If my comments can help to disincentivize just one future failed wannabe entrepreneur from raising money for their useless project then it was all worth it.
Your consequentialist view is valid but you can not demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that it's the best and most useful perspective. If you think your way of thinking is so much more superior then start your own startup, be successful, donate to charity and then write a blog post proving us all wrong.
The reason I'm investing time into this discussion is because I believe your way of thinking is toxic and very dangerous because you actually believe you're more virtuous for the beliefs that you hold. The most atrocious events in history have been done in the name of good, please remember that or you risk increasing mind share in toxic and evil ideologies.
nearly every startup which has succeeded MUST sound like an utter crap invented by a wannabe, scamster, or lunatic.
Take Google for example: who the fuck needs YET another search engine, even as there are about 50 other ones and none of them makes any money (Yahoo does make money, but search contributes just 7% of its traffic, it is irrelevant)?
Take Apple: ok so you are gonna make a computer an ordinary person could buy. What for? Why do you even need a computer at home, unless you are a computer fan? Remember the Internet has 20 years to become available to non-military outside largest universities, there are even no BBSes, and totally no usable software which would make any sense for an average person.
Facebook? A social app for college students - a very narrow group of people, who have no money to monetize it upon?
If i was an average person trying to tell if any of the multibillion startup success stories were 'useless' or not, i'd say almost every one of them to GTFO.
My vision of what constitutes a good case of a project to fund is exactly that: great people (simply by their coding skills - people with great github accounts) who pitch a visibly BS idea. Because they must be onto something.