Hacker News Reader

Comment by seydor | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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

> 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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com