More than 300 ostriches have been threatened with destruction in eastern British Columbia after avian flu was detected in the flock. The birds’ owners have argued this is a case of “unjust governmental overreach.”

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 series of crowdfunding campaigns.

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 decision to cull birds at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C., has echoes of debates over government policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This includes decrying what is seen as government overreach into personal freedoms and medical decision-making, with comparisons drawn to 2022’s crowdfunded anti-vaccine Freedom Convoy.

The farm’s interest in researching natural immunity has attracted vaccine skeptics more generally and support from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others in the U.S.. 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!”

CP24 reports on the attention paid by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Oz to a potential ostrich cull.

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 way of expressing their political values.

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

In the U.S., some Jan. 6 defendants used crowdfunding to great success, raising more than US$5 million to pay for their legal bills through these campaigns.

These viral politicized campaigns are associated with a range of forms of populist political mobilization, as well as extremism.

Most recently, this included a campaign to pay for the legal bills of Luigi Mangione, accused of killing an American insurance executive in 2024.

Politicising issues

Our research has demonstrated the benefits of linking campaigns with politicized issues. 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 COVID-19 pandemic policies, legal campaigns linked to “election integrity” and politicized violence.

Take the case of Daniel Penny, for example, who was charged with manslaughter after killing a Black man on a New York subway train. After Penny’s case was publicized by Republican politicians and linked to wider issues of public disorder and racialized crime, Penny raised more than US$3.3 million to fund his legal defence.

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 defence. 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 behaviours 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 defence of violent behaviour. The platform has also hosted white nationalist causes.

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 many groups working to address these issues in ways that promote social and political progress rather than polarization.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeremy Snyder, Simon Fraser University and Claire Wilson, Simon Fraser University

Read more:

Jeremy Snyder receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Claire Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.