Surreal to me that people have nothing better to do than complain about how this is toxic, exploitative, sets unrealistic expectations for life, etc — instead of actually finding it inspiring that for less than $25 of medical products, surgery room, 10-mins of surgical time, and post-operation care — someone is able to see.
Jimmy is not prefect and I have even seen him do some questionable things — but the idea that he’s not sincerely trying to help people to me does not fit. Making positive change in someone else’s life is never easy; if you think it is, feel free to share, especially if it’s possible to generalize and scale to any significant degree.
Agree. Pretty obvious that Jimmy’s learning more and more about having meaningful positive impact on world and actively trying to learn from what he’s tried in the past. Worth noting that his first sponsored video was him trying to help a homeless stranger:
> Imagine if we encouraged this sort of behavior and Instagram was full of people helping others instead of people showing their ass.
Instagram is full of people filming themselves helping poor people. Mostly in public, mostly not asking for permission to film and I hate it. It's charity porn, it's demeaning, degrading, patronising and most of all attention-grabbing.
They're using other people for their own benefit (views, likes, subscribes).
There have been apps in past that focused on getting people to actually take action doing good. If for some reason someone is interested in working on platform like that or knows of a one, feel free to comment.
I managed to quit all social media over the last couple of months. It was hard. I had to figure out where I am going to put all the “extra” time but I eventually did.
I don’t miss the noise, the stupid opinions or every 3rd person trying to market their idea to me. All the big social networks have become cesspools of fakeness and ignorance, and I imagine that the majority of people now scroll their timelines for exactly this type of content.
Some kind of outrage or drama to comment on or voice a useless opinion.
>I managed to quit all social media over the last couple of months.
Almost the same for me. Turned off all notifications on my phone for all apps except the instant messaging ones and the caller app. Stopped browsing social media like Reddit which only optimize for engagement. Still keep some of the apps though as that's the only way I can reach out to some people I don't talk to that often. Dumped my smartwatch for my old trusty Casio.
It feels so liberating not being hunted down for my attention anymore.
Yes, ignorance is bliss, but it doesn’t help change the world either.
Social media is just an amplified and easy to access way of understanding that people generally want to watch or broadcast their existing opinions about the world — instead of having meaningful discussion about how to make progress improving the world, make change happen, etc.
Per Wikipedia [1], “Social media are interactive technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks.”
I never said it wasn’t. Also let me make it absolutely clear that I anticipated the reply to my comment before I hit the reply button on my initial comment.
HN doesn’t leave me feeling like shit. HN to me is like old school IRC with the exception that I don’t know everyones username in the channel, but I know the vibe of the channel.
Makes absolutely no sense for a person to challenge me on the social media part if they read past that initial statement I made.
HN is a huge community with strict moderation, so whenever I do visit it - I don’t feel like I am on a soapbox social media network where anything goes.
I didn't follow and I don't really know him or his channel (I just saw the news few month ago he was the most successful YT personality) but I did saw the announcement this video (a screenshot actually).
To me it didn't look as someone who did a charity by helping people having a surgery, and also not someone who organised a charity to raise money to pay for people surgery, but it was looking like someone who used blind people to gain more fame and supporters.
I may be wrong and I didn't care enough to investigate more, but that the first thing I noticed and I'm probably not alone
To you, what would an alternative video title, thumbnail, video, and video description look like?
MrBeast content is basically a mirror of what viewers want to see with a concept that to him makes sense. In this case, the concept was how to share that millions of people are unable to see even though it’s a completely treatable and affordable medical condition. He clearly got something right, since video within days has 2x views of his average views per video and likely be in top 10 of the 734 videos he’s posted within the next year; all of his top 10 videos are year or more old. It’s already got 3x the views of top video on his philanthropy channel:
In the process, he actually helped 1000+ people see and likely helped that nonprofit raise millions; impact on nonprofit’s financials will likely be easy to see after a year or so, since their 990s have been public for years:
Understand, just don’t understand how to bridge the gap you experienced, and responded in case you had any additional thoughts that might resolve experiences like one you had.
yeah for some reason we harshly judge people who donate or help people in any way. if they do it in the open we tend to interpret it cynically as a publicity stunt, writing off the good they did as merely a fortunate side effect of their publicity seeking.
but if they do it anonymously we praise them for their generosity and charity. we openly wonder and speculate who these good people might be, but if that info comes out at any point we start having second thoughts about a particular benefactor's motives (hold on, maybe the whole anonymity thing was part of the plan all along!).
so yeah, it's not so much you being wrong, it's more us being wired the wrong way.
