None of the philantropic actions I mentioned are fake.

There's something off about doing it for profit though. And there's plenty of reporting out there that shows his philanthropy isn't all it's cracked up to be in many cases.

It's also silly to imply that simply doing some philanthropy somehow washes out anything bad you might have done. Often philanthropy is precisely a PR exercise to distract from that stuff.

idk what the ground truth is but what we are talking about here is called "fruit from the poisoned tree" in the field of ethics. This means you get a fruit "good thing" but it was pick from the poison tree "bad thing". And the ethical principle is that's not ethical, because bad thing

Is something philanthropic if you make a profit on it?

They make profits with the business, as every single other business in the world. Unlike all other businesses though, they are a business that then funnels a significant chunk to philanthropy. How much has your favorite TV channel given away? Or your favorite book publisher? Or your favorite video game company? Or whatever businesses sell the entertainment you buy?

Spending $100k to make $1 million isn't philanthropy, it's a very low cost of revenue.

Meanwhile the entire point of "giveaways" and the lotteries he runs is so that children will beg mom and dad to buy them Mr Beast's garbage chocolate for a high price that tastes like ass for a hope that it contains a golden ticket like some sort of Capitalist Evil Willy Wonka.

Every business that sells toys could be characterized in the same way, sans the philanthropy at the end.