Written by Jocelyn Martin, M.A candidate at the University of Windsor – Department of Communication, Media & Film
Symposium Speakers and Commentators
On June 26th, 2024, Windsor Law LTEC Lab held a one-day multidisciplinary forum on online donation crowdfunding platforms such as GoFundMe. Conceived and organized by Dr. Pascale Chapdelaine and Dr. Vincent Manzerolle, the Symposium brought together thought leaders, scholars, and legal professionals to explore the legal, ethical, communications, and socio-political issues surrounding these platforms.
The popularity of crowdfunding platforms has skyrocketed, with fundraising campaigns being organized for a multitude of purposes. The 2018 Humbold Broncos Bus Crash funding campaign, the 2022 Trucker Convoy, as well as the increased use of donation platforms for personal healthcare needs or to make ends meet, highlight some of the socio-political dimensions of this growing phenomenon. This post aims to encapsulate some prominent themes from the Symposium’s discussions.
“Researching Political Crowdfunding Campaigns: Premises, Promises, and Obstacles”
Keynote Speaker Dr. Greg Elmer, Professor and Bell Globe media Research Chair in Professional Communication at the Toronto Metropolitan University, emphasized the importance of the crowdfunding platforms’ associated identities and explained how this brand identity is carefully curated. To attract campaigners, crowdfunding platforms must appeal to them. Our panelists agreed that there is a clear effort from the crowdfunding platforms to make it seem as if crowdfunding is innately accessible. GoFundMe was specifically targeted by Dr. Greg Elmer. Having experience utilizing the platform himself, he noted that the process of putting together a successful campaign was very resource intensive. Despite GoFundMe presenting itself as an easy way to make money, in addition to monetary expenses, there is also an intensive amount of labour required in campaigning. The integration of other social media platforms into crowdfunding campaigns and the skills required for creating content also worsen a digital divide – where those less familiar with online spaces or without access to technological resources will find it additionally challenging to produce a successful campaign (or pitch as he describes them). There is irony in the fact that those who struggle with material resources are perhaps the most needing of crowdfunding support, yet they are severely disadvantaged by the platforms themselves. According to Dr. Greg Elmer most GoFundMe campaigns actually raise no money whatsoever. Most campaigns fail.
PANEL 1: Media, Politics, the Creator Economy & Crowdfunding
The first panel focused on the media and communication aspects of crowdfunding including algorithmic tendencies, the affordances of digital platforms, and the surrounding political and economic context.
Our panelists were: Dr. Vincent Manzerolle, Professor, Department of Communication, Media, and Film, University of Windsor; Michael Daubs (not in attendance), Research Associate, He Whenua Taurikura, The Centre of Research Excellence for preventing and Countering Violent Extremism; Shrey Vohra, MA candidate, department of Communication, Media, and Film, University of Windsor. The panel was moderated by Dr. Aidan Moir, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, Media, and Film, University of Windsor
Dr. Vincent Manzerolle, Associate Professor, University of Windsor, Department of Communication, Media and Film, presented on "Transactional Configurations of Audiences, Users, and Funders: Notes on the Political Economy of Crowdfunding Platforms in Light of the Emergencies Act". He describes how crowdfunding platforms such as GoFundMe can serve as conduits for extreme ideological beliefs and campaigns. The 2022 Trucker Convoy utilized the technological affordances of crowdfunding platforms to generate resources and momentum behind dangerous Alt Right ideologies. This adaptation of Alt-Right ideas to digital platforms can be referred to as ‘Alt-Tech’.
When examining the Trucker Convoy as a case study, Dr. Vincent Manzerolle shared livestreams and other external social media posts from the online Trucker Convoy community. These livestreams showed members of the 2022 Convoy actively participating in the ‘pilgrimage’ and publicly documenting their embarkment. Members of the community could participate in the livestream chats and donate to those making the journey to Ottawa. It became clear in our discussions that there are many ways in which someone may participate in a crowd-funding campaign through other external platforms. Through this presentation we came to understand the complex online culture and behaviours developed around digital crowdfunding.
Dr. Manzerolle noted that these campaigns reach far beyond a call for resources. Crowdfunding campaigns are also an appeal to values. This emotional and ideological aspect is difficult to measure, but clearly a compelling force in and of itself. He describes the convoy as “...less of a protest against public health measures than an effort to... garner support around ideals of sovereignty and freedom.” The 2022 Trucker Convoy serves as an excellent case study for understanding how crowdfunding campaigns can become powerful vehicles for political commentary and engagement. At the same time, it is clear that we are vastly underprepared to contend with the intense momentum built behind large crowdfunding campaigns. This is especially damning when part of this polarization process is built into the platforms themselves.
