Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

A cross-sectional study of social inequities in medical crowdfunding campaigns in the United States

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Black recipients get about $22 less per GoFundMe donation

desk verdict First randomized-sample study of US medical crowdfunding inequities—valuable, but the unvalidated sampling frame makes magnitudes provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11018 v1 pith:BTCUXGBN submitted 2019-08-29 cs.SI

Nora Kenworthy , Zhihang Dong , Anne Montgomery , Emily Fuller , Lauren Berliner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords medicalcrowdfundingGoFundMehealthdisparitiesracegenderfundraisingoutcomesdigitalcarelaborcross-sectionalstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to test whether medical crowdfunding—online appeals for donations to cover health costs—reproduces or amplifies social inequities. Using a randomized sample of 637 U.S. GoFundMe campaigns whose recipients' race, gender, and age were hand-coded, it finds that white recipients are over-represented relative to the U.S. population, while Black recipients receive about $22 less per donation and non-white recipients receive fewer donations overall. It also finds a sharp gender split in labor: women organize roughly two-thirds of campaigns for themselves and nearly four-fifths of campaigns on behalf of someone else. Campaign actions that platforms tell users to focus on—photos, videos, updates—show only weak links to outcomes, which the authors read as evidence that identity and social position, not effort, shape who gets help. If the findings hold, crowdfunding is not a neutral emergency fund but a biased marketplace that channels charitable health dollars toward already-advantaged groups.

