The Fusion of Scrolling and Charity: When Our Attention Becomes the Donation

Zafeera Abdoola, B.A Politics and Global Development, 03/02/2025

In this age of rabid addictive scrolling, heart breaking clips of human suffering and begs for interaction are littered amongst our usual curation of brain rot, which has become a fairly common experience. Spaces used for escapism seem to be infiltrated by the harrowing human rights violations which plague our world. As much of life shifts to the digital sphere, it is clear that much charity and activism has followed. Through the sharing of links in order to gain donations or signatures for petitions, online activism is a familiar concept to all of us. 

However, this latest phenomenon seems more sinister. Sometimes stitching irrelevant videos to grab our attention with accusations that skipping the video is equivalent to killing families- our attention becomes the donation. It is imperative to note that those specific types of videos do not extend to content creators in difficult circumstances. Content creators who continue to film in areas such as Gaza or about medical difficulties are vital in connecting our world and providing necessary unfiltered coverage. The problematic content at hand is exclusively those which use guilt and urgency to gain views as charity. 

Scrolling as an act of charity is quite a passive form of activism. So passive that its efficacy is questionable. In many cases, these videos are not being shared by the original creator, making the contribution of your view non-verifiable. In addition, the guilt inflicted on innocent netizens for skipping such videos seems unsettling. Whilst civilian action is necessary for raising awareness about certain causes; whether that be the low provision of healthcare in Gaza or how climate change can cause natural disasters, it is wrong to accuse an individual of killing a family by skipping a video. Such formulations could possibly breed contempt for causes, especially if the accounts are not genuine. Some viewers might also find it emotionally taxing, which could reduce overall dedication to certain causes. 

This type of media spreads awareness and creates an inescapable sense of duty towards causes. But the guilt used in these videos may harm the dedication to causes by pointing the finger at individuals consuming these videos- as opposed to the true guilty parties, such as governments and companies. Anger is more warranted at the dominant bodies who create policy and action, designing guilt towards civilians is not productive. However, the question remains: where did this idea of scrolling as activism come from?

The issue stems from the broader commodification of our attention in the digital sphere. In a capitalist world where a view can translate into more tangible support to the account that posted it and the creation of a ‘For You’ page, attention becomes a valuable force wielded by the app user. With the curation of a ‘For You’ page the user is bombarded with media that is often similar to their personal beliefs. Therefore, there exists a felt responsibility to consume media related to significant causes even when at a personal emotional expense and with very little efficacy in contributing to said causes. 

Whilst clamouring for views, even through potentially deceitful means, it is not exclusive to these types of videos, the accusatory tone and guilt-inducing nature is. We must not abandon charity and activism in the digital sphere- yet, we must also consider the importance of consenting to engage with humanitarian media. We cannot let our anger with governmental and corporate bodies be displaced with individual guilt.