Patreon: Crowdfunding the Creator Economy
The variety of approaches to the discussion within our first panel made clear that each crowdfunding platform differs in its algorithmic processes and has its own respective social implications. Underneath these attributes is a foundation of political and economic motivators. The drive to produce profit for crowdfunding platforms shapes how they function, and in doing so influences the outcomes experienced by users. Panelist Shrey Vohra, MA Candidate, University of Windsor, in Communication and Social Justice, Department of Communication, Media and Film, presented on “Patreon: Crowdfunding the Creator Economy.” He outlines how reliance on digital advertising by digital media incentivizes platforms to prioritize the needs of those advertisers, potentially putting their own users at risk in several ways. Some of which include algorithmic opaqueness, the encouragement of ideological polarization and hostility to generate attention, and a general lack of consideration for the safety of the users when algorithmically curating an audience.
A frequent point of concern is the impact these algorithmic decisions have on marginalized groups. Vohra describes how Patreon’s community guidelines are uniquely specific in targeting extremist or ideologically harmful groups when compared to other crowdfunding platforms. He argues that this is why marginalized groups may choose to use Patreon over other crowdfunding platforms that rely solely on platform-integrated advertisements. Unfortunately, as Vohra also points out, one of the limitations of crowdfunding platforms (Patreon in this instance) is that they do not host the campaigning content themselves. Patreon is a lean platform; it does not own the material and acts as a mediator. Patreon offers limited tools while taking a cut from its creators - providing little to facilitate their actual content creation. As a result, Patreon users will also be impacted by the algorithmic biases of other platforms such as YouTube or TikTok.
To appeal to content creators, Patreon flaunts the idea that it can provide a more stable financial alternative to ad revenue – the most conventional way content creators make money – by leveraging the content creator’s fanbase. Despite this associated stability, less than 2% of Patreon’s campaigners achieve minimum wage, and the vast majority of campaigns earn a negligible amount. This directly relates back to Dr. Greg Elmer’s opening discussion about GoFundMe and the division between what we associate with these platforms and the results that they produce.
Keynote Speaker Greg Elmer (left); Panelist Dr. Vincent Manzerolle (right)
Closing Thoughts
In this first panel Dr. Vincent Manzerolle and Dr. Greg Elmer forefront how emotional energy binds together separate realms, both online and offline – blurring the lines between participants and observers. With online crowdfunding campaigns such as the 2022 Trucker Convoy, events are premeditated – demonstrating that online discourses become physically materialized within these movements. For this reason, media theorists must triangulate the impact of actors, platform affordances, and practices when researching online crowdfunding. This approach is inherently interdisciplinary and multimodal. From the critical paradigm, algorithmically reinstated inequality and the surrounding political economy of digital media ought to be met with a great deal of scrutiny. It is also essential to understand how these different economic and social factors are dialectically intertwined and mutually informed.
PANEL 2: Healthcare, Politics, Sociology and Crowdfunding
The second panel focused on social and behavioral aspects of online crowdfunding including algorithmic biases, the social conditions surrounding charity, and the responsibility of social welfare.
The panelists were: Vincci Li, PhD Candidate York University - Social and Political Thought program; and (Virtually) Martin Lukk, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Toronto, Department of Sociology. The panel was moderated by Dr. Trudo Lemmens, Professor, Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy. Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.
Why is Medical Crowdfunding so Popular in Canada Despite a Universal Healthcare System?
The second panel utilized qualitative and quantitative data to examine trends within crowdfunding campaigns and users. Many of the prominent themes heavily overlapped with the first panel and ignited a flurry of additional ethical concerns with the algorithmic decision making of GoFundMe. Panelist Martin Lukk, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Toronto, Department of Sociology presented on, “Algorithms in Personal Crowdfunding: Evidence from GoFundMe Healthcare Campaigns.” He explains that GoFundMe has expanded rapidly across the globe to over 22 countries – surpassing many traditional charity organizations. Like Dr. Greg Elmer, Lukk emphasized that many of the algorithmic choices and techniques came from other crowdfunding sites focused on entrepreneurship and are problematic in the social welfare context. Panelists agreed that in severe cases this may even influence life or death for campaigners.
