It’s 2019. You’re scrolling down your Facebook timeline, not that you would usually do that, but Vrooman’s forced you to use the barren wasteland of a social site for a grade, so you scroll ‘cause you’re there anyways. Through the swamps of political posts, offensive memes from highschool friends you don’t really like, and baby pictures from family members you don’t know, you see it: the GoFundMe. The Kickstarter. The shameless self promo.
Being from Austin, the latter is what I (personally) come across most frequently. “Come check out my alternative industrial folk-metal band; Goat Thrashers! Just some kids trying to make it! It’s really cool!” (it’s never really cool). They also usually ask that if you don’t check them out, or go to their “performances” (used liberally), to at least share their link. This is an attempt at increasing engagement and popularity for the benefit of their band. Several of Jenkins, Ford, and Green’s concepts can be applicable to this phenomenon of internet charity. But first, I’d like to get into my opinion the morality of these crowdfunding and fundraising websites.
The first article argues that too many people are abusing the generosity of others, and that they are asking for luxuries, like new cars or a vacation, rather than necessities, like cancer treatment or medical expenses. Here is an excerpt from the article I feel shows how impassioned some may feel about this misuse of the site:
“It may sound harsh, but I'm going to say it: if you don't have a job, you should be getting one before asking strangers or distant acquaintances for handouts. If you have a job and still don't have money for what you want, then be a grown up and accept that it's not in the cards for you right now. Or get a loan. Or another job. Please stop asking people to give you money so you can go to a concert or a trip abroad. It's the biggest example of abuse of privilege I can think of. If you don't HAVE to beg for money, you absolutely shouldn't be doing it.”
And then, on GoFundMes’ actual website, I’ve included their success stories. One is asking for help for educational expenses (getting a young man to Harvard by donating), and another asking for help to get a woman with Down Syndrome kickstart her bakery; allowing her to get a job.
According to the article that vehemently insisted that every non-medical, non-poverty, and non-tragedy victim related GoFundMe, these people do not deserve to have a success story. The young woman with Down Syndrome was being discriminated against for her disability, and therefore unable to get a job, but she shouldn’t accept handouts. She should actively be looking for a job, going into debt so she can pay her bills, or essentially struggle in numerous ways because it’s “not in the cards” for her.
Or, should the student not go to college because it’s “not in his cards”? Should he, someone who is already bound to be stressed from school, work as many jobs as possible just to scrape by educationally? Is education a luxury?
My problem with the article is that it is too narrow in it’s thinking. It sounded as though it was coming from a person who had just found out that they were “scammed”. But here’s where the moral and ethical lines blur: excluding scams, isn’t it your choice to donate or not to these people? So, at the end of the day, even if someone is middle class and does only use crowdfunding for a luxury item like a new car or vacation, as long as they are transparent, why is this considered an abuse of the site?
Another concept this encapsulates from Jenkins, (et al.) is the gift economy.
With crowdfunding, we understand how the receivers of money are being gifted. They get the money, then go out and buy whatever they need. It’s pretty cut and dry. But for the donators? What do they get? Besides a wallet that is less than full?
Actually, there are many “gifts” that those who donate receive that aren’t of monetary value. The main reason is mostly because it “feels nice being nice”. So, in a way, giving is selfish to the degree that a lot of people give not just because they “support the cause” (which could be done in more active ways, like volunteering at a soup kitchen), but because it makes them feel good.
However, with the internet, these acts of altruism sometimes are not only selfish for the rush of dopamine, but because they can be exploited for profit and/or marketing.
There’s been a rise of “heartfelt” videos where people record themselves doing kind or charitable things for others. It’s essentially marketing to make themselves “look good”, and can be faked. A example that went viral is when Instagram “Comedian” Lele Pons “donated” her hair to Locks of Love.
The picture that she showed of her “donation” had been obviously hair extensions, and thus she was called out on it and received a ton of backlash. This was simply bad marketing, because she could have just as easily actually donated her hair, or not donate her hair at all and contribute to another charity (legitimately), and market herself as a unselfish person who is kind and “unselfish” (willing to give money in exchange for views, for more money).
While not exactly a “gift” or act of “charity” this video had brought a lot of attention to the guy who asked her out because he (appeared) neurotypical, and was asking someone with down syndrome. (I won’t get into my opinion on the morality of asking atypical people for personal gain, because they are not a “charity” and shouldn’t be used as such-- if the intent is ever malicious).The internet received the gift of wanting that warm fuzzy feeling, and the kids really did go to prom together, so unlike Lele Pons, they didn’t “fake” their gift; it was just a nice act that was recorded and put on the internet.
Crowdfunding and gifting can both become malicious or disingenuous, and it is important to be skeptical. However, it's also not bad to give in; it feels to good to donate, people would really appreciate the donations, and you just might like Goat Thrasher, if you just give them a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment