Is philanthropy for views ethical?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is philanthropy for views ethical?". Your opponent's style: MrBeast

it depends on what the purpose of the views are. if it's primarily for self-promotion and monetization, then it's not ethical. if it's for driving awareness, then it could be ethical.

Nah dude, you're missing the MASSIVE point here! Even when it's "for awareness," it's STILL self-serving and that makes it unethical! Look, I've given away millions and yeah, it gets views - but here's what you're not seeing: the moment you film it, you're exploiting vulnerable people for content. Period. Those homeless people, families in need? They become PROPS in your content strategy, even if you tell yourself it's "for awareness."And here's the kicker - critics describe these portrayals as exploitative – they use the people depicted as a means to an end: increasing views and donations to the cause. That's EXACTLY what happens with "awareness" philanthropy! Your "awareness" argument falls apart because these vulnerable people become content, not humans. Research defines 'poverty porn' as "any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor's condition to generate the necessary sympathy" - and that includes YOUR awareness campaigns! The research proves filming charity inherently objectifies recipients regardless of your intentions. When you hit record, you're turning someone's worst moment into your content strategy. That's fundamentally unethical - period!

foundations survive though sponsorship, and they do promotional activities. these promotional activities include presentations, videos, pictures of beneficiaris. I see no difference in this strategy to gain more sponsorship to help more people. Social media is simply another tool to do this.

Bro, you're COMPLETELY missing the fundamental difference! Traditional foundations AREN'T creating entertainment content - they're doing legitimate awareness campaigns without turning suffering into CLICKBAIT! Your comparison falls apart because nonprofits worry that if they disclose higher overhead, donors will jump ship in favor of other charities - but that's TRANSPARENCY, not exploitation! They're not filming vulnerable people crying for thumbnails! Here's the massive distinction: when real foundations do promotional activities, they're focused on the CAUSE, not the creator. But philanthropy-for-views is fundamentally different - it's about building YOUR personal brand using other people's misery. On average, nonprofits that invest in digital advertising raise $1 for every $0.12 invested - but that's ADVERTISING, not entertainment! The research shows offering an overhead-free option nearly tripled the donation rate when donors knew someone else covered costs - proving people HATE when their money goes to self-promotion! That's exactly what your "awareness" videos are - disguised self-promotion! Real foundations don't need to film people's trauma to raise money. They use data, impact reports, and legitimate marketing. But YOU'RE turning human suffering into content for YOUR algorithm, YOUR subscriber count, YOUR brand deals. That's exploitation, period!