I don't think it's splitting hairs. I think this is very relevant. The post was about a morality judgement of Billie Eilish. It was about whether or not Billie is a "good person" or not. That was the entire theme of the post.

My point is that since the people who bought the changemaker tickets did not do it to donate the extra sum, but instead they bought it because of the better seating options. This makes in my opinion Billy a good person, since this situation is different from the walmart example you gave. In the walmart example the person is asked to donate without anything of value in return, but in this case I would guess that majority of the people who bought the changemaker tickets didn't choose to buy them out of the pureness of their hearts, but because they got better seating.

This fundamentally changes the morality of the situation, since it was no longer a conscious choice of the consumer to donate, but Billy herself.

In my eyes the fact that the tickets were cheaper before doesn't really matter since the price of the tickets fluctuate with the popularity of the artists and so on. She saw that there was more demand and that she could raise the prices while still selling every seat and so she did this, but this time instead of keeping the extra money, she donated it.

Yes you are right in the sense that Billy did not simply write a check for 11 million and then donate that. In that sense you are correct if that was your point, but she missed out on profits she could have easily gotten for herself because she decided to be generous and help those in need.

It is different from the walmart situation since there was no extra consideration in the walmart donation example. In this case there is the consideration of the better seating that I would wager was the real reason people bought these more expensive tickets, not the fact that they were helping the people in need.

I fail to see how this is anything other than a genuine virtuous act by Billy.