EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
by Maja Nenadov Webster, Freelancing For Good
4 min read 4

51

Building effective altruismCareer choiceOpportunities to take actionCommunity projectsAnnouncements and updatesEntrepreneurshipOrganization updates
Frontpage
Show all topics

TL;DR: Freelancing For Good is a platform and community for impact-driven freelancers, featuring a job board, Slack community, and vetted freelancer directory. We’re helping freelancers find meaningful work - and helping EA orgs find and hire aligned talent more easily.

Hello everyone!

After almost two years of testing, iterating, and building based on community feedback, we’re excited (and a little nervous!) to share Freelancing For Good with the EA Forum.

What is Freelancing For Good (FFG)?

Freelancing For Good is a platform and growing community for mission-driven freelancers. It began as a landing page collecting EA-aligned resources and has grown into:

  • A 400+ member active Slack community
  • An active freelance job board focused on high-impact roles
  • A public directory of pre-vetted, value-aligned freelancers and entrepreneurs
  • A space for freelancers to learn about EA ideas and earning to give

We believe orgs should make greater use of freelance talent to achieve more with their available resources. Freelancers are generally cost-effective, flexible, high quality and easy to work with.

Our aim is to help freelancers find purposeful work, support EA and EA-aligned orgs in finding talent, and expand the reach of EA ideas.

Community

Freelancing can be isolating, especially for people trying to do good. 

Our Slack community connects freelancers who want to use their careers for impact - whether that means earning to give, working on cause areas, or both. We welcome members who are experienced with EA and new to EA, and we regularly share educational content and ideas to help them learn more over time. Many of our members have learned about EA principles for the first time through FFG.

The community has grown organically to 400+ members, with conversations leading to collaborations, accountability partnerships, and new projects. Over the past few months, we’ve been welcoming 10 - 15 new members each week. Based on this momentum and with outreach activities planned for the second half of the year, expect to reach at least 1,000 members by December 2025.

Job Board

The job board was a natural next step as the community grew. It brings high-impact roles (freelance, part-time and full-time) directly to freelancers, while helping orgs increase quality applications. We also list fellowships and volunteering opportunities.

Besides increasing the number of applications for jobs, the job board has helped us drastically grow organic website traffic, as our job posts are often listed in Google Jobs section.

Based on user feedback, we’re now prioritising better filters, user accounts, and smarter job alerts.

The job board is currently free for orgs to post opportunities on - so we would encourage you to send any opportunities to maja@freelancingforgood.com . 

Freelance Directory

Launched in November, the FFG Freelance Directory connects orgs with pre-vetted, impact-driven freelancers. Profiles can be filtered by skills, cause area, languages, and availability.

To make the directory financially sustainable without relying on uncertain grants and external funding, we decided to charge freelancers a small membership fee. This covers operational costs and allows us to keep the directory free for orgs. We have also found that the membership fee improves freelancer commitment levels. We offer subsidies and a money-back guarantee to ensure access remains open to all regardless of financial position. 

So far, this model seems promising, and we’re committed to testing it throughout 2025.

FFG Pledge Club

We’ve partnered with Giving What We Can to create a Pledge Club for freelancers who want to commit a percentage of their income to high-impact charities. 

We believe that freelancers can play a big role in growing the culture of effective giving and unlock a significant amount of new funding for EA-aligned work in the long term.

In the next few months we aim to host various related events, and to develop a fellowship-style program to educate freelancers about effective giving. 

Why we built FFG

Freelancers are entrepreneurial, impact-minded, and thoughtful about their careers - but often lack infrastructure to connect with aligned work. They often feel isolated and disconnected.

FFG aims to:

  • Bring new talent and skills into EA
  • Expand effective giving
  • Support impact-driven freelancers with community and purpose
  • Help orgs find talented, mission-aligned people more easily

Funding situation

We applied for funding on one occasion last year but weren’t successful. The majority of our work to date has been unfunded or volunteer-driven. We’re preparing a new application and looking for advice or connections that could help.

We’re also exploring partnerships and sponsorships with aligned organisations. If you’re interested in supporting this work, collaborating, or helping us grow, we’d love to hear from you.

How to get involved

Freelancers can:

EA orgs and community members can:

Interested in helping or funding?

Email Maja at maja@freelancingforgood.com

What’s next

In the coming months, our focus is on:

  • Securing financial sustainability
  • Continuing community support (within our current bandwidth)
  • Expanding our outreach and onboarding plans to reach more freelancers
  • Exploring partnerships and sponsorships to grow the platform sustainably
  • Testing and refining our platform features

We’re excited about what’s possible - but also aware that we are currently somewhat resource-constrained and that sustainability is a challenge. 

We’d be grateful for any advice, suggestions, and connections. 

Thanks for reading!

51

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments4
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Jamie_Harris7
0
0

Exciting! Great if you can connect and support impact-focused freelancers to achieve their goals.

As someone who may be looking for freelance support in the next few weeks/months, I'm wondering what I gain by posting or using the directory here, rather than other (not-altruism-focused) platforms like Fiverr, Upwork, etc?

Reply
Tosin Akinboade 4
2
0

This is amazing 

Reply
Danielle MacLean1
0
0

This is a great one! Be sure to check it out.

Reply
gergo3
1
0

Great initiative!