I think there is a difference between doing charity even publicly and doing it as part of your show. Once again I'm not sure it was the case here, it just seemed to me it was.
It's funny that you judge someone's character because he adheres to YouTube algorithms on his thumbnails. You should be more educated while working in tech.
Little harsh, guessing average person watching videos on YouTube has no idea how it works, what viewers want, etc; even if they’re in tech, marketing, etc. I would even argue that most YouTubers don’t even understand either.
You know, some people don't spend much or any time on youtube. Others curated their feeds long ago and arent exposed to the arms race of viewership attracting manipulations.
A lot of minor celebrities, influencer types and top few percent of income folks could've sponsored a few of these types of surgeries but they didn't, they prioritized themselves as always, and that makes them feel bad so they lash out at the person who hurt them. A story as old as human beings really.
Is it possible that Twitter is not the best source to go to for ethical guidance?
I kinda get it. My son watches lots of videos from MrBeast and tells about how much money he gave away to completely random people, and I've often wondered what to think of that. He has a successful Youtube channel that apparently revolves around involving random strangers in mad schemes that make MrBeast look good. Is he an attention seeker? A narcissist even? Or has he found a way to help people and monetise it in a way that enables him to keep helping people?
No matter how much I turn this around in my head and search for some nefarious explanation, the end result is always that MrBeast helps a lot of people. Sometimes random people who might not really need it, but often people who really do need it. And in this particular case, 1000 people who were blind can suddenly see again. People have been worshipped for less.
Let's reserve our criticism for people who hurt others for attention, not for those who help others. I think it's reasonable to assume MrBeast has found a way to help people in such a way that he can continue helping as many people as possible, which is great. But even if he's doing it for different reasons, it's better to do good for the wrong reasons than not to do good at all. (I feel like that's a Bible quote, but I can't find it.)
Irrespective of it being "charity porn" or whatever I'd still say it's a net benefit. If there's any problem, it's that there's the opportunity to do this in the first place as people's health needs weren't otherwise being met.
Regardless of how hard world tries to make world equitable, fair, justice, etc — there will always be those who are lucky or unlucky, which in turn means there will always be an opportunity either as a society or individual to here others.
you seem to be strangely supportive of this influencer, also having posted that video a couple of days ago. how come ? why are you so passionate about this ?
It’s fair question, though as noted in another comment, I neither think Jimmy’s prefect, nor do I think everything he does is something I would be supportive of.
As for why I posted prior link, I could tell it was both significant to his development and also thought it was inspiring. I would hope anyone would be able to relate to value of being able to see, or imagine how hard it would be to not be able to see.
As for being a fan, I would not go that far, but I for sure would not mind having him as a friend since we both happen to have a lot of shared interests and believe some of the things he’s personally been impacted by I am able to relate to.
Shared interest include: Youtube, craftsmanship, showmanship, research & analytics, business, mass communication, positive impact on world, making friends, helping peers learn, nonprofits, helping strangers, learning, etc.
Exploitative? Probably, but I have trouble being very unhappy with what he did. Nothing was destructive, and he was upfront about it. Dunno, blame the game, not the player?
If finding an existing cause to amplify impact and sustain yourself is exploitative, then what nonprofit isn’t exploitative?
To you, what would be best example of how he is exploiting the viewers, cause, nonprofit, any of people he helped, their families, public, media, donors, etc?
He is gaining direct benefit from this yes? And their direct benefit does not really tie into his - he would still benefit from the appearance of charity right? And there is a huge power imbalance here right?
I think that is what would lend this situation to an analysis of exploitation. Nothing to do with outcomes, which is what you are focused on, because exploiting something/some one doesnt depend on outcomes.
Think of how we talk about natural resources - whether you are a careful custodian bringing prosperity to your region or some shit heel, it still starts with exploiting some resource.
Generally speaking, any action of significance for a cause that helps others requires key individuals within it to benefit in some way. Further, Jimmy’s making no claims of being a nonprofit entity, nor in my opinion is there any non-consensual aspect or for that matter abuse of power. The related non-profit is legitimate, the agreed to help, there’s no way he would have been able to accomplish this without them, and they & the people helped are clearly grateful too.
If there’s an alternative approach that might generalized and scale, please let me know.
