I don't have a horse in this fight, but, isn't your criticism only valid if he is gaining wealth at a significantly faster rate than he is giving it away? I th

I don't have a horse in this fight, but, isn't your criticism only valid if he is gaining wealth at a significantly faster rate than he is giving it away? I think we can both agree that if he gives away more than he makes in ad revenue, he won't be able to keep doing that for long. And hopefully we both agree that if he's able to make back roughly equal to what he gives away, there's no problem there either? At that point he's basically a non-profit. It's only really an issue if he's giving away 1 million and pocketing 10 million, right? Or is that not quite it either? Because what if he's able to invest that 10m such that the next video gives away 5m and pockets 50m? My question is, where is the line between being a force for good vs bad, given that his philanthropic potential can grow along with his profits, and he seems to have a track record of doing so? Is it when he starts making 100m but is still only giving away 5m? I have no idea what the actual numbers are, maybe he's already well beyond that point, and now he's just investing his profits into PR to make himself look like a good guy .