Hacker News Reader

Comment by daed | Hacker News Reader

> I also don't understand the take that altruism/philanthropy has to be zero sum

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism

By the first definition it requires “unselfish regard”. If MrBeast is pulling 54 million a year (along with lots of fame and clout) he’s not exactly qualifying for the first definition.

Definition 2 is the one I’m most familiar with from the animal kingdom, and it actually requires that the giver either gain nothing or lose something. So that may be where people are coming from who take exception to his behavior being described as “altruistic”. By definition, it is not.

View on HN

That makes sense. Thanks for that. If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting I don't think I see altruism as a super positive thing.

Turns into "he gave up his last dollar for that person!" which is seen as a super altruistic thing to do, but now, not only does that person only have a dollar, you've taken yourself out of the game and can no longer do any more good in the world because you don't have any resources left.

> If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting

One doesn't preclude the other. But if my benefit is a pre-requisite for the benefit of others, it changes the dynamic.

Would Mr. Beast continue these acts if he weren't also turning it into content? I'm sure everyone has an opinion, but I'm not particularly convinced.

I suppose what makes it hard to be skeptical here is there is real "good" being applied here, but the motivations behind them are important, too.

I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue.

I give you 30 grand or cure your blindness or buy you a house and you participate in my video. It seems like a win win.

If the argument is that he is making more than they are making off that one video, again, that goes back to me having benefit less than you.

Maybe the problem is the framing people have of it being a charity? Even in that light, he creates content for people to consume for free, the content is driven by him giving things away, the people who pay him are businesses who also get a service provided by all of those people finding out about their product/service. It seems a lot less extractive than most business models.

> I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue.

Not exactly what I was saying. Let's say he stopped today. Or when he hit $25M in total wealth. Some figure where he could live a comfortable life while still contributing to these kinds of acts.

Would he still do it? Or is continued profit / brand building / etc a key component? Is this fundamentally a transaction?

I would assume not. I don't think he thinks of it as a charity, but the tension between continued profit and doing amazing things in this case doesn't bother me. I think it's positive in that the better he does the more people he can impact. Transactions can be incredibly positive even if they are dispassionate.

I understand your point. It's a good one and well taken. Very eloquently put.

Those two things are definitely not always aligned and probably arent always in this case either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com