Panelist Vincci Li, PhD Candidate York University, Social and Political Thought program, presented on “Grateful but not Entitled: Exploring perspectives of medical crowdfunding participants in Canada.” She found through her research that gaps in social safety nets and the limits within our public healthcare system coverage appear on crowdfunding platforms. Other areas of struggle also populate GoFundMe. Campaigns for rent, groceries, medical bills, and other areas of need frequently appeared on the site.
Countries with poor social safety nets tended to use crowdfunding significantly more. This trend is also reflected within Canadian provinces. Often healthcare related needs in terms of equipment, adapted facilities and lost wages are not fulfilled by our universal healthcare system. When faced with a high cost of living and a strained public system, Canadians are turning to crowdfunding platforms for relief.
How Might Algorithms Reproduce Inequitable Outcomes for Marginalized Groups?
Our second panel returned to the discussion of inequitable outcomes. In our first presentation Li explained that since we equate GoFundMe crowdfunding with charity, many of our associations and assumptions with charities are ported over to crowdfunding platforms. One way Li illustrates this is through outlining the social discourse of needs. She identifies three moments of struggle: Defining needs, legitimizing needs as a public or private matter and assigning the responsibility of fulfilment (Fraser, 1989). In this instance, GoFundMe is fulfilling needs that have been otherwise neglected publicly and privately – seemingly assigning the responsibility on to the campaigner to advocate for their own needs. This impacts the way campaigners go about their efforts, as well as what constitutes a successful campaign.
Li relays that her interviewees often expressed shame for asking for or needing help. She reminded us of the surrounding social contexts that frame the act of asking for help or requiring help as undesirable (whereas helping others is considered favorable). This additional pressure makes campaigns typically a one-shot solution that is not repeatable. Often beneficiaries expressed to Li that if someone had not started a crowdfunding campaign on their behalf, they would have never started one themselves. This standardized personal crowdfunding campaigning process, and our social understanding of this practice contribute to the idea that sickness or disability is an exception, rather than a naturally occurring part of life. This creates additional barriers for the chronically ill, as they may require consistent support – and as such are not an appealing campaign for GoFundMe’s algorithmic formula.
Panelist Martin Lukk suggests that crowdfunding is increasingly focused on individual welfare. Campaigns that are already successful are the most promoted by GoFundMe – inherently limiting the platform’s diversity. This is because GoFundMe is geared towards profit which leads to promoting “good looking” campaigns. This inevitably contributes to inequitable outcomes and disproportionately harms minorities and vulnerable groups. Within his research Lukk found that 80% of campaigners in 2022 on GoFundMe where white, which is proportionally overrepresented while older populations were underrepresented. There were also notable group success differences with Black, Hispanic and elderly campaigners who tended to raise less than comparable campaigns from younger, white campaigners.
Panelist Vincci Li (centre); Moderator Dr. Trudo Lemmens (left)
Closing Thoughts
The discussion that followed further pulled apart what individual crowdfunding platforms claim they are (charity) and what they actually offer. Since the priority of these platforms is to produce profit, they elevate specific ‘desirable’ campaigns at the expense of others. There is also growing concern about the algorithmically determined ‘desirability’ of campaigns and who suffers due to how this is qualified.
PANEL 3: Legal Implications and Frameworks for Crowdfunding
The final panel was about the difficulties in applying existing legal frameworks to online crowdfunding donation platforms.
Our panelists were: Mary-Jane Roy, LL.M. candidate, Faculty of Law McGill University, and Researcher for the Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative Law; Marcela Aroca, Senior Partner, Legal Focus LLP; and Dr. Pascale Chapdelaine, Professor at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law and Director of Windsor Law LTEC Lab. The panel was moderated by Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research in the Civil Law Section Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa.
The Trust as a Legal Framework for Donation-Based Crowdfunding
Panelist Mary-Jane Roy, LL.M. candidate, Faculty of Law McGill University, and Researcher for the Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative Law, presented on “The Trust as a Legal Framework for Donation-Based Crowdfunding.” She begins by explaining that there is not really a specific legal framework in place for online crowdfunding. She outlines how legal trusts may be applicable to online crowdfunding and details some of the shortcomings within these frameworks. She begins by breaking down different kinds of crowdfunding including donation-based, investment-based, and presale crowdfunding. The most prevalent form when examining online platforms like GoFundMe is donation-based crowdfunding, in which donors give to a cause without receiving anything beyond a small gift in return.
