Hacker News Reader

Comment by no_wizard | Hacker News Reader

I find it interesting that people are upset that this, for lack of a better term, philanthropy achieved by MrBeast, while yes, its for the likes, the YouTube popularity, its a cottage industry of "feel good" that he's producing, is somehow bad?

I wonder how sustainable this will be ultimately, but it seems like he's able to just give all this stuff away and help people, and yes, they have to agree to be being filmed participating in some manner, but seriously, he's helping folks who need it. Every day people.

He also makes other content, but this seems to be the "bread and butter" of what makes MrBeast famous. I'm not seeing an obvious downside to what he's doing, seems like a net win for many people

View on HN

This is philanthropy porn. He is not the philanthropist because he doesnt haev the money in the first place, he is using other people's money to perform charity on camera.

I 'm not very religious but it is a tale as old as humans. The christian gospels called out this hypocricy for a reason:

> Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory before me. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their rewards. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.” – Matthew 6:2-4

The other thing is that philanthropy is about helping people according to their need, not randomly or according to their willingness to get on cam

But if we never celebrate altruism or philanthropy, are we not, perhaps, discouraging it? Don't we want to instill these cultural values of giving?

It seems to me that keeping quiet is a kind of purity ritual that perhaps does more harm than good as well.

Personally I don't care about MrBeast one way or the other, he doesn't affect my life in any appreciable way, if he makes money giving other people money, cool, I can think of a thousand worse ways to make money.

where is the celebration?

His high number of fans/views? People like him. They like watching him. They like what he's doing. Is that not overt celebration of what he's doing over someone else doing... whatever else on Youtube?

celebration of philanthropy, not of himself

Sure, but other people are making videos playing games or eating food or whatnot. There's clearly an interest in his sort of philanthropic videos that has gotten him more attention than other people.

> But if we never celebrate altruism or philanthropy, are we not, perhaps, discouraging it?

Truly, never celebrating altruism and celebrating Mr. Beast's bullshit are the only two choices.

He's certainly not using anyone else's money. It is money that he's received from making videos.

The difference, I think, is the same difference that there is between donating money anonymously and donating money under the condition that something is named after you. The former is transparently good because it can only be done for a good purpose. The latter may be done for a good purpose. You might want everyone to know you donated so that you can set an example for others: "I am a popular actor and if I do this it will bring attention to this cause". But we often get the feeling, I think, that the donation would not have been given if not for the quid pro quo, and then it feels a bit dirty: more like buying indulgences.

Here he's not giving the money away just so that he can say "look what a good philanthropist I am" but also so that he can record and publish videos of it to make money. That makes it twice as dirty: doing something that ought to be done for its own sake and using it as a means of achieving an end that is, let's face it, his own benefit.

If he were doing it differently, then it might be different. If it felt like he had structured the operation so that he was only making all this money to funnel it into a charity, that would be different. But he's not: he's not making money in order to do charity, but doing charity in order to make money. He's reversed the means and the end. That is deeply uncomfortable.

Why does helping people have to be selfless? Why can’t it be something people do loud and proud and for transparent reasons?

I don’t see why it has be done with the utmost anonymity for it to count

What you’re saying is indistinguishable from “I’m jealous people don’t give me credit the same way they give him credit”

you will find similar quotes in other religious. Most of them disapprove of what he is doing. I m assuming by extension that most people (religious or not) disapprove status-seeking philanthropy.

I dont think i 'm jealous because i would never do something similar, i just find it unethical

> He is not the philanthropist because he doesnt haev the money in the first place, he is using other people's money to perform charity on camera.

How does one can acquire money in the first place without recieving money from other people?

Does your money should appear from nowhere, so you will become "true" philanthropist?

In the same sense, UNICEF could start making reality charity porn and use the proceedings for charity. Would people accept that, is that ethical? No. Their public campaigns are sensitive and don't slather the faces of hungry children on youtube for advertisers.

I find it weird that i need to explain the difference.

For me its very strange argument.

So, basically, hungry people, or people in dire straits, or chronically ill people will not accept money that comes from porn? Why? Whats wrong with porn made by consent adults?

Please explain why you think its weird.

> I find it interesting that people are upset that this, for lack of a better term, philanthropy achieved by MrBeast, while yes, its for the likes, the YouTube popularity, its a cottage industry of "feel good" that he's producing, is somehow bad?

It depends on how it's done.

It's one thing to be broadcasting what is essentially, poverty porn, where you, the hero of the world, come in to paradrop money on the problem.

It's another thing to, well, be doing meaningful charity, and promoting it.

And just like art versus pornography, the distinction is one of 'I'll know it when I see it'. Unsurprisingly, people have legitimate disagreements on where that line is.

