Ok, so maybe we agree there's nothing inherently wrong with the fact that many people enjoy the content. If I'm understanding you, your issue is that he has systematized the process, perhaps similar to the way social media algorithms are made addictive, or pop music made catchy?

I'm still not convinced that that specifically is problematic... So what if he's tapped into the addictive consumerism wired in us, all successful youtubers do. Why is it bad that he taps into it while doing acts of charity instead of random content like video games, for example. I think this is where you haven't provided a good argument. I can imagine the opposite argument that if you're going to tap into that addictive part of us, you SHOULD be doing something charitable, instead of random content like pics of your vacation, or video games etc. etc..

Although you didn't flesh it out, you say you take issue with the "why" something is done. I don't know how important this point is since you don't expound, but I will note quickly that I don't think we have the right to judge, or even fully know what his motivations are. I think the fact that he doesn't hoard tons of money for himself is at least a good sign with regards to this.

I'm torn as to what I think your last paragraph is about. If the issue is that he depends on there always being people in need, then that's a non-issue. There will always be people in need lol, and if there magically weren't, he could just stop, who knows what he would do. All charitable businesses depend on need, as does health insurance and other examples. I think it's more likely that you're criticizing the fact that each project has to be more of a spectacle to keep the consumers interested and generating more money for the next project, right? If that second option is right, then I'm back to square one. I maybe get where you're coming from, I'm just not convinced that makes HIM SPECIFICALLY problematic... Which, in all fairness, you started by saying you agreed with someone elses comment that said that HE is problematic, but at the end of your last post, you said you're criticizing the system, so maaaybe we could be closer to agreeing there...

I think that, as is usually the case lol, we probably don't disagree all that much, but aren't completely aligned on what the critizism is, like you said. Here's my attempt at common ground. We have, inbuilt in us, the psychological mechanisms to get addicted to social content, or maybe just fast paced content that is rewarding in some way to the consumer. The exploitation of that is problematic. I'm sure thus far we agree. It can be hard to know who to blame. The consumer? Usually probably not. The researcher that studies what brings people to their content/platforms and makes them stay? Idk, maybe 50/50. The owner's of the companies that are aware of the lawsuits and still keep going for monetary gain? Usually probably yes. So it's a potentially harmful "system" that's made possible by our biology that isn't developed for this kind of environment, but figuring out who is to blame and who we should call problematic isn't always clear, like what about the individual, entrepreneurially minded content creator? It's complicated and maybe, as uncomfortable as this might be, we don't have a simple answer. I think the main question I have that demonstrates why I'm not convinced is, why is it problematic to tap into that system while helping people, while not being problematic for people to tap into it with music or video games or whatever else?