Is it immoral for top YouTubers to have kick starters?

Is it immoral for top YouTubers to have kick starters?

  • Total voters
    26
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really think that as long as they have a worth while project that can help people out then its great. If they are just doing it for greed then I don't think that is quiet as acceptable. I would like to think people that are that far into it are helping others out.
 
I believe it is immoral for 'large' youtubers to start fundraising for themselves however if it is for a charity like save the children pewdiepie did it makes sense or hocgamings polar adventure etc it makes sense but if its for soimething say a car that they want then yes it's wrong
 
I think if someone is a big YT'er and they have a kickstarter, its for something they need for their channel and they will need it as a incentive to bring more content for their audience and to show they are doing something with that money they have earned. Plus, there are some YT'ers that have big audiences that don't monitize and have jobs irl and rather just bring content instead of ask for money.
 
I still think people are over-complicating this. If someone asks for something plainly and honestly and people willingly choose to give it, there is no moral question. When someone asks for something, they're just bringing up options to people. Anyone who gives money, or anything else, to the asker is doing so because they chose so.
An action is immoral when it harms someone, and asking for something doesn't hurt anybody that isn't deciding it for themselves.
 
Ryan CG said:
I still think people are over-complicating this. If someone asks for something plainly and honestly and people willingly choose to give it, there is no moral question. When someone asks for something, they're just bringing up options to people. Anyone who gives money, or anything else, to the asker is doing so because they chose so.
An action is immoral when it harms someone, and asking for something doesn't hurt anybody that isn't deciding it for themselves.
Click to expand...

The more fortunate asking the less fortunate for money is very harmful. Many YouTubers know that they are manipulating people. There are many people who are easily addicted or crazed about a YouTuber. They are the easy targets and don't need much explanation to give their money away.

It's not any different than Mega Preachers in huge churches who have ridiculous salaries. These men are manipulators because no where in the Bible does it state to make a Preacher rich. The bible tells the church to take care of the pastor, not to make him the richest man in town. Some of these Preachers charge churches who request a visit/sermon. I understand if they ask another church to pay for the traveling cost, but not for the actual sermon itself.
 
Ryan CG said:
I still think people are over-complicating this. If someone asks for something plainly and honestly and people willingly choose to give it, there is no moral question. When someone asks for something, they're just bringing up options to people. Anyone who gives money, or anything else, to the asker is doing so because they chose so.
An action is immoral when it harms someone, and asking for something doesn't hurt anybody that isn't deciding it for themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree. I read this whole thread. The fact is that even if they do make a good living, it doesn't mean they can fund a large project that may require more people to help. Being rich...even very rich, doesn't mean you can fund all your projects. If you're honest about what you want it for then there's no issue. Some of the most successful Youtubers with the larges fanbase & engagement have built that for a reason...it's part of their career. I hear fans say all the time "I'd love to help but I can't"...and that's it. Paying for internet doesn't mean you pay for a Youtuber's career. Most of us had internet before we started watching Youtube. Everything is on line now. None of the money that any of us spend on internet directly goes into any Youtubers pocket.
 
Franklin said:
The more fortunate asking the less fortunate for money is very harmful. Many YouTubers know that they are manipulating people. There are many people who are easily addicted or crazed about a YouTuber. They are the easy targets and don't need much explanation to give their money away.

It's not any different than Mega Preachers in huge churches who have ridiculous salaries. These men are manipulators because no where in the Bible does it state to make a Preacher rich. The bible tells the church to take care of the pastor, not to make him the richest man in town. Some of these Preachers charge churches who request a visit/sermon. I understand if they ask another church to pay for the traveling cost, but not for the actual sermon itself.
Click to expand...

You're... comparing YouTubers asking for assistance in funding a project or medical bills with extreme evangelists and cult leaders extorting wealth from the deluded masses to fill their own pockets? Again, as I've stressed repeatedly, there's no moral question as long as the asker isn't tricking or misleading people... and then you come back with "What about preachers who lie to their flock?"

I don't care if it's Bill Gates asking people to contribute funds to a project or Warren Buffet promoting a cause he believes in. If a successful and wealthy YouTuber like PewDiePie one day says, "Hey bros, if you feel like it, I want to plan a trip around America if you feel like throwing me a buck", then I will personally choose to not donate any money. And some people will. YouTubers aren't saying "You guys owe me this!" or "The Lord will recognize your deeds in heaven!" they are saying "If you want to help..."

Are you also morally against YouTubers asking for a Likes, subscriptions, and shares at the end of videos? Or are you only morally against it if they're successful? I feel like you are letting the concept of "money" affect your sense of morality a little more than is healthy. Money is a resource. Time is a resource. Energy is a resource. They're all the same... so what if someone asks for a buck instead of asking viewers to take the time to like and subscribe to their channel?
 
