I’m always suspicious of people who make a show of their philanthropy. It just makes it seem like they’re either exploiting people for their own gain, or they have something to hide and are trying to do so with philanthropic work.
I mean yes but isn’t that being extremely pedantic?
Take Mr Beast or an hypothetical example. Give 1M to strangers in need, record it, upload it to YouTube make 4M on ads and other sponsors (content is still free). Pocket 2M, make second video where he gives 2M to other strangers in need. Record it, upload it to YouTube etc etc
Now I agree with you, philosophically it’s best to give without expecting or earning anything in return. But is that really the best outcome? Isn’t it actually arguably better to publicize it and with it reach and help way more people?
For me the answer is clear. I’d rather have someone record and even make money of this type of content (as long as there’s no exploitation or slimy shit) than have that same someone not do that and instead only help a fraction of the people. I’ll argue that the people being helped don’t give a crap about it, so it feels a bit patronizing to say that they shouldn’t be helped because of X or Y
This isn’t specific to Mr Beast, I don’t even know the details of the recent scandal. I just see this argument everywhere and I feel it’s very naive
Guy brought crypto-bros’ fake twitter/telegram giveaways scheme to youtube. Anybody with some knowledge of social media scams should have been suspicious. But his viewers were mostly kids and kids like flashy over the top content.
Anyone remember these on Xitter?
Like, subscribe, follow me and 10 other accounts and post proof in comments for a chance to win 0.0000000000000001 buttcoin.
5 comments after this post get a NFT worth $NOTHING
With a bot farm driving engagement, there’d be 1000s of comments in few hours. Probably mostly fake but still a lot of suckers reeled in everyday.
I’m not a fan, but his philanthropy work is also popular. I only started to know him because of his project trees and not about his streaming
But supposedly the philanthropy is staged and the prizes are given to his friends.
I’m always suspicious of people who make a show of their philanthropy. It just makes it seem like they’re either exploiting people for their own gain, or they have something to hide and are trying to do so with philanthropic work.
I mean yes but isn’t that being extremely pedantic?
Take Mr Beast or an hypothetical example. Give 1M to strangers in need, record it, upload it to YouTube make 4M on ads and other sponsors (content is still free). Pocket 2M, make second video where he gives 2M to other strangers in need. Record it, upload it to YouTube etc etc
Now I agree with you, philosophically it’s best to give without expecting or earning anything in return. But is that really the best outcome? Isn’t it actually arguably better to publicize it and with it reach and help way more people?
For me the answer is clear. I’d rather have someone record and even make money of this type of content (as long as there’s no exploitation or slimy shit) than have that same someone not do that and instead only help a fraction of the people. I’ll argue that the people being helped don’t give a crap about it, so it feels a bit patronizing to say that they shouldn’t be helped because of X or Y
This isn’t specific to Mr Beast, I don’t even know the details of the recent scandal. I just see this argument everywhere and I feel it’s very naive
Guy brought crypto-bros’ fake twitter/telegram giveaways scheme to youtube. Anybody with some knowledge of social media scams should have been suspicious. But his viewers were mostly kids and kids like flashy over the top content.
Anyone remember these on Xitter?
With a bot farm driving engagement, there’d be 1000s of comments in few hours. Probably mostly fake but still a lot of suckers reeled in everyday.