> People enter those challenges fully knowing how they're going to go.
People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes.
It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a power imbalance so even perceived consent isn’t really consent because of the leverage and greater power of one party.
> People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes.
Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need. At the prices we're talking about, quite a lot of people will find it a good deal. And "degrading" might be a strong word, maybe the being alone in a circle for 100 days is pushing it, but from what I've seen (which is not too much) it's mostly games and small challenges.
> It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a power imbalance so even perceived consent isn’t really consent because of the leverage and greater power of one party.
Well, applying that strict line of thought, you can argue that people can't really consent to having a job, or playing the lottery, or betting on a game because there is a power imbalance and greater power of one party.
For a more practical approach, the useful thing is to look at how many people can realistically reject the offer if they don't want to do it. In the case of "blowing your boss", rejecting the offer means losing a job you might need to survive. In the videos case, rejecting means just not getting the money, it'd be similar as offering lottery tickets specially given how the participants seem to be random subscribers.
> Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that. The person who “won” the chance has two young kids and a spouse. I’m fairly sure he really needs $500k. If he’s like a typical person he has student loans, bills and lots of debt.
It would be kind of perverse to have someone compete who didn’t really need the money.
If you ask a random human to degrade themself for $500k there’s a power imbalance as most people don’t lead a zen existence where that’s not a life changing amount of money.
But that person was randomly selected among subscribers. And it’s not “need” in the sense that it doesn’t look like he’d suffer serious consequences from rejecting the challenge. It’s not like “if I reject this job I’ll be homeless”.
The issue with your line of thought is that it leads to concluding that most jobs are unethical.
People will say yes because it's a good deal. Obtaining 500k is incredibly difficult and requires a full decade of work for most people. How is creating a business that enables people to get a decades worth of work done in 100 days unethical? No one is forced into these videos. Everyone can leave just as well off as they started. If the videos didn't exist the people who got the money would be much worse off. In fact, I'll go ahead and say shutting down his channel would be unethical because it removes the choice he is giving people.
People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes.
It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a power imbalance so even perceived consent isn’t really consent because of the leverage and greater power of one party.