adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

‘Kindness’ influencers on TikTok give money to strangers. Why is that controversial?

Published

 on

 

Every Christmas growing up in Minnesota, Jimmy Darts’ parents gave him $200 in cash: $100 for himself and $100 for a stranger. Now, with over 12 million followers on TikTok and several million more on other platforms, philanthropy is his full-time job.

Darts, whose real surname is Kellogg, is one of the biggest creators of “kindness content,” a subset of social media videos devoted to helping strangers in need, often with cash amassed through GoFundMe and other crowdfunding methods. A growing number of creators like Kellogg give away thousands of dollars – sometimes even more – on camera as they also encourage their large followings to donate.

“The internet is a pretty crazy, pretty nasty place, but there’s still good things happening on there,” Kellogg told The Associated Press.

Not everyone likes these videos, though, with some viewers deeming them, at their best, performative, and at their worst, exploitative.

Critics argue that recording a stranger, often unknowingly, and sharing a video of them online to gain social media clout is problematic. Beyond clout, content creators can make money off the views they get on individual videos. When views reach the millions, as they often do for Kellogg and his peers, they make enough to work full-time as content creators.

Comedian Brad Podray, a content creator formerly known online as “Scumbag Dad,” creates parodies designed to highlight the faults he finds with this content — and its proponents — as one of the most vocal critics of “kindness content.”

“A lot of young people have a very utilitarian mindset. They think of things only in measurable value: ‘It doesn’t matter what he did, he helped a million people’,” Podray said.

Recording practices prompt questions of ethics

From the recording devices and methods down to the selection of subjects, “kindness content” — like everything on social media — exists on a spectrum.

Some creators approach strangers and ask them for advice or for a favor, and if they bite, they receive a prize. Others choose to reward strangers they see doing a good deed. Kellogg performs a “kindness challenge,” asking a stranger for something and returning it in kind.

Many of these strangers are unaware they’re being filmed. Some creators employ hidden cameras and aim to record subjects in a discreet manner. Kellogg said he wants to be as “secret about it as possible,” but asks for consent to share the video after the interaction. Kellogg said most agree because they look “like a superhero” after his challenge.

Another charitable content creator, Josh Liljenquist, said he uses a GoPro camera and tries to make recording “extremely noticeable,” adding, “Consent’s the biggest thing.”

Regardless of the recording method, some see the process as predatory.

“These guys always find someone with cancer or always find someone who can’t pay their bills because they’re stalking through underserved and poor areas and they’re just sort of waiting,” Podray said. “Looking through the parking lot like, ‘He looks pathetic enough’.”

Karen Hoekstra, the marketing and communications manager for the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, studies TikTok-based influencer philanthropy and says the videos, at times, take advantage of their subjects.

“The model of the man on the street walking up and approaching a stranger and handing them money is — we’ve all heard this phrase, terrible as it is — it just strikes me as poverty porn,” Hoekstra said. “It’s exploitation.”

Calls of exploitation often come when creators feature the same people across multiple videos, especially when they appear to be homeless or have a drug addiction. Liljenquist features some people frequently and maintains that his recurring subjects are like his “best friends.”

One user commented on an Oct. 5 video that recent content feels like Liljenquist is “playing case worker for views,” as he posted several videos of a woman who followers suspect is struggling with a drug addiction. He records himself bringing her food, giving her a ride in his Tesla, and asking her questions that often get one-word responses.

Liljenquist said criticism doesn’t bother him because he knows his intentions are good.

“I love these people,” he said. “They love me.”

Lack of checks and balances

Some criticize the showmanship of “kindness content,” but visibility is crucial to the model that relies heavily on crowdfunding. Kellogg is known to start GoFundMe fundraisers on behalf of his video subjects, usually bringing in tens of thousands of dollars in viewer donations.

Kellogg, Liljenquist and scores of other creators also use their personal accounts on payment apps like Venmo, CashApp or PayPal to accept donations.

Tory Martin, also of the Johnson Center as its director of communications and strategic partnerships, said transparency about donations is “not an option if it’s just going to an individual.”

