I mean yes but isn’t that being extremely pedantic?

Take Mr Beast or an hypothetical example. Give 1M to strangers in need, record it, upload it to YouTube make 4M on ads and other sponsors (content is still free). Pocket 2M, make second video where he gives 2M to other strangers in need. Record it, upload it to YouTube etc etc

Now I agree with you, philosophically it’s best to give without expecting or earning anything in return. But is that really the best outcome? Isn’t it actually arguably better to publicize it and with it reach and help way more people?

For me the answer is clear. I’d rather have someone record and even make money of this type of content (as long as there’s no exploitation or slimy shit) than have that same someone not do that and instead only help a fraction of the people. I’ll argue that the people being helped don’t give a crap about it, so it feels a bit patronizing to say that they shouldn’t be helped because of X or Y

This isn’t specific to Mr Beast, I don’t even know the details of the recent scandal. I just see this argument everywhere and I feel it’s very naive