Also curious how "multiple groups who conflict" will be handled. On Votizen, there was already D vs. R (with a lot more D...), but my experience with causes is that it was mainly pro-things, where no one was really anti that thing, just maybe "don't feel it's the most important thing to do".
Do you guys have plans or expect this company to ever monetize?
I always liked the term not-just-for-profit.
Congrats on the merge, guys!
I've heard this confusion consistently from people, so I get where you're coming from. It is possible to have a for-profit business whose customer is the non-profit, or the campaign, or the NGO.
I can tell you that I will work inside Causes to make it a thing we do.
EDIT: to be clear, I don't mean informed gun policy, I mean informed policy in general. Gun policy is just a recent example.
While Sandy Hook was a tragedy, it proves the reach that Causes has and can definitely help be a launch pad for the tumultuous future in politics in America and around the world.
Turning the capture of attention that Causes has into a source of political candidate data and actionable metrics for their audience seems like a critical step into turning angry online voices into voter turn-out. Using social networking which takes less money and time to spread a message is one of the best utilizations of our technology that I've seen so far, and definitely far nobler (Sorry, FarmVille).
Great job guys, and its great to see startups coming out of San Fran that are a little less frivolous and a little more impactful on what could be a very dim future for democracy. Take the wind out of the SuperPACs!
