Campaign types and location.

Introduction
Donation-based crowdfunding was heavily used during the COVID-19 pandemic. While most of these campaigns were uncontroversial, others spread misinformation or undermined public health. In response, mainstream crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe restricted what campaigns they would host. This led some campaigns to shift to lesser-known and less restrictive crowdfunding platforms. While research on health-related misinformation on mainstream crowdfunding platforms is increasing, less is known about crowdfunding on less restrictive platforms like GiveSendGo. The aim of this study is to review vaccine-related crowdfunding campaigns on the GiveSendGo platform to better understand: 1) how vaccines are portrayed on GiveSendGo; and 2) how successful these campaigns have been at attracting financial support.
Methods
We searched the GiveSendGo crowdfunding platform for campaigns including “vaccine” or “vaccination”. This process yielded 907 unique results which were then scraped for their campaign text and fundraising data. The authors reviewed these campaigns for fundraisers whose aims related to vaccines for humans and assigned campaigns as being for 1) Accessing vaccines; 2) creating Spaces for the unvaccinated; 3) helping Unvaccinated Individuals); 4) Advocacy about vaccines; 5) supporting Anti-Mandate actions; and 6) responding to Vaccine Injuries.
Findings
We identified 765 crowdfunding campaigns that raised $6,814,817 and requested $838,578,249. Anti-Mandate campaigns were most common, followed by Unvaccinated Individuals, Vaccine Injuries, Advocacy, Access, and Spaces. Only Access campaigns took a positive or neutral view toward vaccines. Themes of freedom and religion cut across campaign types with campaigns critical of vaccines invoking bodily autonomy and religious freedom as justifying their fundraisers.
Discussion
Very few of these fundraisers met their goals. With the exception of Access campaigns, they frequently contained highly polarizing language advocating against public health mandates, misinformation about vaccine safety, and language from bioethics and reproductive choice advocates. Restrictions on vaccine-related campaigns on the GoFundMe platform likely drove campaign creation on GiveSendGo.

引言
捐赠式众筹（donation-based crowdfunding）在新冠疫情（COVID-19 pandemic）期间得到广泛应用。尽管此类众筹活动大多并无争议，但其中部分活动却传播了错误信息，甚至破坏公共卫生秩序。对此，GoFundMe等主流众筹平台对其可承办的活动类型施加了限制。这导致部分众筹活动转向知名度较低且监管较为宽松的众筹平台。目前，针对主流众筹平台上健康相关错误信息的研究日益增多，但对于GiveSendGo这类监管宽松平台上的众筹活动，我们的认知仍较为匮乏。本研究旨在梳理GiveSendGo平台上与疫苗相关的众筹活动，以更好地理解：1）GiveSendGo平台上如何呈现疫苗相关内容；2）此类活动在吸引资金支持方面的成效如何。

研究方法
我们在GiveSendGo众筹平台上搜索包含"疫苗（vaccine）"或"疫苗接种（vaccination）"关键词的活动，共得到907个唯一有效结果，随后爬取这些活动的文本内容与筹款数据。研究人员对这些活动进行筛选，将目标与人类疫苗相关的筹款活动划分为以下类别：1）获取疫苗；2）为未接种人群创建活动空间；3）帮扶未接种个体；4）疫苗相关宣传倡导；5）支持反强制令行动；6）回应疫苗接种损伤事件。

研究结果
我们共识别出765个众筹活动，累计筹款6,814,817美元，目标筹款总额为838,578,249美元。其中反强制令类活动最为常见，其次依次为未接种个体帮扶、疫苗接种损伤、疫苗倡导、获取疫苗以及活动空间类活动。仅获取疫苗类活动对疫苗持积极或中立态度。自由与宗教主题贯穿各类活动，反对疫苗的活动常以身体自主权（bodily autonomy）与宗教自由（religious freedom）作为其筹款活动的合理性依据。

讨论
此类筹款活动中极少有能够达成筹款目标。除获取疫苗类活动外，其余活动大多包含强烈的极化言论（polarizing language），包括反对公共卫生强制令（public health mandates）的主张、关于疫苗安全性的错误信息，以及生命伦理学（bioethics）与生育选择权（reproductive choice）倡导者的相关表述。GoFundMe平台对疫苗相关活动施加的限制，很可能是推动此类活动转向GiveSendGo平台的原因。