What carries the argument

The central object is a hand-coded dataset of 637 randomized U.S. medical campaigns from GoFundMe, built by querying the site's search endpoint for the 500 campaigns nearest every U.S. zip code and then coding perceived race (white, Black, non-black person of color), gender, age, and campaigner–recipient relationship from campaign text, names, and photos. The analytical machinery is a pair of regression models—a linear regression on average donation amount and a Poisson regression on number of donations—with race, gender, age, relationship, and state population as predictors, alongside chi-square goodness-of-fit tests comparing campaign demographics to U.S. population benchmarks. Race coding used three raters from different backgrounds, each assessing every campaign, with an intraclass correlation of .819 that the paper treats as high agreement. What makes this machinery carry the argument is the contrast it draws: demographic variables show significant associations with outcomes, while the engagement behaviors platforms advise (photos, videos, updates, comments, hearts) do not.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier would be platform-wide data from GoFundMe for the same period: if a complete enumeration of U.S. medical campaigns showed no white over-representation and no significant race or gender differences in average donation or donation count after adjusting for goal, length, and engagement, the paper's central claim would fail. An experimental complement would post identical campaigns with randomly assigned recipient names and photos; if Black-coded campaigns draw the same average donations as white-coded ones, the crowd-bias mechanism is not operating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that disparities appear at two distinct points in the crowdfunding process. First, in use: compared with U.S. population benchmarks, recipients perceived as white are over-represented (80.75% vs. 73%), recipients perceived as Black under-represented (8.48% vs. 12.7%), and non-black people of color under-represented (10.77% vs. 14.3%); the shortfall is sharpest for Black women, who make up less than 7% of women in the sample. Second, in outcomes: a linear regression on average donation amount gives a statistically significant coefficient of about −$22 for Black recipients relative to white recipients, and a Poisson regression on number of donations shows significantly fewer donations for Black and non-black POC recipients. Women are slightly less likely to receive donations than men, and women provide the overwhelming majority of organizing labor—82% of campaigns run on behalf of others. Children are under-represented among recipients but receive more donations of smaller average size. Campaign engagement variables such as updates, photos, and videos have minimal association with outcomes, leading the paper to conclude that crowd biases, not campaigners' efforts, dominate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that querying GoFundMe for the 500 campaigns closest to each U.S. zip code produced a list in which every qualifying medical campaign had a fair chance of being sampled; if that search favors urban, popular, or recent campaigns, the demographic comparisons and outcome estimates may not represent all U.S. medical crowdfunding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Campaign effort advice—updates, photos, videos—finds little support in the data, since these engagement behaviors show only minimal association with donations.
  • Non-white campaigners face a compounding disadvantage: under-representation at the point of entry plus worse outcomes once online.
  • Women's near-monopoly on campaign organizing constitutes a new form of unpaid digital care labor, extending feminized care work into online fundraising.
  • Children's campaigns attract more donations but smaller average gifts, so broad sympathy and viral spread do not translate into large financial commitments.
  • Medical crowdfunding should be understood as a biased marketplace rather than a neutral safety net, with data transparency a direct policy lever.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors' feedback-loop speculation implies a testable prediction: if failed campaigns are visible to potential users, the demographic skew in who starts campaigns should widen over time; longitudinal platform data could check this.
  • The paper cannot separate visibility from generosity with its data. If page-view counts become available, the key test is whether the race gap in donations comes from fewer views for non-white campaigns or from smaller gifts per view; the paper's crowd-bias reading would be supported only by the latter.
  • Because race was coded in three broad categories and socioeconomic status was not measured, a natural extension is to test whether the race coefficients survive finer racial categories and class controls.
  • If these findings generalize, donating through crowdfunding may function less as a remedy for health inequality and more as a mechanism that legitimizes it; this implication goes beyond the paper's explicit policy call for data transparency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a cross-sectional study of 637 GoFundMe medical campaigns in the United States, drawn by random selection from a frame of 165,925 campaigns constructed in July 2016 by querying GoFundMe's search endpoint for the 500 campaigns 'closest' to each U.S. zip code and deduplicating. The authors hand-code the perceived race, gender, and age of recipients (and gender of campaigners), compare sample demographics to U.S. population estimates from the American Community Survey, and use linear and Poisson regressions to test associations between recipient demographics and two outcomes: average donation amount and number of donations. The main findings are that non-white recipients, especially Black women, are underrepresented relative to the U.S. population; that women perform most campaign-organizing labor; that Black recipients receive about $22 less per donation; that non-white recipients receive fewer donations; and that child recipients receive more donations but of lower average size. The paper presents these results as evidence that medical crowdfunding reproduces and amplifies existing social and health inequities.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper provides one of the first systematic, large-sample descriptions of demographic inequities in U.S. medical crowdfunding, an important and understudied topic. Strengths include a large sampling frame with random selection within that frame, multi-rater coding with a reported ICC of .819, the use of two complementary outcome measures, and an explicit external benchmark against ACS population data. The authors also candidly acknowledge several limitations. However, the central descriptive and regression claims depend on an unvalidated assumption that the zip-code-based search frame represents all GoFundMe medical campaigns; attrition and the handling of unknown race/gender cases add further risk. These issues are fixable with additional diagnostics or substantially weakened claims, so the manuscript warrants a major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 (Methods), sampling frame] The sampling frame is built from the GoFundMe search endpoint, which returns the 500 campaigns 'closest' to each U.S. zip code; after deduplication this yields 165,925 campaigns. This frame is only a complete enumeration if the search ranking is purely geographic and no zip code contains more than 500 medical campaigns, but the authors themselves note that the endpoint prioritizes popular, recent, and geographically proximate campaigns. Because the 500-campaign cap is more likely to bind in dense urban areas, campaigns in those areas—where non-white and lower-income populations are concentrated—are differentially likely to be excluded. The central underrepresentation claim in Table 3 and the outcome regressions in Tables 5 and 6 assume the sample represents all GoFundMe medical campaigns; without diagnostics (e.g., how many zips hit the cap, comparison of the frame's urban/rural distribution with an independent enumeration, or sensitivity analyses on truncated zips), this assumption is unvalidated. Since the frame was constructed with a proprietary API in 2016, such checks require data or code that the manuscript does not provide.
