Hacker News Reader

Comment by memefrog | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com