Â鶹ÒùÔº

More than 300 ostriches have been threatened with destruction in eastern British Columbia after . The birds' owners have argued this is a case of "."

The owners' plight received support from members of Donald Trump's administration in the United States and raised more than C$290,000 for their legal and operating costs through a of .

This level of financial support for a small ostrich farm shouldn't be completely surprising. It demonstrates how crowdfunding rewards and encourages political polarization.

Government overreach

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's in Edgewood, B.C., has echoes of debates over .

This includes decrying what is seen as government overreach into personal freedoms and medical decision-making, with comparisons drawn to .

The farm's interest in researching natural immunity has attracted vaccine skeptics more generally and This is reflected in some donors' comments, where supporters have posted messages including "down with communism," "the tyrannical leftist Canadian Government is to blame," and "globalists don't want natural cures. They only want to profit from their poison jabs!"

Political appeals

Crowdfunding campaigns of all stripes benefit from public attention and the ability to appeal to potential donors. But while appealing to the general public is a well-tested way to win the popularity contest that is built into crowdfunding, so too is connecting to a subset of partisan supporters who see donating to campaigns as a way of expressing their political values.

This has been evident in many viral crowdfunding campaigns, including the hugely successful in Canada that more than $10 million.

In the U.S., some used crowdfunding to great success, raising more than to pay for their legal bills through these campaigns.

These viral politicized campaigns are associated with a of , .

Most recently, this included a campaign to pay for the legal bills of , .

Politicizing issues

Our research has demonstrated the benefits of . Crowdfunding campaigns for legal needs tend to perform much better when they are linked to political events. These include fundraisers for people seeking help defending themselves in court for violations of , legal campaigns linked to "" and .

Take the case of Daniel Penny, for example, who was charged with manslaughter after . After Penny's case was and linked to wider issues of public disorder and racialized crime, Penny .

By comparison, ordinary people accused of violent crimes who are not able to link their needs to political outrage are much less likely to be able to afford a world-class legal defense. Savvy campaigners know this and, in some cases, may actively promote the more politicized dimensions of their needs, values and personal stories.

This incentive structure means that rather than seeking compromise or reflecting on behaviors that led to legal trouble or public condemnation, crowdfunding campaigners can benefit financially from doubling down on the politically polarizing elements of their campaigns.

Profit incentives

Crowdfunding platforms can benefit from encouraging this politicization as well. GiveSendGo, a crowdfunding platform used for many politicized campaigns, has a practice of not restricting campaigns for the legal defense of violent behavior. The platform has also hosted .

Crowdfunding platforms are generally financed by voluntary tips from donors, and so the large amounts raised by some politicized campaigns contribute to these platforms' own financial success.

Political outrage and political donations can be legitimate and even praiseworthy ways of engaging in political expression. The problem with politicized crowdfunding is that it financially rewards polarization and attention-grabbing rhetoric.

Happily, people who are genuinely interested in animal welfare and political reform can find working to address these issues in ways that promote social and political progress rather than polarization.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .