As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Don’t Let Cyberbegging Affect Your Charitable Plan

This article was written by in Charity. 9 comments.

I’m a sympathetic person. I really am, and sometimes my sympathy has aided me in making bad choices.

But I have no patience for people who pretend to be in some kind of destitute condition, a performance entirely possible through the anonymity on the internet, and beg for money. It’s a strategy — a scam — that works, unfortunately. If you have a nice story to tell, no matter if it’s true, thousands of people will be attracted to that story. If you ask for it, people will send you money out of kindness.

Today is Giving Tuesday, so it’s an opportunity to look at a story that has been in the news recently related to a charitable scam.

Recently, Linda Walther Tirado, also known online as KillerMartinis, concocted and published a short story about living on poverty. In reality, Linda may have had some financial struggles, or at least might have been living on a low income, but allegedly not due to poverty or her upbringing. Her story was thoroughly debunked by a researcher who found other conflicting details about this person’s identity, but Linda’s damage, in the form of attracting kind readers to offer financial help, was done.

From Houston Press:

The real Linda owns a home, thanks to some pretty generous parents… She’s married to a Marine, has met President Obama while interning for a politician…, and has plenty of time to visit Las Vegas on vacation. And blog about her privileged life on WordPress… She speaks both German and Dutch, and has a well-rounded political blog that ended in 2011. It’s also a blog where she quite plainly references being paid to win races.

Her story, which the author and other observers claim has “gone viral” — I didn’t hear about it until the debunking also went viral — generated a generous outpouring of contributions that are still coming in. Her GoFundMe page has raised over $62,000 to help this cyberbeggar allegedly pay for dental bills, but she intends to use the money for other purposes: to shop a book around to publishers, to quit her day job, and to give some away. (GoFundMe is a website that allows individuals raise money, usually for small start-up businesses or projects.)

My opinion on the matter is clear: if you lie as Linda allegedly has, and you use that lie to manipulate sympathetic people to part with their money, you are a scammer. And scammer is putting it nicely. (This is also why I don’t like marketers.)

If the $62,000 is an accumulation of mostly small donations like $5 or $10, most contributors did not risk much. Looking through the list of recent donations via the author’s GoFundMe website, most seem to be $10, with others going as high as $50. On an individual level, a small donation doesn’t look so bad; it’s not much different than when you give a few dollars to someone sitting on the street with a cardboard sign. The more entertaining or clever the sign, the more likely it is that a passerby will hand over a five dollar bill.

You don’t know who this person is. You’d like to think he or she will use your money to buy a sandwich or start collecting for some new business clothes so he or she can look appropriate at a job. For $5, it doesn’t hurt your wallet and you can rid yourself of that guilty feeling you get when a homeless person looks you in the eye. It’s a low risk donation. If it turns out to be a scam, you’ve only wasted $5.

Those who contributed to her collection of more than $62,000 are adults. They are free to make their own decisions about how to spend and donate their money. You can only make good decisions when you have all of the information available to you. People who donated believed the story they were told about the author’s live in poverty.

Karyn Bosnak was the first majorly successful cyberbeggar. But at least with the writing on her website, SaveKaryn, the stories are believed to be true. Karyn SaveKaryn, spent more than she was earning through shopping and fully admitted to her unfettered credit card use. She offered details on the consumer debt she acquired and asked her website’s followers to contribute money to help her pay off her credit card debt. After raising the $20,000 she needed to pay off her debt, she stopped asking for donations.

Why would people help someone whose financial situation was a result of his or her own bad choices? Sympathy and compassion. It’s good to know these are still valued personality traits. Because Karyn’s approach to cyberbegging worked, perhaps just being truthful about your situation will be just as effective as lying if you write well and are able to attract attention.

Although she was truthful about her problem, I didn’t like SaveKaryn’s financial begging from the beginning. There were much more worthy causes for charity than a girl with a good income and a spending problem. Collecting donations wasn’t going to solve a shopaholic’s problem, just enable her to continue to make poor money management choices.

But pretending to be someone you’re not in order to gain sympathy is unethical. It’s manipulative. With Karyn, donors knew they were giving money to someone who didn’t need help. In Linda Walther Tirado’s case, donors were conned into believing their donations were going to a case worthy of charitable contributions. Contributors believed they were helping someone who was living in poverty through little fault of her own.

So while on an individual level, a $20 donation might not hurt the uninformed donor. If the $20 ends up not helping someone raise herself out of poverty, the harm is minor. But collectively, the idea that someone can earn a living by asking for small donations based on a fabricated story encourages others to do the same. Every small donation legitimizes cyberbegging. Every $5, $10, or $50 contribution helps scammers believe that it’s not a problem to use lies to con the public.

Here at Consumerism Commentary, Naked With Cash has featured people in worse financial condition that the real Linda Walther Tirado. Not once have they written — even implied — that they would accept financial contributions from readers to help improve their situation. That would just be unfathomable to me, and I wouldn’t allow Consumerism Commentary to become a vehicle for such activity.

No one is required to give charity only to the needy. I used to work for a non-profit organization whose programs did benefit young people in low socio-economic status neighborhoods, but the vast majority of students who benefited from the programs were comfortably situated in the middle class. This wasn’t a charity for the poor, but an educational program that supported what students might be getting from their own schools, and made some of those school programs possible.

We collected donations because the programs we ran required a large operating budget, benefited tens of thousands of kids under the age of twenty-one, and didn’t generate much income. It was harder to draw donations, I think, because many of these children were not in desperate financial condition (although some were), so we had to appeal to the part of the soul that prioritizes arts education.

Ask questions before you give any money. People like Linda Walther Tirado will continue to take advantage of the kindness of strangers. I don’t think we can ever get to the point at which the public as a whole refuses to give money to scammers and they just give up. Nevertheless, it’s important not to contribute to the encouragement of this behavior. The only way you can prevent yourself from becoming a victim of a liar’s scam like this is to not blindly give away your money, even if it is only $50.

If you read someone’s sad story and are compelled to give money, take some time to think about it first. Do some research.

Don’t give money an an individual. Consider giving the same amount of money to a charitable organization that has a good record of using donor’s money towards a mission you believe in. Don’t be a sucker with your money. When you give to a reputable charitable organization, there’s a record of your donation and oversight of the group’s activities.

Use your compassion in a way that will actually help someone who needs it or that supports a mission you believe in. Helping legitimize a cyberbeggar is not a good use of your charitable dollars, even five of them.

Photo: Flickr/Adrian Miles

Published or updated December 3, 2013.

Email Email Print Print
About the author

Luke Landes is the founder of Consumerism Commentary. He has been blogging and writing for the internet since 1995 and has been building online communities since 1991. Find out more about Luke Landes and follow him on Twitter. View all articles by .

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar 1 Anonymous

I’m one of those who gives money to people I see on the street. I usually have $5 and $1 bills in my car to give out on the street corner, and when we go to Salt Lake City, I purposely bring bills to hand out. But I don’t feel bad about these tiny investments in good karma — even if I were to eventually find out that the “disabled vet” in the wheelchair was no such thing. But I would have a hard time giving a larger amount to a cyberbegger. I’ll stick with known charities and a few bucks for the people on street corners.

Reply to this comment

avatar 2 Anonymous

A few things: 1) karma is real, or so I’d like to believe. Somehow the universe will teach her a lesson. 2) this is why I give to people on the street. At least they look the part! 3) …but if anyone wants to donate any money to any NWC participants, my PayPal email is…

Reply to this comment

avatar 3 Anonymous

This is so disturbing to me. I give to many legitimate charities and good causes on dedicated charity sites and also on sites like Kickstarter. All causes can be checked out and there are accountability measures built in. Random and unaccountable online cyberbegging takes advantage of the generous, naive and trusting nature in all of us. It will backfire (karma) or so I like to believe :-)

Reply to this comment

avatar 4 Donna Freedman

I’m disappointed in that writer, because the things she touched on are real. They’re just not real for her.
Read John Scalzi’s essay, “Being Poor,” and in particular read the comments as they offer plenty more examples of what poverty means:
When I wrote that initial “Surviving (and thriving) on $12,000 a year” essay for MSN Money, people sent money to my editor and told him to pass it on. Others tracked down my e-mail address and offered contributions. I politely said thanks, I’m OK, but perhaps you could donate it to your local food pantry or shelter? (My favorite offer: A company that sells dry beans offered to send me a case of them. Honest.)
Readers can be very, very kind. They can also be somewhat nearsighted: When the article ran some people wrote to MSN Money to say, “This is totally a scam. Nobody could live on $12,000 a year.” They were unwilling to believe that there were people all over the country living on that (or on less).

Reply to this comment

avatar 5 Anonymous

Once when a man on the street asked me for money for food, I offered to take him into the Subway (or whatever fast-ish food place he was standing in front of) and buy him a meal. He suddenly lost interest. I think he was hungry for something else.

Reply to this comment

avatar 6 Anonymous

This is why it is important only to contribute to charities, fundraising opportunities, and donation drives that you can verify is really doing what it is supposed to do. And as someone mentioned above, websites like Kickstarter are good examples of money properly funneled to a known cause.

Reply to this comment

avatar 7 Ceecee

I can’t imagine how a person can justify taking advantage of the public in the way that Linda did. She hurts the people who are truly needy by hardening people to those who have no choice but to ask for help. I’m afraid that our government disability program is falling victim to this: so many people scam the system that the truly disabled may not get what they need……shame.

Reply to this comment

avatar 8 Anonymous

This is not only true for charitable plans. It is also true for scholarships. I remember how some students fake their income just so they can study for free and have some allowances. Then, they’ll use that money to buy clothes and shoes. It’s annoying, really.

Reply to this comment

avatar 9 Anonymous

Every time we surf on waves of information in the internet, we are exposed with all these type of scam tactic or whatever we call it. We just have to be aware on whatever we take part of. Be vigilant and learn to be more watchful.

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

Note: Use your name or a unique handle, not the name of a website or business. No deep links or business URLs are allowed. Spam, including promotional linking to a company website, will be deleted. By submitting your comment you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.