  2. [§3 (Methods), attrition] Of 822 sampled campaigns, 47 were removed from GoFundMe by July 2018 and 3 campaigns that had run fewer than 30 days were excluded. The authors state that removed campaigns were likely shut down by campaigners, but they do not report any comparison of these campaigns' observed characteristics with the retained sample. If campaigns that are removed are more likely to be unsuccessful, to belong to marginalized groups, or to have short durations, the estimates of both representation and outcomes will be biased. The manuscript should either provide a sensitivity analysis treating removed campaigns under best-/worst-case outcome assumptions or explicitly bound the potential impact of attrition on the reported coefficients.
  3. [Tables 3, 5, and 6; §3 (race coding)] Race is coded by raters' perception from campaign pages, and cases with unknown race or gender are dropped from the Table 3 comparisons. This is a reasonable design given that donor-perceived race is the relevant quantity, but unknown status may not be missing at random: campaigns with sparse information may differ systematically in outcomes. The paper should report the characteristics of unknown cases and run a sensitivity analysis (e.g., multiple imputation or extreme-case bounds) to show that the $22 average-donation gap for Black recipients and the lower donation counts for non-white recipients in Tables 5 and 6 are not driven by the exclusion of unknown cases. Additionally, comparing perceived race to ACS self-reported race should be stated as an explicit limitation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The phrase 'randomized sample' is imprecise: the sample is randomly drawn from a constructed search-based frame, not from all GoFundMe medical campaigns. Recommend wording such as 'sample randomly drawn from a constructed frame' to avoid implying a true probability sample of campaigns.
  2. [Tables 5 and 6] The two regression tables report different covariate sets: Table 5 includes 'Unknown Relationship' and 'Log of Number of Residents in State,' while Table 6 omits both and instead includes an 'Unknown' gender category absent from Table 5. Please explain the model specifications or justify the differences.
  3. [Conclusion] There is a typo in the last paragraph: 'caompanies' should be 'companies'.
  4. [Table 1] The average donation variable has a minimum of 0, which implies zero-donation campaigns were assigned an average of 0. Please clarify how the average is computed for campaigns with no donations.
  5. [§3 (Data collection timeline)] The timeline is unclear: the search-based frame was created in July 2016, but campaign outcomes were re-collected in July 2018. State the exact collection and analysis dates in the methods to help readers interpret campaign length and attrition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's empirical claims rest on independent external benchmarks and coded campaign data, with self-citations only as background context.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical cross-sectional study with no fitted theoretical parameters and no derivation chain whose outputs are defined by its inputs. The central comparisons (Tables 3, 4) use external benchmark data from the US Census American Community Survey, so the claimed under-representation of non-white recipients and the gendered division of campaigner labor are assessed against an independent population distribution rather than against quantities constructed from the same sample. The regressions in Tables 5 and 6 relate independently coded demographic characteristics (perceived race, gender, age, relationship) to outcome measures (average donation amount, number of donations) that are defined from campaign page data and are not defined in terms of the demographics. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the outcome data and then renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (Berliner and Kenworthy, reference 3, and Kenworthy, reference 61) are used for background context, such as prior findings that campaigners with complex needs struggle, and for conceptual framing; they are not load-bearing for the statistical results presented here, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from authors' prior work. The principal methodological vulnerability is the sampling frame built from GoFundMe's zip-code search endpoint, which may not represent all medical campaigns; however, that is a threat to external validity, not circularity, because the sampling frame is not constructed from the outcome variables or demographic categories being predicted. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on sampling, coding, baseline, and outcome-measure assumptions listed above. There are no fitted theory parameters or invented entities; the regression coefficients are empirical estimates, not inputs to a derivation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The list of 165,925 campaigns generated by searching the 500 campaigns closest to each US zip code is a valid sampling frame for all GoFundMe medical campaigns.
    Section 3: If the search endpoint returns only the most popular, recent, or geographically close campaigns, the frame itself is biased, and the demographic estimates in Tables 3, 5, and 6 inherit that bias.
  • domain assumption Perceived race and gender, coded from page text, names, and photos, are valid proxies for the social identities that matter in crowdfunding.
    Section 3: Three raters coded perceived race with ICC 0.819; gender was coded from pronouns, census names, and photos. This assumes perception by raters resembles perception by potential donors, and that unknown cases are missing at random.
  • domain assumption The US population at large is an appropriate comparison baseline for judging under-representation.
    Table 3 compares campaign demographics with ACS population shares. This assumes that, absent bias, medical crowdfunding users would mirror the population, rather than mirroring the subset of people with medical debt, internet access, and willingness to ask publicly.
  • domain assumption Number of donations and average donation amount are better outcome measures than total raised or percent of goal.
    Section 3: The authors justify this because goal-setting is inconsistent. The validity of all regressions depends on this measurement choice.
  • standard math Standard regression assumptions for the linear and Poisson models hold, including independence across campaigns and no overdispersion in the count model.
    Methods section says glm in R was used; no clustering, offsets, or overdispersion corrections are reported, so p-values rely on these assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A cross-sectional study of social inequities in medical crowdfunding campaigns in the United States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTCUXGBN

