Of all the negative aspects of human existence Facebook has inadvertently highlighted over the last half decade, by far the most repulsive are the 'causes' and 'charity group' collectives of egotistical creators and members, who either genuinely believe that they are doing good, or are simply making themselves feel better at the cost of having changed exactly nothing.
An example of the type of group can be seen here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=257971646686&ref=nf
The premise of these groups is disturbing; they are invariably established by some unheard of 'philanthropist' who claims to have the financial clout to lend some real support to the 'up to 200,000 people [who] may have died in last week's tragic earthquake in Haiti, with countless others injured or left without a home.'
However, rather than simply stumping up the cash, this human being has decided that no, he does not wish to simply open his chequebook and give generously, as he clearly believes he has the power to do, but rather he is going to correlate the support he is prepared to give to the number of people who join his group.
This amounts to no more than a misery-fuelled ego boost : 'Hey there, you don't want to see people dying in anguish and poverty do you? No? Of course you don't. You're a person. So join my group, be my friend (because I am bloody great and noble and have sex with me?) and I will send some money to these poor starving (are they starving or just dying?) children...mothers...people...it's all about people. And I have the money to help, and I really want to help, but only if you and everyone else you know will be my friend and see how great I am.'
This, however, isn't the end of the problem. Because upon closer inspection of the monetary values offered per person in these groups it becomes clear that this philanthropist, far from being a wealthy do-gooder eager to give something back, is just an ordinary person who has decided he wants to donate a stunningly mundane sum, but in doing so has resolved that if he has to chuck a couple of tenners at an international crisis of some scale, he might as well try and buy some friends in the process.
For instance the above group offers a princely £5 per 500 members. £5. He currently has just over 2,000 members, so he will be giving £20, and suddenly this 'philanthropist' appears to have similar financial means to most people with an internet connection who is merely indulging in a sponsored friend making session. At the expense of a humanitarian disaster. Charming.
The fact that people join these groups shows there is a desire among the membership for help to be sent to Haiti, and that they wish to do their bit. However, people are lazy, and if they think they can help by clicking a mouse, then that's probably all they'll do.
They join the group, and suddenly their massive sense of guilt they potentially might have when they see a few corpses rotting by the side of the road in the scorching heat is gone. Because they did their bit. These facebook groups effectively nullify the potential to get people to actually donate themselves, rather than lend their name to a group in the belief that they are making an impact, when in fact the money being sent in their name, in this instance, is a penny.
Facebook 'charity' is a microcosm of westernised society's attempts at charity. Every crisis must have fundraisers or celebrity backers. It's not enough to give money, we instead expect to be entertained before we consider being generous. Yes, Haiti's been flattened, but where is Bob Geldof's live musical event?
The number of mouse clicks it takes to join these facebook groups is equal to the effort it takes to donate money to the appeal. Why is it not possible to donate generously and meaningfully? To donate and show humility? To donate without shouting it from your next facebook status?
Ben Parker and James Mayo
No comments:
Post a Comment