Your claim seems to factor into two parts: “There exist charities that are just selling signaling”, and “All charities are that kind of charity.” The first part seems obviously true; the second seems equally obviously false.
Some things that I would expect from a charity that was just selling signaling:
Trademarking or branding. It would need to make it easy for people to identify (and praise) its donors/customers, and resist imitators. (Example: the Komen breast-cancer folks, who have threatened lawsuits over other charities’ use of the color pink and the word “cure”.)
Association with generic “admiration” traits, such as celebrity, athleticism, or attractiveness. (Example: the Komen breast-cancer folks again.)
Absence of “weird” or costly traits that would correlate with honest interest in its area of concern. (For instance, a pure-signaling charity that was ostensibly about blindness might not bother to have a web site that was highly accessible to blind users.)
In extreme cases, we would be hearing from ostensible beneficiaries of the charity telling us that it actually hurts, excludes, or frightens them. (Example: Autism Speaks.)
Jealousy or competitiveness. It would try to exclude other charities from its area of concern. (A low-signaling charity doesn’t care if it is responsible for fixing the thing; it just wants the thing fixed.)
Your claim seems to factor into two parts: “There exist charities that are just selling signaling”, and “All charities are that kind of charity.” The first part seems obviously true; the second seems equally obviously false.
Some things that I would expect from a charity that was just selling signaling:
Trademarking or branding. It would need to make it easy for people to identify (and praise) its donors/customers, and resist imitators. (Example: the Komen breast-cancer folks, who have threatened lawsuits over other charities’ use of the color pink and the word “cure”.)
Association with generic “admiration” traits, such as celebrity, athleticism, or attractiveness. (Example: the Komen breast-cancer folks again.)
Absence of “weird” or costly traits that would correlate with honest interest in its area of concern. (For instance, a pure-signaling charity that was ostensibly about blindness might not bother to have a web site that was highly accessible to blind users.)
In extreme cases, we would be hearing from ostensible beneficiaries of the charity telling us that it actually hurts, excludes, or frightens them. (Example: Autism Speaks.)
Jealousy or competitiveness. It would try to exclude other charities from its area of concern. (A low-signaling charity doesn’t care if it is responsible for fixing the thing; it just wants the thing fixed.)