@misc{pith2026190811018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A cross-sectional study of social inequities in medical crowdfunding campaigns in the United States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTCUXGBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11018}
}
read the original abstract

Americans are increasingly relying on crowdfunding to pay for the costs of healthcare. In medical crowdfunding, online platforms allow individuals to appeal to social networks to request donations for health and medical needs. Users are often told that success depends on how they organize and share their campaigns to increase social network engagement. However, experts have cautioned that MCF could exacerbate health and social disparities by amplifying the choices and biases of the crowd and leveraging these to determine who has access to financial support for healthcare. To date, research on potential axes of disparity in MCF, and their impacts on fundraising outcomes, has been limited. This paper presents an exploratory cross-sectional study of a randomized sample of 637 MCF campaigns on the popular platform Gofundme, for which the race, gender, age, and relationships of campaigners and campaign recipients were categorized alongside campaign characteristics and outcomes. Our analyses examine race, gender, and age disparities in MCF use, and tests how these are associated with differential campaign outcomes. The results show systemic disparities in MCF use and outcomes: non-white users are under-represented. There is significant evidence of an additional digital care labor burden on women organizers of campaigns, and marginalized race and gender groups are associated with poorer fundraising outcomes. Outcomes are only minimally associated with campaign characteristics under users' control, such as photos, videos, and updates. These results corroborate widespread concerns how technology fuels health inequities, and about how crowdfunding may be creating an unequal and biased marketplace for those seeking financial support to access healthcare. Further research and better data access are needed to explore these dynamics more deeply and inform policy for this largely unregulated industry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Crowdfunding for medical expenses

    Sisler J. Crowdfunding for medical expenses. Can Med Assoc J. 2012 Feb;184:E123-4

    2012

  2. [2]

    Fund my treatment!: A call for ethics-focused social science research into the use of crowdfunding for medical care

    Snyder J, Mathers A, Crooks VA. Fund my treatment!: A call for ethics-focused social science research into the use of crowdfunding for medical care. Soc Sci Med. 2016 Nov;169:27–30

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Producing a worthy illness: Personal crowdfunding amidst financial crisis

    Berliner LS, Kenworthy NJ. Producing a worthy illness: Personal crowdfunding amidst financial crisis. Soc Sci Med. 2017 Aug;187:233–42

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Crowdfunding in healthcare

    Bassani G, Marinelli N, Vismara S. Crowdfunding in healthcare. J Technol Transf [Internet]. 2018 Apr 20 [cited 2019 Jan 21]; Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-018-9663-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9663-7 2018

  5. [5]

    gofundme

    Medical Fundraising [Internet]. gofundme. 2018 [cited 2019 Jan 21]. Available from: https://www.gofundme.com/start/medical-fundraising

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Their twins’ medical costs total $750,000 — each

    Cerullo M. Their twins’ medical costs total $750,000 — each. They and thousands of others are counting on GoFundMe. CBS News [Internet]. 2019 Jan 28 [cited 2019 Jul 1]; Available from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crushed-by-medical-bills-many- americans-go-online-to-beg-for-help/?ftag=CNM-00-10aag7e

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    A Universal Desire to Help: How GoFundMe Reached 40 Million Donors [Internet]

    Gofundme. A Universal Desire to Help: How GoFundMe Reached 40 Million Donors [Internet]. Medium. 2019 [cited 2019 Feb 5]. Available from: https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/a-universal-desire-to-help-how-gofundme-reached- 40-million-donors-fe1c32b04dcc

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    very good for the market

    Harris A. GoFundMe keeps gobbling up competitors, says it’s “very good for the market” [Internet]. Fast Company. 2018 [cited 2019 Jan 21]. Available from: https://www.fastcompany.com/40554199/gofundme-keeps-gobbling-up-competitors-says- its-very-good-for-the-market 20

    work page arXiv 2018

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Renwick, Elias Mossialos

    Matthew J. Renwick, Elias Mossialos. Crowdfunding our health: Economic risks and benefits. Elsevier

  2. [10]

    Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA [Internet]

    Collins SR, Bhupal HK, Doty MM. Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA [Internet]. The Commonwealth Fund; 2019 Feb [cited 2019 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance- coverage-eight-years-after-aca

    2019

  3. [12]

