Why Do We Have to "Campaign" to Deserve Help?
Wildfires in California have become a grim ritual. Every season, hundreds of homes go up in flames, entire neighborhoods are destroyed, and thousands of people are forced to rebuild their lives.
But beyond the flames, another harsh reality emerges: not all victims are equal in the face of disaster.
A recent article by Jonas Valdez in The Intercept highlighted a disturbing bias: after the Eaton fire, which devastated the city of Altadena, GoFundMe campaigns overwhelmingly favored wealthier white families, while Black and working-class residents were left behind.
Why this inequality? Because on GoFundMe, mutual aid works like a market. Those who know how to sell themselves, tell a compelling story, and mobilize their networks receive more donations. The rest remain in the shadows.
Should people really need to be good communicators to deserve help after a disaster?
Why must victims beg, campaign, and win over an audience, when aid should be automatic?
We have entered an era where solidarity is privatized. It is no longer a right but a service, governed by the laws of marketing and social capital.
And what if the real problem goes beyond GoFundMe?
Social Aid Has Become a Competition
Altadena is not an isolated case. The Intercept article cites several studies that reveal a systemic bias in online fundraising:
Middle-class and working-class people receive fewer donations than wealthier families.
Campaigns led by Black or Hispanic individuals are less successful than those led by white people.
Older, isolated victims, or those less skilled with the internet, struggle to raise funds.
In other words: GoFundMe does not reflect the urgency of needs—it reflects communication skills.
Imagine two victims of the same fire:
One has influential friends, a great photo, a moving text, and a powerful video. They raise $50,000 in a week.
The other, older, isolated, and uncomfortable with online tools, barely collects $800.
The problem is not a lack of generosity. The problem is that generosity follows invisible biases—shaped by social networks, class dynamics, and the mechanisms of emotional capitalism.
A False Illusion of Solidarity: GoFundMe Is Not an Alternative, It’s a Symptom
The Intercept article highlights a bias in crowdfunding, but its critique remains internal—it points out the unfairness of campaigns without questioning why aid relies on this model in the first place.
In reality, the issue goes beyond GoFundMe: we have replaced a system of collective aid with individual competition.
Before, when disaster struck, governments and institutions provided automatic assistance to victims.
Today, each person is pushed to fend for themselves—to "pitch" their distress like a startup project.
This shift is profound: mutual aid is no longer a guaranteed social right, but a marketplace where everyone must compete to be seen.
If you're a good communicator, you get help.
If you're invisible, you don’t exist.
The injustice of GoFundMe is not a flaw—it’s a feature of the system.
GoFundMe: A Social Lottery Disguised as Charity?
If this trend continues, it won’t be surprising to see in the future:
Students launching GoFundMe campaigns to pay for their education.
Patients raising money for medical treatment.
Disaster victims competing for public attention.
This is a slippery slope, where all forms of aid become commodities subject to market forces.
Philosopher John Rawls argued that in a just society, aid should go first to the most vulnerable. But here, we see the opposite: those who need help the most are the ones who receive the least.
So, the choice is clear:
A world where aid depends on storytelling and social capital → Competition, inequality, and social Darwinism applied to charity.
A world where aid is a structured and universal right → Social justice, equitable redistribution, and collective mechanisms.
Today, we are dangerously moving toward the first model.
What Kind of Society Do We Want?
The Intercept article exposes an immediate injustice, but it doesn’t ask the fundamental question:
Why do we accept that a private platform decides who gets to survive?
Why is aid treated as a market rather than a fundamental right?
If we continue on this path, we will soon live in a society where everyone must beg for their own survival.
Yet, this is not inevitable. We still have time to reject this shift.
So, do we want a society where mutual aid is a lottery? Or a world where no one has to beg to exist?
For a deeper analysis, read my full article on Medium: https://medium.com/@ptit.tolier/do-we-have-to-beg-to-survive-bfd4f9324d89
Crowdfunding has become a social crutch. When a fire devastates a neighborhood, when an accident ruins a life, when an illness strikes unexp
Thank you for reading.
P’tit Tôlier
"Essayist & popularizer. I analyze the world through accessible philosophical essays. Complex ideas, explained simply—to help us reflect on our times."