The problem with Child's Play is that it exists to solve first world problems (child boredom) in first world countries - the only ones where children get prolonged hospital care. Out of the 70+ hospitals they work with, only 18 are outside the US, and only 2 aren't in first world countries. In the rest of the world, neither families nor the state can afford to keep children hospitalized (and presumably undergoing expensive treatments) for months, let alone years. Here, they just don't get treatment and die. And if Child's Play actually helps children with short (less than a few months) hospital stays... Well, suggest to any person in my country that there should be a charity that buys toys for children that are in hospital for a few weeks and watch their amazement or amusement at your insanity.
In any case, there would be no problem if CP got its donations only from rich countries and primarily from the US, but it doesn't. If I buy something here and am forced to give some percentage of my payment to CP, that means a person from a country where children die because they can't get treatment is paying for toys for children in the richest countries in the world. That's insulting.
Also, CP was created to combat the negative perception of video gamers in mainstream media. Yet, if I was an outside observer, I'd now think gamers to be the sort of wealthy and detached from the real world people who buy Apple products, for choosing such an inane cause to get excited about.
Finally, I am bothered by the charity's specific focus on children, as if older people's problems are somehow of lesser importance. This is by no means an issue specific to CP, as it's a global or at least international phenomenon, but they are guilty of further propagating it. Every time some sort of accident results in deaths, news shows never fail to make a mention of how many children were hurt in addition to the total casualties, as if that's somehow meaningful. Seemingly every charity tries to find some way of putting children in its promotional materials, if it isn't child-focused to begin with. It's all quite disgusting.
Interesting, maybe I am not too well read on the subject, but what is insulting about trying to make life more fun for kids who are unfortunate enough to be sick?
I mean, do you think that animal hospitals are equally insulting because we should be using the resources and manpower on other things?
Or is there some kind of scandal or such that I am just not aware of?
Please do not take this the wrong way, I am genuinely interested in why Childs play would be a "bad and insulting" option as we choose that to be the charity for our game if it gets on the PWYW-deal. And we do not want to insult anyone
Of the problems noted above, the first one is what you need to keep in mind in general when choosing a charity. IGS has an international userbase and since charity payments (minus CP now) are mandatory, it can be insulting for a lot of users to have to donate to a charity that only operates in regions that are far too wealthy to need outside help. The US is at the top of that list, as the primary benefactor of the globalised world economy. So any US-only or US-centric charities are likely to alienate non-US users.
The best bets given those circumstances are global charities that focus on the most disadvantaged regions of the world. Nobody can argue with helping out those less well-off than oneself, and people who have a computer, an internet connection and access to online banking services are certainly not among the most disadvantaged.
Regarding animal hospitals, my stance is the same - I would support them only in regions that aren't better off than mine.
EDIT: Forgot to mention something - The Electronic Frontier Foundation is perhaps an exception, as US laws do matter abroad due to various international agreements and the influence of US embassies on weak local governments. Even worse, clueless governments will tend to copy other nations, especially the US, when making their own laws. So this is a cause that most gamers worldwide will probably care about, to some extent, as nobody likes to see their favourite old game's fan remake get a cease and desist, or their favourite YouTube channel's videos brought down, or whatever other crap corporate lawyers like to keep themselves busy with.
Note that I'm not endorsing the EFF. I don't know just how effective they are at achieving their stated goals and I don't know how efficiently they use donations, so do your own research before picking a charity.