    Crowdfunding for Medical Care Ethical Issues in an Emerging Health Care Funding Practice

    Jeremy Snyder. Crowdfunding for Medical Care Ethical Issues in an Emerging Health Care Funding Practice. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016;(November-December):36–42

    2016

  4. [13]

    Medical Crowdfunding’s Dark Side [Internet]

    Vox, Ford, Folkers, Kelly McBride, Caplan, Arthur. Medical Crowdfunding’s Dark Side [Internet]. Health Affairs. 2018 [cited 2019 Jan 21]. Available from: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181019.834615/full/

    2018

  5. [14]

    The Rise of Crowdfunding for Medical Care: Promises and Perils

    Young MJ, Scheinberg E. The Rise of Crowdfunding for Medical Care: Promises and Perils. JAMA. 2017 Apr 25;317(16):1623

    2017

  6. [16]

    Worthy? Crowdfunding the Canadian Health Care and Education Sectors: Health Care and Education Crowdfunding

    Lukk M, Schneiderhan E, Soares J. Worthy? Crowdfunding the Canadian Health Care and Education Sectors: Health Care and Education Crowdfunding. Can Rev Sociol Can Sociol. 2018 Aug;55(3):404–24

    2018

  7. [17]

    Durand WM, Joh, Adam E. M. Eltorai, Alan H. Daniels. Medical Crowdfunding for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery

  8. [18]

    Widening the gap: additional concerns with crowdfunding in health care

    Jeremy Snyder, Peter Chow-White, Valorie A Crooks, Annalise Mathers. Widening the gap: additional concerns with crowdfunding in health care. Lancet Oncol. 2017 May;18:e240

    2017

  9. [19]

    Ethical implications of medical crowdfunding: the case of Charlie Gard

    Dressler G, Kelly SA. Ethical implications of medical crowdfunding: the case of Charlie Gard. J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul;44(7):453–7

    2018

  10. [20]

    Go fund inequality: the politics of crowdfunding transgender medical care

    Barcelos CA. Go fund inequality: the politics of crowdfunding transgender medical care. Crit Public Health. 2019 Feb 11;1–10

    2019

  11. [21]

    Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor

    Eubanks V. Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. First Edition. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press; 2017. 260 p

    2017

  12. [22]

    Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism

    Noble SU. Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism. New York: New York University Press; 2018. 229 p. 21

    2018

  13. [23]

    The Devil in Silicon Valley: Northern California, Race, and Mexican Americans

    Pitti SJ. The Devil in Silicon Valley: Northern California, Race, and Mexican Americans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2018

    2018

  14. [24]

    Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy

    O’Neil C. Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. First edition. New York: Crown; 2016. 259 p

    2016

  15. [25]

    Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the new Jim code

    Benjamin R. Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Medford, MA: Polity; 2019

    2019

  16. [26]

    Race and racism in Internet Studies: A review and critique

    Daniels J. Race and racism in Internet Studies: A review and critique. New Media Soc. 2013 Aug;15(5):695–719

    2013

  17. [27]

    Discriminating systems: Gender, race, and power in AI [Internet]

    West SM, Whittaker M, Crawford K. Discriminating systems: Gender, race, and power in AI [Internet]. AI Now; 2019 Apr [cited 2019 Jul 1]. Available from: https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.pdf

    2019

  18. [28]

    The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power

    Zuboff S. The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. First edition. New York: PublicAffairs; 2018. 691 p

    2018

  19. [29]

    Our Data Bodies: Reclaiming Our Data [Internet]

    Petty T, Saba M, Lewis T, Gangadharan SP, Eubanks V. Our Data Bodies: Reclaiming Our Data [Internet]. 2018 Jun [cited 2019 Jan 21]. Available from: https://www.odbproject.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/ODB.InterimReport.FINAL_.7.16.2018.pdf

    2018

  20. [30]

    Data and discrimination: Collected Essays

    Gangadharan SP, Eubanks V, Barocas S. Data and discrimination: Collected Essays. Open Technology Institute; 2014 Oct

    2014

  21. [31]

    Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency

    Tufekci Z. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo Technol Law J. 2015;13(2):203–17

    2015

  22. [32]

    Teaching Trayvon: Race, Media, and the Politics of Spectacle

    Noble SU. Teaching Trayvon: Race, Media, and the Politics of Spectacle. Black Sch. 2014 Mar;44(1):12–29

