Promoting bullshit has real costs associated with it. Those bullshit crystals cost people money and don't do anything. People get dumber being convinced to buy them, and will use that dumbness in other parts of life. Promoting a market for delusion and false hope is the last thing anyone needs.
It might be hard to put a precise dollar value on second order effects like these, let alone on things like moral integrity, but that doesn't mean this value isn't there.
There is no shortage of people who will do whatever bullshitting it takes to earn more money, and that's not something to be celebrated regardless of whether it comes with mental health donations or another trendy atonement mechanism.
Ah, I see how my comment can be read like that.
I don't mean to say "only consider the positives of one and not the negatives of the other". And "the existence of negatives means the thing is negative" would also be a bad way of thinking about it.
The approach ought to be "The benefits should be weighed against the costs".
Which is why some people choose moral principles that are more rigid. And well scamming people into buying useless rocks is on the wrong side of mine, no matter what moral kickback it's artificially bundled with.
"That the website does one shady thing makes me suspect other things they're doing are shady" makes sense to me, though.
Sure. "if the negative impact of selling healing crystals outweighs the positive impact of donating to mental health organisations, then it's bad" makes sense to me.
Creation of value is good, and breaking a window just to replace it doesn't.
GDP counts money being spent, of course.