Although these creators aren’t held to standards and regulations like nonprofits, Liljenquist said he feels donor dollars go much further in his hands than in the hands of traditional organizations, which he said are “designed for failure.”

“Nonprofits — not all of them, there are some good ones — but I would just suggest you do your homework on the nonprofits that you are giving money to because there’s a good amount of them who take advantage of the system,” he said.

Some creators have set up nonprofit organizations or foundations to support their work, but that is not a widespread practice.

Podray said he is “100% sure” some creators “take a rake or that there’s some sort of nonsense going on.” He also maintains that select creators hand out fake money to cash in on the trend.

Kellogg said seeing fraudulent or exploitative videos is tough for him, worrying, “My gosh, every Facebook mom just fell for this and thinks it’s real.”

New wave of philanthropy

While controversy swirls around these videos in some online circles, they are part of a hugely popular social media trend with millions of supporters and thousands who are compelled to donate after watching.

Although Hoekstra has concerns about some creators’ methods, she said the introduction to charitable giving these videos make for young people is valuable.

“Anything that can present philanthropy to them in a new way and make it accessible and make it exciting I think is a good thing,” she said. “Obviously, there’s going to be a learning curve, but I think it’s really exciting to see philanthropy be so accessible and understandable and embraced in these new spaces and in new ways.”

Some skeptics have become supporters. Kyle Benavidez said he used to see “kindness content” on social media and think it was fake. But after his mother was featured in one of Kellogg’s recent videos and a GoFundMe Kellogg created for her raised over $95,000 to support their family while her husband is in the hospital with cancer, he said Kellogg’s online persona is true to his real-life character.

“There’s a chapel in the hospital and I always go there every morning just to pray. ‘Hopefully something happens.’ And then Jimmy came to our lives,” Benavidez, 20, said. “It’s like God sent him.”

Kellogg shows no signs of slowing down his philanthropic work any time soon and rolls out videos across his social platforms almost every day. Still, he says doing good deeds on camera only matters if he and his peers keep it up when the cameras aren’t rolling.

“You can fool people all day and you can make money and do this and that, but God sees your heart,” he said.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

‘Do the work’: Ottawa urges both sides in B.C. port dispute to restart talks

Published

 on

VANCOUVER – The federal government is urging both sides in the British Columbia port dispute to return to the table after Saturday’s collapse of mediated talks to end the lockout at container terminals that has entered its second week.

A statement issued by the office of federal Labour Minister Steven MacKinnon on Monday said both the port employers and the union representing more than 700 longshore supervisors “must understand the urgency of the situation.”

The statement also urged both sides to “do the work necessary to reach an agreement.”

“Canadians are counting on them,” the statement from MacKinnon’s office said.

The lockout at B.C. container terminals including those in Vancouver — Canada’s largest port — began last week after the BC Maritime Employers Association said members of International Longshore and Warehouse Union Ship and Dock Foremen Local 514 began strike activity in response to a “final offer” from employers.

The union said the plan was only for an overtime ban and a refusal to implement automation technology, calling the provincewide lockout a reckless overreaction.

On Saturday, the two sides began what was scheduled to be up to three days of mediated talks, after MacKinnon spoke to both sides and said on social media that there was a “concerning lack of urgency” to resolve the dispute.

But the union said the talks lasted “less than one hour” Saturday without resolution, accusing the employers of cutting them off.

The employers denied ending the talks, saying the mediator concluded the discussions after “there was no progress made” in talks conducted separately with the association and the union.

“The BCMEA went into the meeting with open minds and seeking to achieve a negotiated settlement at the bargaining table,” a statement from the employers said.

“In a sincere effort to bring these drawn-out negotiations to a close, the BCMEA provided a competitive offer to ILWU Local 514 … the offer did not require any concessions from the union and, if accepted, would have ended this dispute.”

The employers said the offer includes a 19.2 per cent wage increase over a four-year term along with an average lump sum payment of $21,000 per qualified worker, but the union said it did not address staffing levels given the advent of port automation technology in terminals such as DP World’s Centerm in Vancouver.

After talks broke off, the union accused the employers of “showing flagrant disregard for the seriousness of their lockout.”

