.

Sneak peak of the story I had hoped to tell in person at VidCon.

There is no YouTube drama, politics, or anything like that. Stuff happens and sponsorship to get me to VidCon didn’t come together. Sadly, in light of this, my conversations with my family have kind of looped back to the debate on how you define success.

Basically, even if some in my family concede you can be successful doing something on YouTube, they will point out charity work isn’t one of them. Making music, making jokes, microwaving things, and making explosions is success in this space according to them (a metric measured, among other things, through sponsorship to events like VidCon).

I am very proud of the many friends in the YouTube community that are musician, comedians, microwave specialists, and graphic effects pros. And I love how they’ve taken these talents and turned them into a success (both personally and financially). I also don’t think their success means others working in other areas can’t also be equally successful by the same metrics.

But, especially given the conversations I’m having and have had with family and relatives, I can’t help but feel a bit down. My tweets were just me sharing what’s going on in my life and weren’t intended to be a swipe against anyone. I’m glad all but one of you realized that