Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulpauper | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com