4 ms·

Two reasons I find this distasteful. It might be a net good still, I’m not sure. It’s not obvious however. One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-

Two reasons I find this distasteful. It might be a net good still, I’m not sure. It’s not obvious however. One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. Someone engages with Mr.Beast, feels like they did good. Later they walk by a food shelter in need of volunteers and thinks “I already did my part.” As we have parasocial relationships, we have paraphilanthropy. I suspect it ultimately makes people less compassionate and caring. This is hinted at here: > For Miller, what makes Donaldson remarkable is that he essentially asks his audience to see themselves as a commodity, and to therefore see their views and likes and shares as a force for good: “MrBeast is actually telling people that they’re entering a marketplace, by saying, ‘If you watch this, this is worth so much money, I can raise this much money and I can spend it on good causes.’” As Donaldson says in one video for his philanthropic sub-channel: “Beast Philanthropy is literally funded by your eyeballs. Not even joking.” Truth is, watching hours of YouTube isn't doing good. At best it’s entertainment, at worst it’s hours of human potential wasted. The other downside is that it normalizes the extrinsic reward to doing good. Kindness done for the “thank you” breeds resentment. The vulnerable can be thankful, but they can also be angry, frustrated, confused, hurt, mentally ill, etc. Sustainable kindness is done for oneself.

Invictus0 3y ago
> One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. Talk about grasping at straws. Seriously?
- bitcurious 3y ago
  100%. Everything is in competition for attention. That’s the market world we live in.
freddie_mercury 3y ago
> One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. [...] Later they walk by a food shelter in need of volunteers and thinks “I already did my part.” The exact same argument is made against government programs. And there's a long history of research showing just how much government grants crowd out charitable giving because tax payers feel like "I already did my part". But I don't see how you can consistently argue against Mr. Beast without also arguing against government funding, if crowding out is the issue you're concerned about.
- memefrog 3y ago
  That's not an argument in favour of Mr Beast. It's an argument against government programmes. And it is a good argument against government programmes.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    no it's not a good argument against government programs. really the best way to improve everyones lives is by everyone paying their taxes and allow those taxes to be used to help anyone in need and fund infrastructure and improvements for everyone in society. if we pool our resources we can create a better life for everyone. charities that rely on donations can only go so far, and they allow people to opt out of contributing their share. the betterment of our lives is not the responsibility of individuals who feel inclined to donate, but they are the responsibility of all of us as a community. this is not about allowing people to say that by paying taxes they did their part and so they don't feel the need to donate, but rather, as a society it is our responsibility to ensure that everyones needs are met such that there is no need for any individual to keep making donations. if our social net relies on donations then we have a social net that is not properly funded.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure his needs are met. If he is incapable of doing so, then charity (collectively or individually) may be necessary. I am not opposed to a social safety net but what you propose and what we have (all over the Anglosphere) is a system where people are told and believe that they are entitled to have their lives funded by others with whom they have no personal connection. I don't see why someone living in eg. California should be funding the life of a family living in eg. one of the many Southern states that take more in federal funds than they put in. Funding certain services is obviously necessary, like insane asylums, prisons, courts, police, firemen and the army. It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be. Schools definitely not. We have turned a system of helping those in need into a system for redistributing money from middle income people to the poor. We subsidise bad employers that don't pay market rates with things like in-work benefits.

Invictus0 3y ago

> One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. Talk about grasping at straws. Seriously?

bitcurious 3y ago
100%. Everything is in competition for attention. That’s the market world we live in.

freddie_mercury 3y ago

> One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. [...] Later they walk by a food shelter in need of volunteers and thinks “I already did my part.” The exact same argument is made against government programs. And there's a long history of research showing just how much government grants crowd out charitable giving because tax payers feel like "I already did my part". But I don't see how you can consistently argue against Mr. Beast without also arguing against government funding, if crowding out is the issue you're concerned about.

memefrog 3y ago
That's not an argument in favour of Mr Beast. It's an argument against government programmes. And it is a good argument against government programmes.
- em-bee 3y ago
  no it's not a good argument against government programs. really the best way to improve everyones lives is by everyone paying their taxes and allow those taxes to be used to help anyone in need and fund infrastructure and improvements for everyone in society. if we pool our resources we can create a better life for everyone. charities that rely on donations can only go so far, and they allow people to opt out of contributing their share. the betterment of our lives is not the responsibility of individuals who feel inclined to donate, but they are the responsibility of all of us as a community. this is not about allowing people to say that by paying taxes they did their part and so they don't feel the need to donate, but rather, as a society it is our responsibility to ensure that everyones needs are met such that there is no need for any individual to keep making donations. if our social net relies on donations then we have a social net that is not properly funded.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure his needs are met. If he is incapable of doing so, then charity (collectively or individually) may be necessary. I am not opposed to a social safety net but what you propose and what we have (all over the Anglosphere) is a system where people are told and believe that they are entitled to have their lives funded by others with whom they have no personal connection. I don't see why someone living in eg. California should be funding the life of a family living in eg. one of the many Southern states that take more in federal funds than they put in. Funding certain services is obviously necessary, like insane asylums, prisons, courts, police, firemen and the army. It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be. Schools definitely not. We have turned a system of helping those in need into a system for redistributing money from middle income people to the poor. We subsidise bad employers that don't pay market rates with things like in-work benefits.