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.
> 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.
There's other arguments in favour of government programs though. For one, a lot of the wealth that's generated in a country is due to the collective historical effort of the people which is summed up in the state (for americans, the "government").
So taxation is simply the United States of America, or Norway, or Sweden, taking back some of the resources of the "now" that have been generated thanks to the collective effort of the "past".
Also, there is actual research on the effectiveness of government programs (such as food stamps for example) in increasing quality of life of children who grow up on these; compared to those who grow up without those. In reality, children don't choose where they are born, and as much as it is the parent's job to raise them it is not the child's fault to not have gotten responsible parents.
So, in reality, tax payers shouldn't be doing charity. Why would they? If charity is needed then the government is obviously not collecting enough or allocating resources efficiently. I would very much say that charity is a systemic failure, and philanthropy is usually spear headed by the very same people who argue against universalist measures such as higher taxation. Why would a billionaire know where resources are needed better than the government, who has much more data on people to properly know where money should go.
So, in my opinion, it's really easy to argue against philanthropy and in favour of government programs. I mean, there's a lot of data out there.
> 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".
How much?
> 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.
They could believe public programs and some charitable giving is more effective than no public programs and more charitable giving. Or someone who feels like a friend telling you you gave to charity affects charitable giving more.
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.
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.
Nothing that needs to be provided to you by others can be a "human right". Human rights are inherent to being human, hence the name. You do not have a human right to every nice-to-have service that you think ought to be government-funded. You have a better argument in the US that you have a human right to be provided with a gun.
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.