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
That’s not the philanthropy part, the games he does are usually with his friends yeah, also in a smaller town in the Carolinas so you probably already know most everyone. The philanthropy stuff is building wells, bridges, houses, planting trees, and what not in other countries, I really don’t see those being his friends as he doesn’t know their languages.
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
That’s not the philanthropy part, the games he does are usually with his friends yeah, also in a smaller town in the Carolinas so you probably already know most everyone. The philanthropy stuff is building wells, bridges, houses, planting trees, and what not in other countries, I really don’t see those being his friends as he doesn’t know their languages.