Local 514 president Frank Morena said in a statement on Saturday that the union is “calling on the actual individual employers who run the terminals to order their bargaining agent — the BCMEA — to get back to the table.”

“We believe the individual employers who actually run the terminals need to step up and order their bargaining agent to get back to the table and start negotiations and stop the confrontation,” Morena said.

No further talks are currently scheduled.

According to the Canada Labour Code, the labour minister or either party in a dispute can request a mediator to “make recommendations for settlement of the dispute or the difference.”

In addition, Section 107 of the Code gives the minister additional powers to take action that “seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes,” and could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board “to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.”

Liam McHugh-Russell, assistant professor at Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, said Section 107 “is very vague about what it allows a minister to do.”

“All it says is that the minister can refer a problem and a solution to the Labour Board. They can ask the Labour Board to try and solve the problem,” he said.

“Maybe the minister will try to do that. It remains to be seen.”

The other option if mediated talks fail — beyond the parties reaching a solution on their own — would be a legislated return to work, which would be an exception to the normal way labour negotiations operate under the Labour Code.

Parliament is not scheduled to sit this week and will return on Nov. 18.

The labour strife at B.C. ports is happening at the same time another dispute is disrupting Montreal, Canada’s second-largest port.

The employers there locked out almost 1,200 workers on Sunday night after a “final” offer was not accepted, greatly reducing operations.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 11, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Man facing 1st-degree murder in partner’s killing had allegedly threatened her before

Published

 on

LONGUEUIL, Que. – A man charged with first-degree murder in the death of his partner in a Montreal suburb was out on bail for uttering threats against her when she was killed.

Shilei Du was charged today with the killing of 29-year-old Guangmei Ye in Candiac, Que., about 15 kilometres southwest of Montreal.

Sgt. Frédéric Deshaies of the Quebec provincial police says their investigators were called by local police to a home in Candiac at about noon on Sunday.

The charges filed at the Longueuil courthouse against 36-year-old Du allege the killing took place on or around Nov. 7.

According to court files, Du had previously appeared at the same courthouse for allegedly uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm against Ye on Sept. 7.

Du pleaded not guilty the following day and was released on bail one day later. He had been present in court on the uttering threats charges on Nov. 6.

Du, whose current address is listed in Montreal, was arrested on Sunday at the home where Ye was killed.

The case is scheduled to return to court on Nov. 19.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Wisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid

Published

 on

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday on whether a law that legislators adopted more than a decade before the Civil War bans abortion and can still be enforced.

Abortion rights advocates stand an excellent chance of prevailing, given that liberal justices control the court and one of them remarked on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Monday’s arguments are little more than a formality ahead of a ruling, which is expected to take weeks.

Wisconsin lawmakers passed the state’s first prohibition on abortion in 1849. That law stated that anyone who killed a fetus unless the act was to save the mother’s life was guilty of manslaughter. Legislators passed statutes about a decade later that prohibited a woman from attempting to obtain her own miscarriage. In the 1950s, lawmakers revised the law’s language to make killing an unborn child or killing the mother with the intent of destroying her unborn child a felony. The revisions allowed a doctor in consultation with two other physicians to perform an abortion to save the mother’s life.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide nullified the Wisconsin ban, but legislators never repealed it. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe two years ago, conservatives argued that the Wisconsin ban was enforceable again.

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the law in 2022. He argued that a 1985 Wisconsin law that allows abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb supersedes the ban. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, argues the 1849 ban should be enforceable. He contends that it was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point. Other modern-day abortion restrictions also don’t legalize the practice, he argues.

Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled last year that the old ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. The ruling emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after halting procedures after Roe was overturned.

Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court in February to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for lower appellate courts to rule first. The court agreed to take the case in July.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a separate lawsuit in February asking the state Supreme Court to rule directly on whether a constitutional right to abortion exists in the state. The court agreed in July to take that case as well. The justices have yet to schedule oral arguments.

Persuading the court’s liberal majority to uphold the ban appears next to impossible. Liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz stated openly during her campaign that she supports abortion rights, a major departure for a judicial candidate. Usually, such candidates refrain from speaking about their personal views to avoid the appearance of bias.

The court’s three conservative justices have accused the liberals of playing politics with abortion.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending