I think the wikipedia article from OP makes a strong point that you may have missed.

Notice the wording "ENDS"

That would modify your statement as follows :

Something can be kind and filmed (provided.. ENDS).

OR restating your sentence:

"Something can be kind and filmed provided filming was not the goal of the kindness, and in fact filming was entirely unintended and unexpected"

I agree much more with your wording of the idea, though I still believe 100% it's possible to do something kind with the intention of filming it. If someone wants to donate a million dollars to me they're welcome to film it on a million cameras if they want

MrBeast. He's almost universally lauded for his generosity and good deeds which are mostly funded by ad revenue or sponsors and seemingly done specifically for YouTube clout.

My kids love Mr Beast. I have used the same word used here, “dehumanizing”, to describe him. The very premise places more value on money than people. It’s made for some great philosophical discussions with two ~10 year olds though.

Ugh. Everything about "MrBeast" I find marginally offensive. The way that he approaches the idea of unconditional charity is almost theatrical and smacks of sensationalism.

The flip side here is agreement on both sides, for me that is the moral question. Not that it was filmed, but that all parties should agreed to the filming.

Prearranging to film giving you a million dollars, is very different from just showing up an putting camera's in your face with out your foreknowledge or consent

Then I think we may differ on whether we consider consent/agreement a part of kindness. I don't think it's that simple. I think an act can be kind but be delivered in an incompatible way. Asking someone how they're feeling after a breakup can be genuinely kind IMO, even if you didn't realize that that's the last thing they want to think about and asking them caused them to have an emotional breakdown that they blame you for. At this point I'm disregarding the tiktok thing entirely; I would still consider the million dollar gift to anyone an incredibly kind gesture, even if filmed without prior planning/agreement.

i think we are discussing separate points

OP commingled morals and kindness when his intent (now obvious to me after rereading) was to explicitly discuss morality of the situation.

You are exploring the morality of performing an action that violates moral norms (in this case, expectation of privacy)

We were exploring whether it is possible to be kind from an act if the end goal is obtain valuable exchange, off the act

What about this story that the thread is discussing? The woman in question did not appreciate being filmed, is this still an example of kindness? Not trying to argue here just understanding your thought process, because I agree with the poster you replied to.

I think the distinction comes from differing worldviews on moral behavior.

Consequentialists believe all that matters is the "ends". So even if I filmed something with the aim of patting myself on the back but it made people feel good, it's moral because the outcome was positive.

Others believe all that matters is intent. A good Samaritan may act recklessly and end up maiming somebody, but they acted morally because they had positive intent to offer aid.

(Of course, there's many other takes but those seem to be the one's germane to this part of the discussion).

I’ve really come to think of my moral framework as trying to maintain an Aristotle golden mean between Consequentialism and Deontology.

Both outcome and intent matter, and the tricky question is how to balance the two.

I don’t have a strong philosophical argument to justify the balance I aim to strike in daily life, but it definitely feels like both consequentialism and deontology fall down when left totally to their own devices.

>the tricky question is how to balance the two.

I've heard people smarter than me advocate contractualism as a way of finding balance between the two.

Agreed. I don't see any kindness in this video at all.

Yes I think that’s reasonable.

From the description, the flowers weren't offered as a gift, but he asked her to hold them. And then disappeared. Just think of someone asking you told hold his stuff for a moment and then disappears. Now you have to care for something that's neither your's nor wanted? I'm tempted to call that obnoxious, not nice.

Sure, it can still be kind. But it is not an act of kindness, it is an act of social media.