None of that changes that the relationship is fundamentally exploitative. You dont need to lie, cheat or otherwise mislead people to exploit them - it seems much easier if you can offer them a deal that is genuinely compelling compared to their other options.
I'm genuinely sorry to tell you this because it seems to bother you a lot. I dont think it needs to though - "a lot of people that were blind can now see" can shoulder an awful lot of criticism.
You've been asking for alternatives throughout this comments sections which I admire, but I think you are also assuming that either better approached exist or that the inability for youtube royalty to help people without exploiting them means that they cannot be exploiting them, and neither really holds.
Consider a hypothetical ideal company town - whose existence was practically predicated on exploiting workers - where you have hired a really excellent medical team and people are getting a level of care that they couldnt access before. You might ask similar questions that you have been - how else do you propose to provide this benefit, why is it bad if everyone agrees to it, etc - but that still wouldnt change that the nature of the relationship was exploitative.
I don't think comparisons to a company town would be fair overall, but I think it does a fair job surfacing the sticking point about exploitation.
Believe your saying “symbiotic consensual exploitation” is possible, but if so, I disagree.
Exploitation involves a victim being groomed, forced, coerced, etc - into doing something that that they would not have done of themselves if they were of sound mind for someone else’s gain.
Using what I believe is logic you’re presenting, any staff at a nonprofit, any government, community organization, NGO, etc — is exploiting someone if there’s any form of intrinsic benefit. For that matter, any company that profits from there employees or customers is exploiting them. Maybe missing your perspective, but I reread you comment three times and don’t understand what I am missing.
I do appreciate you acknowledge I am open to constructive alternatives and highlighted my interests in them. Also, to be fair, it’s very common even for nonprofits to have suboptimal motives and objectives, but rare for truly exploitative nonprofits to have a sustained existence.
Thank you for elaborating. I think part of where we differ here is in how we defined 'exploitation'. Your useage requires grooming or intent, mine does not. Treating some one as a means to an end does not require ill will, it works best when you do not consider their humanity at all. I think the kind of conduct you are describing I would probably label as abusive.
To your 'would not otherwise do' point I think its important to note the context of a decision - agreeing to poverty wages because it is the best of your bad options is still exploitation without anyone having to mislead anyone else, for example. If you were on equal footing with the employers in the labour market you would not accept such wages. Similarly huge power imbalances also lead naturally to exploitation - the weaker party has no room to bargain, essentially cannot treat with the other person as equals.
Yes, I think you broadly understand. We can recognize capitalism as being broadly exploitative, and I think you have highlighted how well intentioned organizations can become harmful for the community they sought to champion.
It does seem a little like you are seeing unpleasant conclusions and assuming they are false instead of, well, just ugly. Reality can be mucky and full of tradeoffs.
Oh, side note, I think a fair test for the exploitation criticism is 'what would happen if one group just disappeared'. In this case the answer is 'go along pretty much how they were before'. Contrast that with say, retail. If the unskilled labor pool had serious competition arise there would be a lot of businesses that would just fail because they are predicated on the ability to exploit their bargaining power in the labor market.
Agree, it’s complex topic, would be foolish to think I fully understand it and also appreciate your response. Ultimately, likely agree with you, but given I don’t fully know the exact motives and reasoning of those people involved, I am reluctant to cast the situation as being exploitive without actual proof.
As for free markets, labor rates of lower class or for that matter even the middle class, no, I don’t think for a second that the market would be able to bare fare market rates at this point; this based on numerous complex and interrelated factors, many of which have been on going for 40-50 years. Ultimately, real question is if the economic growth the world has seen last 100 years is sustainable, and while I assume everyone wishes it was, it’s unclear. Globally though, poorest of the poor and wealthiest of the wealthy are doing better, everyone else is being “exploited”; obviously it’s the ultra wealthy doing the exploiting, and I would 100% agree with that.
I don’t though think capitalism is bad, just excessive capitalism that produces billionaire individuals, trillion dollar corporations, and multi trillion dollar nations.
I think it is the best video he has ever made, and shows all the good you can do if you have lots of money.
The fact that anyone aimed negative reactions at Mr Beast rather than the broken health care industry only exposes how toxic the discourse on "social" media (and formerly respectable news outlets) is.
Jimmy is not prefect and I have even seen him do some questionable things — but the idea that he’s not sincerely trying to help people to me does not fit. Making positive change in someone else’s life is never easy; if you think it is, feel free to share, especially if it’s possible to generalize and scale to any significant degree.