Is change.org a Reliable Petition Public Platform for Justice?

Posted on 13th July, 2025 (GMT 07:30 hrs)

Abstract

This article interrogates the structural contradictions and opaque operational logic of Change.org, a platform widely regarded as a grassroots petition engine for justice. Drawing on the author’s lived experience with unexplained signature count reductions and suspected content suppression, it situates Change.org within the broader economy of digital activism where public outrage is algorithmically packaged for visibility and monetization. Despite popular assumptions of its progressive orientation, this paper argues that the platform’s apparent ideological tilt is symptomatic not of political commitment but of profit-maximizing emotional amplification. Furthermore, the piece contextualizes these concerns within a case study of the OBMA campaign for DHFL victims, where legal intimidation and social media censorship—allegedly linked to corporate interests—highlight the fragility of digital dissent. The article challenges both the ethical legitimacy and the epistemic reliability of Change.org as a site of justice-oriented mobilization.

Keywords: Change.org, digital activism, commodification of outrage, online petition platforms, SLAPP suits, DHFL scam, OBMA campaign, algorithmic suppression, platform capitalism, Ajay Piramal, media censorship, participatory justice, signature manipulation

Change.org is projected as the largest petition platform globally, with over 400 million users. It allows anyone to start a petition, share it widely, and potentially go viral. It has been involved in some high-profile “victories”—from changes in corporate policies to national regulations.

For anyone looking to mobilize public opinion, Change.org can provide the first spark.

However,….

It’s Far From Being Perfect

Despite its popularity, Change.org is NOT a nonprofit organization. It is a for-profit B-Corp that earns revenue through promoted petitions, data analytics, and sponsored content. Many users—myself included—were shocked to learn this only after engaging with the platform.

1. When the Platform Becomes the Problem

My experience with Change.org—watching supporters vanish without explanation, signatures mysteriously decrease overnight, and data inconsistencies creep into my campaign—has been not just disheartening, but deeply revealing. What began as a hopeful attempt to rally collective support around a just cause quickly turned into a lesson in the limits and contradictions of digital activism.

The context of my experience is the following petition:

Justice for DHFL Victims: Demand Truth Commission Now! VIEW HERE ⤡ @change.org

The petition “Justice for DHFL Victims: Demand Truth Commission Now!” calls on the President of India, Chief Justice, Law Commission and other high‑level decision‑makers to establish a Judicial Truth and Accountability Commission to probe the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025 verdict that upheld Mr. Ajay Piramal’s corporate resolution plan in the DHFL insolvency case. According to the petition, the judgment apparently/allegedly disregarded earlier tribunal findings (from NCLT on May 19, 2021, and NCLAT on January 27, 2022), excluded small depositors—many elderly, differently abled or in public service—and enabled the transfer of assets without scrutiny, resulting in the effective wiping out of lakhs of depositors’ life savings. It alleges regulatory complicity, cronyism, and judicial indifference, arguing that restoring public trust requires an independent inquiry into the process and ethical accountability of all involved.

Justice for DHFL Victims: Demand a Judicial Truth Commission Now! (An Online Mass Petition)

[According to my Excel download, the petition had 289 signatures at time X. Yet, in the subsequent period, the total declined to just 256—with no explanation provided.]

At first glance, Change.org seems like a democratizing force—a digital megaphone in the hands of ordinary people. It offers the illusion of empowerment: with just a few clicks, one can create a petition, share it with the world, and potentially effect change. But behind this accessible façade lies a structure that often undermines the very grassroots spirit it claims to support.

Like many platforms in the tech-driven activism economy, Change.org commodifies outrage. It converts pain, protest, and public sentiment into metrics—clicks, shares, donations, and data—while keeping real control centralized. Users are encouraged to promote, donate, and disseminate, yet they remain largely powerless over how their petitions are ranked, shown, or shadowed. It is activism mediated, managed, and ultimately monetized.