    2014

  23. [33]

    Hanging out in the virtual pub: masculinities and relationships online [Internet]

    Kendall L. Hanging out in the virtual pub: masculinities and relationships online [Internet]. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002 [cited 2019 Jul 18]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520230361.001.0001

    2002

  24. [34]

    The intersectional Internet: race, sex, class and culture online

    Noble SU, Tynes BM, editors. The intersectional Internet: race, sex, class and culture online. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc; 2015. 278 p. (Digital formations)

    2015

  25. [35]

    Life on the wire: Deconstructing race on the Internet

    Brock A. Life on the wire: Deconstructing race on the Internet. Inf Commun Soc. 2009 Apr;12(3):344–63

    2009

  26. [36]

    Connect With Your Audience! The Relational Labor of Connection

    Baym NK. Connect With Your Audience! The Relational Labor of Connection. Commun Rev. 2015 Jan 2;18(1):14–22

    2015

  27. [37]

    Women’s Work

    Jarrett K. The Relevance of “Women’s Work”: Social Reproduction and Immaterial Labor in Digital Media. Telev New Media. 2014 Jan;15(1):14–29. 22

    2014

  28. [38]

    This Bridge Called My Back

    Adair C, Nakamura L. The Digital Afterlives of “This Bridge Called My Back”: Woman of Color Feminism, Digital Labor, and Networked Pedagogy. Am Lit. 2017 Jun;89(2):255–78

    2017

  29. [39]

    Our Struggles Are Unequal

    Maragh RS. “Our Struggles Are Unequal”: Black Women’s Affective Labor Between Television and Twitter. J Commun Inq. 2016 Oct;40(4):351–69

    2016

  30. [40]

    Parents are exploiting their children on YouTube for fame and easy money

    Brockes E. Parents are exploiting their children on YouTube for fame and easy money. The Guardian [Internet]. 2019 Mar 22 [cited 2019 Jul 28]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/parents-exploiting-children- youtube-fame-easy-money

    2019

  31. [41]

    On YouTube’s Digital Playground, an Open Gate for Pedophiles

    Fisher M, Traub A. On YouTube’s Digital Playground, an Open Gate for Pedophiles. The New York Times [Internet]. 2019 Jun 3 [cited 2019 Jul 28]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/world/americas/youtube-pedophiles.html

    2019

  32. [42]

    Digital Discrimination: The Case of Airbnb.com

    Edelman B, Luca M. Digital Discrimination: The Case of Airbnb.com. Harv Bus Sch Work Pap No 14-054. 2014 Jan

    2014

  33. [43]

    The Visible Host: Does race guide Airbnb rental rates in San Francisco? J Hous Econ

    Kakar V, Voelz J, Wu J, Franco J. The Visible Host: Does race guide Airbnb rental rates in San Francisco? J Hous Econ. 2018 Jun;40:25–40

    2018

  34. [44]

    The Colorblind Crowd? Founder Race and Performance in Crowdfunding

    Younkin P, Kuppuswamy V. The Colorblind Crowd? Founder Race and Performance in Crowdfunding. Manag Sci. 2018 Jul;64(7):3269–87

    2018

  35. [45]

    Discounted: The effect of founder race on the price of new products

    Younkin P, Kuppuswamy V. Discounted: The effect of founder race on the price of new products. J Bus Ventur. 2019 Mar;34(2):389–412

    2019

  36. [46]

    Who Gets Started on Kickstarter? Racial Disparities in Crowdfunding Success

    Rhue L, Clark J. Who Gets Started on Kickstarter? Racial Disparities in Crowdfunding Success. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2019 Jul 18]; Available from: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2837042

    2016

  37. [47]

    Leaning In or Leaning On? Gender, Homophily, and Activism in Crowdfunding

    Greenberg J, Mollick E. Leaning In or Leaning On? Gender, Homophily, and Activism in Crowdfunding. Acad Manag Proc. 2015 Jan;2015(1):18365

    2015

  38. [48]

    Doing feminism: Event, archive, techné

    Rentschler CA, Thrift SC. Doing feminism: Event, archive, techné. Fem Theory. 2015 Dec;16(3):239–49

    2015

  39. [49]

