Polls reveal scepticism about online campaigns
Crowdfunding platforms have become fixtures of American life, collecting billions of dollars for medical bills, memorial funds and disaster relief. But a new poll by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research suggests public confidence in these platforms is rapidly eroding. Fewer than one in ten Americans express strong trust that money raised on sites such as GoFundMe goes where it is promised; 41 per cent have no confidence at all. Respondents cite high processing fees and tips as major irritants: GoFundMe, for instance, encourages donors to add a 17.5 per cent tip by default even though the platform no longer charges a separate fee. Only about 10 per cent of campaigns meet their stated goals, and average donation sizes have declined over the past two years. The poll reveals a paradox: despite widespread scepticism, more than half of Americans have donated through crowdfunding at least once, reflecting both the need for assistance and the lack of faith in traditional safety nets.

The survey also highlights stark inequalities. Fundraisers launched by people with wealthy social networks—often white, college‑educated and middle‑class—are far likelier to succeed than those started by low‑income individuals or communities of colour. Analysts point to recent examples to illustrate the point: after Kansas City resident Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed, a campaign for her family raised more than $500,000 within days. By contrast, a drive for Keith Porter Jr., a Black man who died in police custody, has struggled to reach its modest $50,000 goal. These disparities mirror broader systemic inequalities in the United States, where access to care often depends on who you know and how compelling your story is. Critics argue that relying on online generosity to cover basic needs effectively privatizes social services, rewarding those with viral marketing skills and punishing those without. Some policymakers warn that the proliferation of crowdfunding may even encourage cuts to government welfare programmes if lawmakers see private donations filling gaps.

Calls for transparency and systemic change
In response to growing mistrust, consumer advocates are calling for reforms. They want platforms to adopt clearer tipping structures, cap processing fees and provide itemized accounting so donors know how much money reaches beneficiaries. They also urge companies to promote campaigns run by marginalized groups and to vet organizers to prevent fraud. GoFundMe says it reviews high‑profile fundraisers but cannot audit every campaign; critics counter that leaving donors to do their own research invites scams. Some states are considering regulations that would classify crowdfunding as a form of charity subject to oversight. Meanwhile, ethicists and economists warn that crowdfunding’s rise masks deeper problems: skyrocketing medical costs, inadequate insurance and weak social safety nets. They argue that philanthropic giving, while compassionate, should not absolve governments of responsibility for ensuring access to healthcare and disaster relief.

Debates over crowdfunding go beyond technical fixes; they touch on the moral economy of giving. Successful campaigns often feature slick videos and heart‑wrenching narratives that tug at donors’ emotions. Social scientists note that this dynamic can reinforce the idea of “deserving” versus “undeserving” victims, privileging those who are photogenic or media-savvy. High‑profile fraud cases—such as a woman who faked cancer to collect donations—have further eroded trust and prompted demands for stricter oversight. Advocates for disabled and low-income communities emphasize that many people who need help never create campaigns because they lack digital literacy or fear public exposure. Others worry that crowdfunding encourages the rich to feel they have done their part with a click, undermining support for systemic reforms like universal healthcare or better unemployment insurance. Unless platforms increase transparency and society strengthens public safety nets, mistrust is likely to deepen even as millions continue to donate out of empathy.