What shocked me most—and continues to alarm countless users—is that Change.org is not a nonprofit. Despite the “.org” in its name, which implies credibility and public interest, it is in fact a for-profit B Corporation. It earns its revenue through promoted petitions, data analytics, and sponsored campaigns. This business-as-usual model raises serious questions: Who benefits when a petition goes viral? Where does donated money actually go? And why are some causes amplified while others fade into digital obscurity?

1.2. Possible Causes for Signature Reduction

• Unverified Emails: If a signer doesn’t confirm their email, their signature might not be counted.
• Suspicious Email Addresses: Signatures from addresses like “info@…” or those with “+” in them may be auto-removed by the system.
• User Removals: People can delete their own signatures at any time. But honestly, how many do that daily?
• System Delays or Glitches: High traffic periods can cause dashboards and exports to lag behind real-time counts—or so we’re told.

Yet these reasons don’t fully elucidate the persistent and seemingly targeted reductions occurring every morning. If these are automated filters, why do they operate retroactively? Why are signature totals frequently reverted without any notification?

A Platform That Speaks of the People—But Not to the People

I. Proposition 1: As the starter of a petition, I find myself unable to locate fundamental features on the platform—such as the “Membership” or “Promote Petition” buttons. I cannot even contribute to boost visibility through monetary means. Why is it that the most directly affected individual—the one who initiated the petition—is locked out of participation in its promotion?

II. Proposition 2: This disconnect reveals a deeper malaise: Change.org is a platform where people’s sufferings have been commodified, transformed into data streams, visibility metrics, and engagement funnels. It has already implemented invisible subtractions, reducing signature counts without transparency or recourse. This isn’t just a glitch—it’s structural. The platform subtracts not only signatures but also agency, rendering petition starters passive in a system built around their outrage.

This experience has led me to ask a more fundamental question: Is change.org a reliable petition public platform for Justice?

This article isn’t just a complaint. It’s a cautionary tale. It’s a closer look at how platforms like Change.org, while useful at first glance, may subtly erode the very agency they claim to enable. Through my own petition’s strange trajectory—and the stories of many others—I want to explore what happens when digital activism is hosted on a platform that profits from protest or resistance.

We can explore digital activism through the lens of “large language models,” such as AI chatbots, regarding this change.org issue, considering that these AI platforms are trained on extensive databases from the World Wide Web and could potentially provide useful insights for our reflection.

2. ChatGPT said…

2.1. What it’s good for:

(a) Raising awareness and reaching mass audiences
It’s easy to create and share petitions, so one can quickly gather signatures and draw attention to issues. Change.org reports having hundreds of millions of users Reddit+2newmode.net+2Trustpilot+2.

(b) Occasional real-world wins
There are documented cases where petitions led to policy changes or corporate reversals—like safety improvements in Brazil’s ride-hailing apps newmode.net+2Trustpilot+2Trustpilot+2Wikipedia. The platform claims thousands of “victories” worldwide .

2.2. Limitations & criticisms:

(a) Mostly “slacktivism”

Signing is symbolic: real change usually requires follow‑up steps such as contacting officials, media outreach, or building offline pressure Better Business Bureau+15newmode.net+15The Daily Wildcat+15.

(b) For-profit, not a charity

Despite the “.org” name, Change.org is a public-benefit B‑corp that earns revenue from ad sponsors and promoting petitions Better Business Bureau+13Forbes+13Reddit+13.

(c) Opaque money practices

Donations one makes often go toward boosting petition visibility, not directly to causes or beneficiaries. Critics say the site profits off popular petitions like the George Floyd petition newmode.net+10Betches+10Reddit+10.

(d) Privacy & automated subscriptions issues

Users report being enrolled in unwanted monthly donations and getting inundated with marketing emails. Some have struggled to unsubscribe WIRED+15Trustpilot+15Complaints Board+15.