    Mourning the Commons: Circulating Affect in Crowdfunded Funeral Campaigns

    Tamara Kneese. Mourning the Commons: Circulating Affect in Crowdfunded Funeral Campaigns. Journal of Social Media + Society

  40. [50]

    GoFundMe Critics Raise Billboard In San Diego, Launch #DontFundHate Over Officer Darren Wilson Campaign

    Zara C. GoFundMe Critics Raise Billboard In San Diego, Launch #DontFundHate Over Officer Darren Wilson Campaign. International Business Times [Internet]. 2014 Oct 9 [cited 2019 Jul 1]; Available from: https://www.ibtimes.com/gofundme-critics-raise- billboard-san-diego-launch-d...

    2014

  41. [51]

    How Medicare For All Challenges our Ideas of Black Deservingness [Internet]

    Hagan A. How Medicare For All Challenges our Ideas of Black Deservingness [Internet]. Somatosphere. 2019 [cited 2019 May 28]. Available from: http://somatosphere.net/2019/how-medicare-for-all-challenges-our-ideas-of-black- 23 deservingness.html/?fbclid=IwAR3Z0v2okbRDS3UmkQ6lyd...

    2019

  42. [52]

    Special Issue Part I: ‘Deservingness’ and the politics of health care

    Sargent C. Special Issue Part I: ‘Deservingness’ and the politics of health care. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Mar;74(6):855–7

    2012

  43. [53]

    Health care for some: rights and rationing in the United States since 1930

    Hoffman BR. Health care for some: rights and rationing in the United States since 1930. 2013

    1930

  44. [54]

    deserving

    Tanenbaum SJ. Medicaid eligibility policy in the 1980s: Medical utilitarianism and the “deserving” poor. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1995;20(4):933–54

    1995

  45. [55]

    The undeserving poor: America’s enduring confrontation with poverty

    Katz MB. The undeserving poor: America’s enduring confrontation with poverty. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. 353 p

    2013

  46. [56]

    HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action

    Parker RG, Aggleton P. HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:13–24

    2003

  47. [57]

    Simbayi L, Barré I, et al

    Stangl AL, Earnshaw VA, Logie CH, van Brakel W, C. Simbayi L, Barré I, et al. The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework: A global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas. BMC Med. 2019 Dec;17(1):31

    2019

  48. [58]

    Engaging a Community for Rare Genetic Disease: Best Practices and Education From Individual Crowdfunding Campaigns

    Ortiz RA, Witte S, Gouw A, Sanfilippo A, Tsai R, Fumagalli D, et al. Engaging a Community for Rare Genetic Disease: Best Practices and Education From Individual Crowdfunding Campaigns. Interact J Med Res. 2018 05;7(1):e3

    2018

  49. [59]

    Crowdfunding personal expenses: Get Funding for Education, Travel, Volunteering, Emergencies, Bills, and more! Briggman; 2016

    Briggman S. Crowdfunding personal expenses: Get Funding for Education, Travel, Volunteering, Emergencies, Bills, and more! Briggman; 2016

    2016

  50. [60]

    GoFundMe

    6 Steps to a Successful Campaign [Internet]. GoFundMe. [cited 2019 Jul 20]. Available from: https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/203604494-6-Steps-to-a-Successful- Campaign

    2019

  51. [61]

    Crowdfunding and global health disparities: An exploratory conceptual and empirical analysis of donation-based medical crowdfunding around the world

    Kenworthy N. Crowdfunding and global health disparities: An exploratory conceptual and empirical analysis of donation-based medical crowdfunding around the world. Glob Health. in press

  52. [62]

    Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee [Internet]

    Markham A, Buchanan E. Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee [Internet]. Association of Internet Researchers; 2012. Available from: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf

    2012

  53. [63]

    Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on Community-Based Solutions to Promote Health...

    2017

  54. [64]

    Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research

    Williams DR, Mohammed SA. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research. J Behav Med. 2009 Feb;32:20–47

    2009

  55. [65]

    Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification

    Buolamwini J, Gebru T. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In: Friedler SA, Wilson C, editors. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: PMLR; 2018. p. 77–91...

