Philanthropy porn is just disgusting to begin with. That alone should have ended him. But people think it’s a “feel-good story” so they keep watching. A lot of times, the follow-ups to such stories feel less good since the people getting that philanthropy often can’t afford to pay to maintain whatever they’ve been given.
I was going to say I got it from somewhere, but apparently the term is usually “charity porn.” I think “philanthropy porn” works better though because it’s just as much about the philanthropist themselves as it is about what they’re offering.
But instead of just the best images of the subject matter like /cableporn or /earthporn, this has the negative connotation of voyeuristic performative prostitution. He’s the pimp, and he’s whoring out his recipients to make his money.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
As morally dubious as he is, I’m sure the people who have access to water after his “build 100 wells in Africa” stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.
So I don’t know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I’m unsure what would be better.
So his curing 1000 blind people video? Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
In exchange for being on video. Which is kinda gross. It’s making entertainment out of someone who needs help. If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping. He makes more money off each video than he spent. That’s exploitation
Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
Well, that’s good isn’t it?
In exchange for being on video.
I didn’t watch the video, but skimmed through it now. In the wide shot it shows around 200 people. Meaning 800 people got it without having to appear on video. It’s likely they just got the money and a question if they want to appear on a video. 20% said yes, 80% said no, still got the money. What’s wrong with that? Looks completely voluntary.
If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping.
In that video, it doesn’t look to me like he did. Clearly people got the money no strings attached, and an option to appear in a video in they want to, which most of them didn’t take.
He makes more money off each video than he spent.
Which gets spent on the next stunt. If not for the 1000 blind people video, he would have no money for the 100 free houses video, without which he would have no money for the 100 wells in Africa video, ad infinitum. If you say what he does cannot be packaged into profitable media, then that’s fine, but that means it can’t be done at all. Filming people getting helped is how more people get helped next time. As long as it’s voluntary for the people getting help, as it seems to be, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I agree with many of his criticisms, but to me he seems far from actual problems with this world caused by politicians and corporations. A YouTuber making a show of helping people seems like the last thing wrong with this world today. And people wouldn’t need the help if we solved the actual issues.
Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it’s always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it’s worse than if it weren’t allowed to accumulate in the first place.
Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren’t so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that.
This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don’t know if they would be worse off if they weren’t helped.
He “built 100 houses and gave them away” earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they’re tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don’t like their job and there isn’t another job available? They’re stuck.
Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.
Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don’t want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?
You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.
Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.
You also don’t know that they weren’t required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren’t such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren’t necessarily.
They’re also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.
Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, “yeah, they still own the house” doesn’t get views or make money?
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he’s a massive piece of shit.
I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money?
Possibly. If they didn’t sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there’s just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can’t actually afford to own a free house.
Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc?
That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That’s why corporations tend to do it.
Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren’t, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won’t tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.
Maybe if it’s just me, but if you’re unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free… I’m not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library’s are free.
Most of those “houses” were three room shacks in third world countries. No way they were worth 200k. They were roofs over peoples’ heads yes, but not investment vehicles.
And please, explain to a war ravaged town in sub-saharan africa financial literacy. See how that goes.
Philanthropy porn is just disgusting to begin with. That alone should have ended him. But people think it’s a “feel-good story” so they keep watching. A lot of times, the follow-ups to such stories feel less good since the people getting that philanthropy often can’t afford to pay to maintain whatever they’ve been given.
What an excellent description of this kind of behavior.
I was going to say I got it from somewhere, but apparently the term is usually “charity porn.” I think “philanthropy porn” works better though because it’s just as much about the philanthropist themselves as it is about what they’re offering.
Spend $1,000,000 in 24 hours!
I think you coined the term “philanthropy porn”.
But instead of just the best images of the subject matter like /cableporn or /earthporn, this has the negative connotation of voyeuristic performative prostitution. He’s the pimp, and he’s whoring out his recipients to make his money.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
As morally dubious as he is, I’m sure the people who have access to water after his “build 100 wells in Africa” stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.
So I don’t know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I’m unsure what would be better.
So his curing 1000 blind people video? Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
In exchange for being on video. Which is kinda gross. It’s making entertainment out of someone who needs help. If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping. He makes more money off each video than he spent. That’s exploitation
Well, that’s good isn’t it?
I didn’t watch the video, but skimmed through it now. In the wide shot it shows around 200 people. Meaning 800 people got it without having to appear on video. It’s likely they just got the money and a question if they want to appear on a video. 20% said yes, 80% said no, still got the money. What’s wrong with that? Looks completely voluntary.
In that video, it doesn’t look to me like he did. Clearly people got the money no strings attached, and an option to appear in a video in they want to, which most of them didn’t take.
Which gets spent on the next stunt. If not for the 1000 blind people video, he would have no money for the 100 free houses video, without which he would have no money for the 100 wells in Africa video, ad infinitum. If you say what he does cannot be packaged into profitable media, then that’s fine, but that means it can’t be done at all. Filming people getting helped is how more people get helped next time. As long as it’s voluntary for the people getting help, as it seems to be, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I agree with many of his criticisms, but to me he seems far from actual problems with this world caused by politicians and corporations. A YouTuber making a show of helping people seems like the last thing wrong with this world today. And people wouldn’t need the help if we solved the actual issues.
Just because they were cut out of the video doesn’t mean it wasn’t filmed. I want to see what contract they signed before he payed for their surgery.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it’s always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it’s worse than if it weren’t allowed to accumulate in the first place.
Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren’t so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.
I agree, but he’s far from the enemy here, he has no money compared to the billionaires we should be fighting.
This is the kindest article I could find on his wealth and ot still brings the ethics of his money into question
https://screenrant.com/mr-beast-money-millions-rich-explained/
This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don’t know if they would be worse off if they weren’t helped.
He “built 100 houses and gave them away” earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they’re tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don’t like their job and there isn’t another job available? They’re stuck.
Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.
Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don’t want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?
You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.
Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.
You also don’t know that they weren’t required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren’t such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren’t necessarily.
They’re also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.
You also don’t know they weren’t given ongoing support. We can both play this game.
Why wouldn’t that be made clear?
Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, “yeah, they still own the house” doesn’t get views or make money?
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he’s a massive piece of shit.
I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.
Possibly. If they didn’t sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there’s just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can’t actually afford to own a free house.
That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That’s why corporations tend to do it.
I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren’t, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won’t tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.
Maybe if it’s just me, but if you’re unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free… I’m not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library’s are free.
Most of those “houses” were three room shacks in third world countries. No way they were worth 200k. They were roofs over peoples’ heads yes, but not investment vehicles.
And please, explain to a war ravaged town in sub-saharan africa financial literacy. See how that goes.
And that’s pretty much my argument.