I'd love to hear your opinion on the perils of museums.
To that it appears you may have fallen for, and are attempting to spread some discredited outrage porn/flamebait[0][1], possibly due to confirmation bias and the strength of your beliefs. Obviously since video was a fairly new media at this time, I'll agree that this attempt at depicting charity is a little more than off-color now, regardless of the precise contents.
I would check the HN Guidelines[2] since this whole comment kind of qualifies as fulminating and is kind of extremely political and ideological.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/sep/09/facebook-p...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-queenelizabeth-foo...
I fail to see how these types of discussion "trample curiosity" as the guidelines put it. I think it's rather obvious that restricting the conversation is what tramples curiosity.
Imagine trying to predict the next two years of legislation that applies to you at the local, county, state, federal, and multilateral levels. It's hopeless because it's a system composed of the most complicated systems we know of -- people.
If you can't predict it, then controlling it is also hopeless. Control being one of the basic things a hacker seeks out.
Now if you convince a county of people to unanimously trust consumer electronics to process their vote fairly in a ballot measure, that and every facet about how you did that is obviously interesting.
Textual chads about what expressions of wealth inequality are egregious or harmful aren't terribly interesting or easy to read about.