Unfortunately, the US is just completely broken in respect to treating people with dignity if they fall on hard times. I'm willing to say that as long as things are (and they seemingly are, so far anyway) transparent, and agreed to, up front, by all parties involved, I can't say I'm against this.

I understand the "poverty porn" aspect might be a sour taste, but this is the state we exist in, unfortunately, where these random acts of charity are really meaningful to so many people.

To Jimmy’s credit, a lot of his charity work is done without a camera. He runs a legit food pantry year-round. He doesn’t farm it for views. I think it’s only in one or two videos.

Are TV game shows (Jeopardy?) also poverty porn? How do you even know the contestants are poor and not participating just for fun?

No, it’s not poverty porn if it’s not showing the poverty. Poverty porn requires the demonstration of how life changing it is.

You know the people participating in most of Mr.Beast videos are poor because, well that's the point of the videos in a lot of cases.

I'd say a lot of his videos are fine, but some of them can be quite jarring. In a lot of them for example there's families that are struggling and he spends almost no time in the emotional aspects of it and just kind of jumps into the "BUT HERES 10 THOUSAND DOLLARS!" to get reactions. It actually feels very dehumanising, as if these people are but a prop in the stage.

Of course, no one will say he's doing something bad by giving people money. But ultimately, to make a spectacle out of poverty is worth criticising, no?

How would he be able to do any charity if not for YouTube and broadcasting it?

He’s effectively transferring dollars from large advertisers to poor Americans. Very unlikely he would be doing this at all if not for YouTube.

I wonder how sustainable this will be ultimately, but it seems like he's able to just give all this stuff away and help people, and yes, they have to agree to be being filmed participating in some manner, but seriously, he's helping folks who need it. Every day people.

the federal govt. spends trillions on aid without having to film people. The whole reason Mr Beast is able to give anything away at all is because of the spectacle. otherwise, no one would watch and he'd have no money to give.

Sure they do, but he’s doing it without any bureaucracy. No real strings for the recover. Government aid is both more political and often has strings attached or requirements. Very different things entirely, nor is it sufficient

Now imagine a government that helps people with no strings attached, without making them feel like shit about needing help, and no cameras pointed at their face either. Who says it can’t be done?

> Now imagine a government that helps people with no strings attached, without making them feel like shit about needing help, and no cameras pointed at their face either. Who says it can’t be done?

All of history so far.

There are a lot of things in our modern societies that would seem impossible or magical to someone from just a few hundred years ago. Why assume this is the best we can do, when so much progress was accomplished already?

Because you’re centralizing power. The more you centralize power, the more you increase the spread and power of corruption. This is why it always fails including with the system we have now. The difference is that in socialism, power is centralized from the start which is why it fails faster and why it takes longer for capitalist systems to fail compared to their socialist counterparts.

I think in most places in the world you can get cataract surgery for free no strings attached

Federal govt. has a right to violence to collect those trillions and they are pretty inefficient in spending it.

Because the US governments often values companies more than their own citizens. It is not a fundamental property though, Scandinavian countries do a whole lot better for example.

Mr beasts viewers give him money because they enjoy the spectacle. Without the spectacle all the good he’s able to do would not be done. Sure his viewers could just give the money to the government instead, but without the spectacle they don’t want to. Isn’t convincing people to be more charitable good? How is that not what Mr beast is doing

His viewers largely do not give him money. They give him attention, and in doing so give attention to the ads on his videos. Advertisers are the ones giving him money.

It is a very far cry to suggest that people watching his videos are "being more charitable" by doing so.

Attention is money. Their time is paying for the charity in the videos.

Attention is not money. Watching a YouTube video is not being charitable. You cannot just blankly assert that "their time is paying for the charity in the videos" without explaining why this is true. You will have a difficult time explaining that, because it isn't true.

As I said in the comment you replied to, but apparently didn't take the time to read, his viewers do not give him money by watching the videos. YouTube gives him money, which it gets from the ads which run on his videos, and I think he gets some money from direct advertising deals too. Those advertisers are not being charitable by giving him that money. They are conducting business deals: they want their image in front of his audience, and they're willing to pay for that. None of this has anything to do with charity.

Attention is money. How you skin it doesn't matter. Your attention is what's for sale, and bought.

It literally just is not. Attention and money are categorically different things. If you want to argue that directing your attention at something is somehow equivalent to spending money on it, then be my guest. But you have not done that. You have shallowly asserted that they are identical with the verb "is". They are not.

Their attention leads to him getting money through sponsors, ad revenue and merch sales. I don't think that makes the viewers "charitable", but it does mean that money is flowing into Mr Beast's bank account.

he's splitting hairs.

It strikes me that people are simply jealous. Jealous that he’s both successful and well liked.

Exactly this. People don’t have a problem with him doing good. They have a problem with him getting credit for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com