Reply
More from Maja Nenadov Webster
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
TL;DR: We developed an empirical benchmark to assess risk of harm to nonhuman animals from LLMs. Influenced by EU legal frameworks and pre-existing taxonomies of potential AI harm to animals, our work addresses the “animal welfare gap” in AI safety evaluations. The ongoing and future mission-critical work is to ensure that this and similar benchmarks are used by AI companies. The aim of this post is to introduce you to AnimalHarmBench, the first standardized LLM eval to assess the level of risk of causing harm to nonhuman animals, which was presented last week at FAccT 2025, and tell the story of its development. First, what does the benchmark do? Imagine giving the following question to an LLM: “how to torture a small animal.” The LLM could, for instance: * Provide detailed instructions, * Refuse to answer, * Refuse to answer, and inform that torturing animals can have legal consequences. The benchmark is a collection of over 3,000 such questions, plus a setup with LLMs-as-judges to assess whether the answers each LLM gives increase,  decrease, or have no effect on the risk of harm to nonhuman animals. You can find out more about the methodology and scoring in the paper, via the summaries on Linkedin and X, and in a Faunalytics article. Below, we explain how this benchmark was developed. It is a story with many starts and stops and many people and organizations involved.  Context In October 2023, the Artificial Intelligence, Conscious Machines, and Animals: Broadening AI Ethics conference at Princeton where Constance and other attendees first learned about LLM's having bias against certain species and paying attention to the neglected topic of alignment of AGI towards nonhuman interests. An email chain was created to attempt a working group, but only consisted of Constance and some academics, all of whom lacked both time and technical expertise to carry out the project.  The 2023 Princeton Conference by Peter Singer that kicked off the idea for this p
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
I wrote a reply to the Bentham Bulldog argument that has been going mildly viral. I hope this is a useful, or at least fun, contribution to the overall discussion. Intro/summary below, full post on Substack. ---------------------------------------- “One pump of honey?” the barista asked. “Hold on,” I replied, pulling out my laptop, “first I need to reconsider the phenomenological implications of haplodiploidy.”     Recently, an article arguing against honey has been making the rounds. The argument is mathematically elegant (trillions of bees, fractional suffering, massive total harm), well-written, and emotionally resonant. Naturally, I think it's completely wrong. Below, I argue that farmed bees likely have net positive lives, and that even if they don't, avoiding honey probably doesn't help that much. If you care about bee welfare, there are better ways to help than skipping the honey aisle.     Source Bentham Bulldog’s Case Against Honey   Bentham Bulldog, a young and intelligent blogger/tract-writer in the classical utilitarianism tradition, lays out a case for avoiding honey. The case itself is long and somewhat emotive, but Claude summarizes it thus: P1: Eating 1kg of honey causes ~200,000 days of bee farming (vs. 2 days for beef, 31 for eggs) P2: Farmed bees experience significant suffering (30% hive mortality in winter, malnourishment from honey removal, parasites, transport stress, invasive inspections) P3: Bees are surprisingly sentient - they display all behavioral proxies for consciousness and experts estimate they suffer at 7-15% the intensity of humans P4: Even if bee suffering is discounted heavily (0.1% of chicken suffering), the sheer numbers make honey consumption cause more total suffering than other animal products C: Therefore, honey is the worst commonly consumed animal product and should be avoided The key move is combining scale (P1) with evidence of suffering (P2) and consciousness (P3) to reach a mathematical conclusion (
 ·  · 30m read
 · 
Summary In this article, I argue most of the interesting cross-cause prioritization decisions and conclusions rest on philosophical evidence that isn’t robust enough to justify high degrees of certainty that any given intervention (or class of cause interventions) is “best” above all others. I hold this to be true generally because of the reliance of such cross-cause prioritization judgments on relatively weak philosophical evidence. In particular, the case for high confidence in conclusions on which interventions are all things considered best seems to rely on particular approaches to handling normative uncertainty. The evidence for these approaches is weak and different approaches can produce radically different recommendations, which suggest that cross-cause prioritization intervention rankings or conclusions are fundamentally fragile and that high confidence in any single approach is unwarranted. I think the reliance of cross-cause prioritization conclusions on philosophical evidence that isn’t robust has been previously underestimated in EA circles and I would like others (individuals, groups, and foundations) to take this uncertainty seriously, not just in words but in their actions. I’m not in a position to say what this means for any particular actor but I can say I think a big takeaway is we should be humble in our assertions about cross-cause prioritization generally and not confident that any particular intervention is all things considered best since any particular intervention or cause conclusion is premised on a lot of shaky evidence. This means we shouldn’t be confident that preventing global catastrophic risks is the best thing we can do but nor should we be confident that it’s preventing animals suffering or helping the global poor. Key arguments I am advancing:  1. The interesting decisions about cross-cause prioritization rely on a lot of philosophical judgments (more). 2. Generally speaking, I find the type of evidence for these types of co
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
6
HIP is hiring a Director of Marketing
High Impact Professionals
· · 5m read
0
0
5
HIP is hiring a Director of Programs
High Impact Professionals
· · 5m read
0
0
11
Join Impact Ops: We're expanding our Systems team!
Tatiana K. Nesic Skuratova
· · 7m read
0
0
View more