1,000 blind people: One thousand blind people’s lives have altered as a result of “MrBeast,” the most popular YouTuber in the world.
Jimmy Donaldson, a 24-year-old content producer, is well-known for his kind deeds and charity pursuits. He renovated homes for storm victims in Kentucky and gave $20,000 to needy individuals who were chosen at random.
This time, he paid for 1,000 patients’ straightforward, 10-minute eye surgeries who couldn’t otherwise afford it, helping some patients regain their eyesight and others see well for the first time in years.
Additionally, Donaldson gave away a variety of items to the video’s participants, including a cheque for $50,000 for their college expenses and a brand-new Tesla.
Donaldson says in the film, “Unfortunately, only around half of patients with curable blindness have access to this procedure, so I wanted to make this available to as many people as I could.”
1,000 blind people
As of Thursday, the video had over 131 million views. It has unquestionably raised awareness of both the difficulties that people in need of healthcare access face and the medical operation he paid for. However, opinions have varied. While some people have commended the deed, others have questioned his motives: If it’s uploaded for clout, is it really a charitable act?
The eight-minute movie features a number of individuals having cataract procedures, getting their bandages taken off, and seeing clearly once again. Charlie, a patient whose vision had gotten so bad that it was difficult for him to work as a cashier, took off the bandages and saw an eye chart that said, “You just won $10,000.”
Teenager Jeremiah, who has been blind in one eye since he was 4, was able to see everything in the room, including a check for $50,000 for college.
And a parent who claimed to simply want to see his son once more claims that the tears in his eyes were the sole reason why his post-op eyesight was still a little fuzzy.
How Mr. Beast divides his audience
The ethics of good deeds have come up in conversation as a result of the film. Some claimed the developer utilised the patients in the film for personal benefit and content rather than out of real generosity by paying for their operations.
One user wrote on Tuesday that “he does exploit people for personal financial benefit.” “The outcome is wonderful because some people are getting what they need, but because of it, he is not a decent guy,”
Another person remarked, “While that was an incredible act of kindness on your part: why make a film about it?” Why not simply conduct nice deeds knowing that you are improving the world without expecting anything in return other than self satisfaction? Maybe some perceive it as an attempt to attract attention.