    2018

  56. [66]

    The Racist History Behind Facial Recognition

    Chinoy S. The Racist History Behind Facial Recognition. The New York Times [Internet]. 2019 Jul 10; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/opinion/facial- recognition-race.html

    2019

  57. [67]

    Methodological pitfalls of measuring race: international comparisons and repurposing of statistical categories

    Roth WD. Methodological pitfalls of measuring race: international comparisons and repurposing of statistical categories. Ethn Racial Stud. 2017 Oct 21;40(13):2347–53

    2017

  58. [68]

    Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial

    Hallgren KA. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8(1):23–34

    2012

  59. [69]

    Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology

    Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychiological Assess. 1994 Dec;6(4):284–90

    1994

  60. [70]

    Seeking Medical Debt Relief? Crowdfunding Rarely Pays Off the Bills [Internet]

    Helhoski A, Simons V. Seeking Medical Debt Relief? Crowdfunding Rarely Pays Off the Bills [Internet]. NerdWallet. 2016 [cited 2019 Jan 21]. Available from: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/medical-debt-crowdfunding-bankruptcy/

    2016

  61. [71]

    Saving Eliza [Internet]

    O’Neill G. Saving Eliza [Internet]. Gofundme. [cited 2019 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.gofundme.com/ElizaONeill

    2019

  62. [72]

    Will a digital camera cure your sick puppy? Modality and category effects in donation-based crowdfunding

    Xu LZ. Will a digital camera cure your sick puppy? Modality and category effects in donation-based crowdfunding. Telemat Inform. 2018 Oct;35(7):1914–24

    2018

  63. [73]

    ‘Bye-bye boobies’: normativity, deservingness and medicalisation in transgender medical crowdfunding

    Barcelos CA. ‘Bye-bye boobies’: normativity, deservingness and medicalisation in transgender medical crowdfunding. Cult Health Sex. 2019 Feb 14;1–15

    2019

  64. [74]

    American Community Survey, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates, Table DP05 [Internet]

    US Census. American Community Survey, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates, Table DP05 [Internet]. US Census; [cited 2019 Jul 1]. Available from: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

    2013

  65. [75]

    Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 2018 [Internet]

    Cohen RA, Terlizzi EP, Martinez ME. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 2018 [Internet]. National Center for Health Statistics; 2019 May. (National Health Interview Survey Early Release Program). Available from: http...

    2018

  66. [76]

    Medical Debt and Related Financial Consequences Among Older African American and White Adults

    Wiltshire JC, Elder K, Kiefe C, Allison JJ. Medical Debt and Related Financial Consequences Among Older African American and White Adults. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(6):1086–91. 25

    2016

  67. [77]

    Crowdfunding: democratizing networking, financing and innovation

    Assadi D. Crowdfunding: democratizing networking, financing and innovation. J Innov Econ. 2018;26(2):3

    2018

  68. [78]

    Crowdfunding’s Potential for the Developing World

    The World Bank. Crowdfunding’s Potential for the Developing World. InfoDev

  69. [79]

    Centers for Disease Control; 2017 Oct

    Summary Health Statistics: National Health Interview Survey, 2017 [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control; 2017 Oct. Report No.: Table P-10a. Available from: https://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/NHIS/SHS/2017_SHS_Table_P-10.pdf

    2017

  70. [80]

    Apples and Oranges: Serious Chronic Illness in Adults and Children

    Schor EL, Cohen E. Apples and Oranges: Serious Chronic Illness in Adults and Children. J Pediatr. 2016 Dec;179:256–8

    2016

  71. [81]

    Spatially exploring the intersection of socioeconomic status and Canadian cancer-related medical crowdfunding campaigns

    van Duynhoven A, Lee A, Michel R, Snyder J, Crooks V, Chow-White P, et al. Spatially exploring the intersection of socioeconomic status and Canadian cancer-related medical crowdfunding campaigns. BMJ Open. 2019 Jun;9(6):e026365

    2019

  72. [82]

    Ghost work: how to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass

    Gray ML, Suri S. Ghost work: how to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2019

    2019

  73. [83]

    Difference and Dependence among Digital Workers: The Case of Amazon Mechanical Turk

    Irani L. Difference and Dependence among Digital Workers: The Case of Amazon Mechanical Turk. South Atl Q. 2015 Jan 1;114(1):225–34. Supporting Information S1 Fig. Pairwise correlation of social engagement variables and average donation amount. Pairwise correlation of key co-v...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.