Murdstone posted:

I get what you're saying but I can't do anything about historic colonialism or arbitrarily drawn post-WWII borders, but I can help people who don't have some drinking water to get some.

Slotducks posted:

you're getting paid?

Neddy Seagoon posted:

Yes, you've given them water today. Now what about ensuring they will still have water tomorrow while you're off digging the next well to give someone else water today? This is the fundamental problem.

Neddy Seagoon posted:

Yes, you've given them water today. Now what about ensuring they will still have water tomorrow while you're off digging the next well to give someone else water today? This is the fundamental problem.

Roblo posted:

While i get what you are saying the chap in this thread who actually sorts out wells/pumps for people has gone into detail into how he makes sure they still have water tomorrow. Often the issue is the initial capital cost, not the ongoing revenue cost of maintaining it which often local communities can do themselves (with, perhaps, some training, spare parts).

No, it doesnt solve the entire problem and yes totally lots of charities just swan in, take some photos and gently caress off. But people having a well that didnt have a well before is a good thing. Especially when it makes women less vunerable as they dont have to walk miles for water.

Breetai posted:

Please provide a numbered list of all of the things that you've done to enact long lasting positive change in the lives of others, unless of course you are the president of the society for ensuring that the perfect is always the enemy of the good.

Neddy Seagoon posted:

Yes, you've given them water today. Now what about ensuring they will still have water tomorrow while you're off digging the next well to give someone else water today? This is the fundamental problem.

Roblo posted:

While i get what you are saying the chap in this thread who actually sorts out wells/pumps for people has gone into detail into how he makes sure they still have water tomorrow. Often the issue is the initial capital cost, not the ongoing revenue cost of maintaining it which often local communities can do themselves (with, perhaps, some training, spare parts).

No, it doesnt solve the entire problem and yes totally lots of charities just swan in, take some photos and gently caress off. But people having a well that didnt have a well before is a good thing. Especially when it makes women less vunerable as they dont have to walk miles for water.

N. Senada posted:

It’s me, in the one making GBS threads in the wells. I’m sorry, I just can’t stand the sight of clean water.

You can direct further well chat to my pms

Sir Tonk posted:

Mr beast sucks

AlmightyBob posted:

lol

kazil posted:

crispix posted:

you are not coming in

Sentient Data posted:

An advertiser that thinks in terms of millions of impressons as a basic unit must love the idea that 1 in every 10k views will have their stuff next to things that even musk says is unsafe

Steadiman posted:

I recognize the words but I still feel like I'm reading an alien language. what does this actually mean? how do you "leverage AI" to "drive superior outcomes". what on earth does AI even have to do with any of this? Did they just ask Grok how brand safe X was, and to make it unhinged, and Grok told them to hold on tight because things were about to get 99.99% spicy

Dwesa posted:

Saw a mudcrab the other day. Horrible creatures. Good day. Pussy in bio.

Crescent Wrench posted:

I don't think I've ever cared what a person who uses "leverage" as a verb has to say.

kazil posted:

NtotheTC posted:

ah yes strength & future, two things that car lacks

idiotsavant posted:

leverage the poop out of my butthole

kazil posted:

The check finally cleared

Literally three days ago, TechCrunch posted:

Ad-funded business models that earn revenue based on user engagement have been known to drive such anti-social outrage mechanisms. In X’s case, Musk’s erratic behavior has alienated some advertisers, but not all: The CCDH found ads being served alongside hateful posts made by all the tracked accounts. “We found ads for Oreos, the NBA, the FBI and even X itself placed near hateful posts,” the report said.

“Under Elon Musk’s ownership, X appears to be pursuing a strategy of hosting as much controversial content as possible,” a CCDH spokesperson told TechCrunch. “We know that this controversial content is addictive, not just for users who approve of it but also for users who criticize it, too. The potential benefit to X is that these controversies could ramp up user time spent on the platform and increase ad revenue — but only if brands are willing to pay for ads that could be displayed near toxic content.”

“The accounts studied by our report have grown sharply despite posting false or hateful content, showing that posting such content is no impediment to growth on X. This is not unique to the Israel-Gaza conflict, but it is the latest example of the problem. Our previous research into accounts that were reinstated following Musk’s takeover of Twitter shows that X stands to make significant ad revenue by welcoming users posting a range of topical hate and disinformation, from brutal misogyny to anti-vaccine conspiracies,” the spokesperson said.

Commenting on the report in a statement, Imran Ahmed, CEO and founder of the CCDH, said: “The public and advertisers need to know more about the symbiotic, profitable relationship between X and hate-peddling ‘influencers.’ Lawmakers must act to enforce greater transparency and accountability from platforms and to allow these companies to be held responsible for harming the civil rights and safety of Jews, Muslims and other minority communities.”

Neddy Seagoon posted:

Let me rephrase, because I get where you're coming from; My problem isn't the actual action in general (Those wells have absolutely benefited people), it's the short-sighted intent behind it and someone like MrBeast's starts and ends at the words "Like, Share & Subscribe". The moment he's got footage, he's loving off to make more money off other people's hardships and scoring PR points off Doing A Good Deed without a further thought on the issue, rather than making a real effort to affect permanent change. As InternetJack has brought up about what's needed to go an extra step and ensure those wells will actually stay viable in the long-term, which probably wasn't done.

He's not likely to continue paying for wells, or eyesight-restoring surgery, or whatever, because it'd get Less Clicks as it's not new and exciting anymore, it's now old and Done Before. As is putting in place any kind of funding for the programs he paid for just to make a video; That's long-term solution investment that doesn't make Youtube Footage and get clicks on MrBeast(tm) Videos.

Ellipson posted:

So are you going to answer the question about all the good you’ve done or not? I’m trying to learn how to be an ethical person here

Kit Walker posted:

I'm going to do some good by giving you a swirlie

No. 6 posted:

All charities are fundamentally flawed in providing the wealthy cut-rate morality.

"See?! I'm a good person!" shouts the billionaire who's donated millions of dollars each year to GoodCause(tm), whilst ignoring that their wealth is ill-gotten and their donation is proportional to the average American tossing pocket change into a beggar's cup.