So honestly, there are many things that I disagree with you about in this thread, just on a personal/ethical level (I'm not a fan of this individualistic neoliberalism you're preaching, for example) but I'm over that. There's just another completely inaccurate statement that's being made that is just annoying me, like, a lot, and I just hope that I can explain it in a way that's not combative but just a point of information:

Franklin said:
The consumer should never pay for both the means of production and the product. That's not how it works and people are being to exploit the relationship.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The consumer almost always pays for the means of production when they pay for the product. When you buy this McRib you seem to be so fond of you're not paying for the raw ingredients of processed meat and bread - McDonald's has added in the cost of wages, equipment (including those stoves...), property rental, lighting, heating (all of these are usually covered by the term "overheads"), as well as a hefty sum for the stock market and the CEO. So McDonald's isn't even asking if you'd like to donate, they're just charging you for it. You ALWAYS pay for the stove.

And individual YouTubers do not set ad prices, so their revenue is a lot more dependent on outside forces unless they have alternative revenue streams like merchandise etc.

And one last point of information about media business models: when you watch YouTube you are not the customer, technically. In an ad-based revenue model the viewers are actually the product and the companies who buy ads are the customers. The model works by the creator/distributor selling the attention of the viewer to somebody who wants to buy people's attention.

So yeah. Those are just the facts.
 
Catie WahWah said:
Wrong. The consumer almost always pays for the means of production when they pay for the product. When you buy this McRib you seem to be so fond of you're not paying for the raw ingredients of processed meat and bread - McDonald's has added in the cost of wages, equipment (including those stoves...), property rental, lighting, heating (all of these are usually covered by the term "overheads"), as well as a hefty sum for the stock market and the CEO. So McDonald's isn't even asking if you'd like to donate, they're just charging you for it. You ALWAYS pay for the stove.

And individual YouTubers do not set ad prices, so their revenue is a lot more dependent on outside forces unless they have alternative revenue streams like merchandise etc.

And one last point of information about media business models: when you watch YouTube you are not the customer, technically. In an ad-based revenue model the viewers are actually the product and the companies who buy ads are the customers. The model works by the creator/distributor selling the attention of the viewer to somebody who wants to buy people's attention.

So yeah. Those are just the facts.
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. The Consumer does not pay for the means of production. They pay for the product. It is not the consumers' responsibility to pay for the business's resources directly. This means consumers do not have meetings to decide what will be used for the product. Consumers do not directly speak to companies about paint, meat, vegetables, wood, or whatever your type of business needs.

Think about it like this. McDonald's does not ask a consumer to buy BOTH a Big Mac AND a stove. Right? Has a cashier ever told you to pay for your Big Mac, then she asks you to pay for the stove?

It is McDonald's responsibility to set the prices for they can once again repeat the process. They will use the earnings to pay for the means of production once again. They do not charge you for a large fry and a stove on the same ticket. Nobody would to go to McDonalds to pay possibility $2 for a large fry and $1,000 for a stove. That's over a $1K per customer.[DOUBLEPOST=1408402621,1408402020][/DOUBLEPOST]
Ryan CG said:
You're... comparing YouTubers asking for assistance in funding a project or medical bills with extreme evangelists and cult leaders extorting wealth from the deluded masses to fill their own pockets? Again, as I've stressed repeatedly, there's no moral question as long as the asker isn't tricking or misleading people... and then you come back with "What about preachers who lie to their flock?"

I don't care if it's Bill Gates asking people to contribute funds to a project or Warren Buffet promoting a cause he believes in. If a successful and wealthy YouTuber like PewDiePie one day says, "Hey bros, if you feel like it, I want to plan a trip around America if you feel like throwing me a buck", then I will personally choose to not donate any money. And some people will. YouTubers aren't saying "You guys owe me this!" or "The Lord will recognize your deeds in heaven!" they are saying "If you want to help..."

Are you also morally against YouTubers asking for a Likes, subscriptions, and shares at the end of videos? Or are you only morally against it if they're successful? I feel like you are letting the concept of "money" affect your sense of morality a little more than is healthy. Money is a resource. Time is a resource. Energy is a resource. They're all the same... so what if someone asks for a buck instead of asking viewers to take the time to like and subscribe to their channel?
Click to expand...

Comparing money to likes is very silly. You're not losing anything by giving a video a like. However, if a less fortunate person is manipulated by a fortunate YouTuber, then something is wrong. I'll use Smosh as an example. They're no better than the manipulative evangelists. Not every money hungry evangelist is extreme. Watch Preachers of LA and you will see money hungry preachers who aren't the extreme evangelist.

Anyways back to Smosh. Smosh has a multi-million dollar empire. Them starting a campaign to support a project is immoral. When did giving back to the poor reverse to the poor giving to the rich?

I am completely supportive and happy for every YouTuber who makes it big on YouTube. It's an awesome way to live your life. However, I will not support any of these people who abuse kickstarters for their personal benefit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top