(e) Inconsistent vetting
Petitions have been removed for misinformation or harassment (e.g., Raygun petition) News.com.au+2theguardian.com+2News.com.au+2. At the same time, other incorrect or misleading campaigns have slipped through Reddit.

(f) Perceived ideological bias
Media watchdogs rate Change.org as left‑leaning (?) with mixed factual rigor, since petitions are typically user‑generated and not fact-checked .

3. Grok Said…

Key Points and Analysis

Slacktivism Criticism

• Assessment: The “slacktivism” label is a common critique, as signing petitions often feels like low-effort activism. Change.org’s strength is in amplifying issues, but real change typically requires offline follow-up (e.g., lobbying, protests, or media campaigns). Data from Change.org’s own impact reports suggests only a small percentage of petitions lead to tangible outcomes, often when paired with strategic advocacy.
• Additional Insight: A 2023 study cited on The Conversation noted that online petitions can boost awareness but rarely shift policy without sustained pressure. X posts echo this, with users praising Change.org for visibility but criticizing its limited impact without further action.

For-Profit Status

• Assessment: Correct, Change.org is a B-Corp, not a nonprofit, despite the “.org” domain. It generates revenue through promoted petitions and ads, which can confuse users expecting a charity. Forbes (2021) and BBB reports confirm this, noting that while the platform is transparent about its model in fine print, the branding can mislead.
• Additional Insight: Some X users have expressed frustration over Change.org’s monetization, especially when high-profile petitions (e.g., George Floyd) are used to drive revenue through promoted content.

Opaque Money Practices

• Assessment: Donations often fund petition promotion rather than the cause itself, which critics argue exploits emotional campaigns. Betches and Reddit threads highlight user confusion over donation flows, with many assuming funds go directly to organizers.
• Additional Insight: A 2022 WIRED article noted that Change.org’s donation prompts lack clarity, and users on X have shared similar complaints about unexpected charges or unclear fund allocation.

Privacy and Subscription Issues

• Assessment: User reports on Trustpilot and Complaints Board frequently mention unwanted emails and difficulty unsubscribing from recurring donations. Change.org’s privacy policy allows data sharing with third parties unless opted out, which isn’t always clear to users.
• Additional Insight: Recent X posts (2024-2025) mention persistent marketing emails, with some users advising checking account settings to disable data sharing or cancel subscriptions.

Inconsistent Vetting

• Assessment: Change.org’s user-generated model means minimal vetting, leading to both impactful and misleading petitions. High-profile removals (e.g., Raygun petition, per News.com.au) show responsiveness to backlash, but Reddit discussions point to cases where false or inflammatory petitions persist.
• Additional Insight: A 2023 Guardian article noted Change.org’s reactive moderation, removing petitions only after public outcry, which undermines trust in content reliability.

Perceived Ideological Bias

• Assessment: Media watchdogs like AllSides rate Change.org as left-leaning(?) due to the progressive tilt of many high-profile petitions. However, this reflects user demographics more than platform policy, as anyone can start a petition. Fact-checking is absent, so reliability varies by petition.
• Additional Insight: X posts show polarized views—some users see Change.org as a progressive echo chamber, while others view it as a neutral tool for diverse causes.

Verdict and Recommendations: verdict is spot-on: Change.org is reliable for raising awareness but less so for driving policy change without follow-up. Its for-profit model, privacy issues, and inconsistent vetting are valid concerns.

Related NewsRecent articles (e.g., The Guardian, 2024) highlight Change.org’s role in amplifying niche causes but reiterate its limitations in effecting systemic change. X posts from 2025 show ongoing debates about its monetization and privacy practices, with some users advocating alternatives like Avaaz for nonprofit-driven activism. In short, Change.org is a useful tool for visibility but requires careful use and supplementary action to be effective.

4. Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion replied:

Change.org is one of the most widely used online petition platforms, but its reliability depends on what one is expecting it to achieve. Here’s a breakdown to help one decides:

Strengths

• Massive Reach: With millions of users globally, it’s great for raising awareness and showing public support.
• User-Friendly: Easy to create and share petitions, even for first-timers.
• Occasional Impact: Some petitions have led to real-world changes, especially when they gain media attention or political traction.

Limitations

• Symbolic Power: Many experts consider Change.org petitions more symbolic than actionable unless paired with offline activism.
• For-Profit Model: Despite its social mission, Change.org is a venture-backed, for-profit company, which has raised concerns about transparency and motives.
• Donation Confusion: Users have reported being unknowingly enrolled in monthly donations after making one-time contributions3.
• Content Moderation: Some petitions have been removed without clear explanation, frustrating users who invested time and money.

Bottom Line

Change.org can be a powerful tool for visibility and solidarity, but it’s not a guaranteed path to policy change. If one is looking to influence legislation or corporate behavior, pairing one’s petition with direct advocacy or media outreach is key.

To Sum Up:

(A) Monetization of Activism

When one donates to a petition, one’s money does not go to the petition creators or the cause. It funds Change.org’s internal system to “promote” one’s petition to more users. This is not always transparent—and many have donated thinking they were supporting the grassroots organizer directly.

(B) Privacy and Consent Issues

Users frequently report being signed up for recurring donations without clear consent. Others are overwhelmed by emails and notifications, finding it hard to unsubscribe or opt out.

(C) Opaque Moderation and Signature Policies

Change.org has been known to remove or freeze petitions deemed controversial, politically sensitive, or in conflict with its internal moderation guidelines. And yet, the platform has hosted misleading or borderline false petitions with little scrutiny.

(D) “Slacktivism” and Symbolism

Most petition victories involve offline action—emails, press, lobbying, protests—not just signatures. A Change.org petition alone rarely creates institutional change unless it is backed by a real-world movement.

(E) Bias and Content Curation

There’s a growing perception that the platform leans ideologically—which shapes which petitions get visibility and which quietly fade. Some petitions appear to get algorithmic boosts, while others stagnate despite high organic support.

Now add to this a troubling dynamic on so-called neutral platforms like Change.org. As I’ve experienced firsthand, this petition platform is neither neutral nor entirely public-interest driven. Change.org commodifies outrage—transforming moral urgency into marketable traffic, algorithmic boosts, and advertising revenue. Its decisions are not governed by ideological commitment but by the logic of visibility, virality, and profit.

Therefore, I do not subscribe to the claim that “…[m]edia watchdogs like AllSides rate Change.org as left-leaning due to the progressive tilt of many high-profile petitions.” The platform’s apparent ideological lean is not rooted in principle but in profit-driven amplification of emotionally resonant content. The “tilt” isn’t political—it’s transactional.

Conclusion: A Few Conjectures—And an Open Question

Ajay  Piramal the deus ex machina?

Am I merely succumbing to persecutory paranoia, or is there a concerted effort to silence dissent?

Consider the pattern: a madman’s queries 

• Legal intimidation. Billionaire Ajay Piramal, displeased with OBMA’s coverage of the DHFL crisis, initiated a defamation suit—a classic SLAPP tactic—against Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay. The case fizzled, but the message was clear: challenge power and be prepared for costly litigation. Mr. Piramal allegedly tried to block OBMA–linked pages on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter), but he had cut a sorry figure.
• Platform interference. In rapid succession, Quora abruptly restricted our account, and our long‑running blog  onceinabluemoon2021 has become non-operative. Each incident, taken alone, could be a platform glitch; together, they form a troubling mosaic.

Is Mr Ajay  Piramal, probably, the deus ex machina behind these digital setbacks, orchestrating takedowns from behind the curtain? I cannot yet prove causality—but the coincidences pile up like dominoes. Until transparency replaces opacity, suspicion will flourish.

If raising these questions is paranoia, then perhaps a little paranoia is the price of vigilance.