She goes on to explain that there are currently two directly applicable model laws; the first of which is the 2011 Uniform Public Appeals Act (UPPAA), In this model law, refunds and surpluses had to be returned to the donors. This aspect is a weakness in the context of online crowdfunding, as the donors in these instances can be difficult or impossible to locate. The 2020 Uniform Benevolent and Community Crowdfunding Act (UBCCA) was later adapted to account for new fundraising methods and better handles the various levels of intermediaries involved with online crowdfunding. Another benefit of UBCCA is the ability to reallocate surplus funds to similar charities, campaigns or efforts. In this framework online platforms are mediating vessels of crowdfunding and not considered a trustee unless they are more directly implicated with the raised funds. This allows online crowdfunding platforms to evade the responsibilities of a trustee. When applying these existing structures to online crowdfunding platforms, the beneficiary can also be difficult to definitively define. Getting charitable status for a trust is a rigorous process that often excludes online crowdfunding, emphasizing the limited application of these existing legal frameworks.
Crowdfunding, Charitable Donations, and Tax Relief
Panelist Marcela Aroca, Senior Partner, Legal Focus LLP, presented on “Bridging the Gap: Crowdfunding, Charitable Donations, and Tax Relief.” She shared her surprise to discover how little research existed around the taxation of crowdfunding despite the federal government's responsibility to incentivize charitable donations. Since online crowdfunding typically deals with gift-based donations rather than regular income, they are typically not taxable. Though, there are positive tax implications in place to incentivize charitable gifting. For instance, charities are tax exempt and donating to a registered charity can earn the donor tax credits. In the context of online crowdfunding, individual-beneficiary driven campaigns would generally not meet the registered charity requirements despite their charitable goals, and so the existing tax incentives for donors are almost always unapplicable. Given that a large portion of donors to registered charities are elderly and that crowdfunding platforms garner a much younger audience, Marcela Aroca suggests that reform should be considered to better account for this shift. She hopes that there may be some developments to increase access to tax benefits and respond to the popularization of online crowdfunding. She also puts forth a question about whether donations from reward-based funding should be taxable in the hands of the recipient as business income (this characterization of income has not yet been tested in courts).
Charitable Crowdfunding and the Legal Status of Personal Donors: A Research Agenda
Dr. Pascale Chapdelaine, Associate Professor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law, presented on “Charitable Crowdfunding and the Legal Status of Personal Donors: a Research Agenda.” She noted that GoFundMe experienced a 274% rise in Canadian Campaigns that mention “cost-of-living" since 2020. With the prominence of crowdfunding campaigns accelerating so rapidly, related legal questions concerning liability of platforms, privacy, and the protection of freedom of expression and association of donors are brought forward. Dr. Chapdelaine explained that there are several existing gaps in the law and put forward a research agenda.
Despite personal data protection increasingly being seen as a human right, personal data protection law (e.g. PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. S.C. 2000, c. 5.) does not always apply to fundraising campaign organizers. This is because donations do not give rise to a commercial transaction. For the same reason, donors are not protected by consumer protection law; and donations often do not give rise to an enforceable contract between fundraiser and donor, for lack of consideration (although there may be a contract between donor and donation platform). Deceiving fundraising campaigns may give rise to tort law claims. However, proving loss or harm from a deceiving fundraising campaign will be hard to prove, barring such claims. Holding crowdfunding platforms liable may be difficult – especially when they limit their responsibilities through their terms and conditions.
On the issue of donor privacy, Dr. Pascale Chapdelaine gave the example of a police officer in Windsor whose employment was terminated after they had been found donating to the Freedom Convoy campaign in 2022. This sparked conversation about freedom of association, freedom of expression, and privacy as human rights.
Keynote Speaker Dr. Greg Elmer (left); Panelist Dr. Pascale Chapdelaine (right)
Closing Thoughts and Discussion
The discussion that followed panel 3 closely examined power and the changing nature of personal donations in a networked society. Additional points of interest included the empowered vs the vulnerable donor; the responsibility of states in welfare and philanthropy; the dignity of the beneficiary; and the power dynamics and differences separating small personal donors and large (institutional) donors. Additionally intriguing was how we might begin to quantify and understand the social powers (social capital) and momentum built behind crowdfunding campaigns beyond what is financially measurable.
We would like to thank our panelists and contributors for sharing their expertise and engaging with ideas across various disciplines. Stay tuned! LTEC Lab is hoping to build on this Symposium with additional network and research initiatives.
コメント