Not sure on the post title: I assume that it's humour, but we don't want anyone to get the wrong impression. With that said, I just watched the first video, and I really liked it! It's a very engaging way of making an important point. Well done! 

I see a lot of unrealised value from disseminating key concepts and insights from within the EA movement without actually referencing the movement, so I would generally encourage this sort of thing if it is done carefully.

Thanks for sharing this! A couple quick thoughts:
 

1. One thing which I liked about Singer's original "famine, affluence, and morality" is that it included direct appeals for people to help. You start your first video off by saying that you are trying to get people to care about the developing world, which is great, but I think it would be cool if you did even more to signal "this is not an edgelord thought experiment but something which should actually change your behavior." One concrete thing is to include a donation button in the video (I think you have enough followers to do this).
   1. A side benefit of this is you can more clearly measure if you are having an impact – my estimate of how useful these videos are would update pretty heavily based on information about how many viewers actually donate versus just like and move on.
   2. I would say a similar but stronger thing about your animal testing one: my guess is that most of your viewers thought the message was "lol vegans are hypocrites" whereas I think you actually meant "lol omnivores are hypocrites." A frame like "I'm a vegan and…" might better communicate your message. (Though this would delay the joke by ~1 second, which might be costly. Hopefully you get the thing I'm pointing out here, even if this particular suggestion isn't good.)
2. As others have remarked, it seems like a lot of the possible downsides could be mitigated by not tagging (or mentioning) EA.
3. My guess (which you could maybe confirm with your analytics) is that whether or not someone watches is determined in the first few seconds. Your first video seems decent from this perspective (I like people who stick around because they want to see an argument for supporting the developing world) but the racism video seems worse (I'm not excited by people who stick around because they want to hear arguments for racism).^[1]
4. I generally like the approach of talking fast, and repurposing arguments which have proven effective in other media for TikTok. My guess (which it seems like you agree with based on your content) is that global health and development and animal welfare arguments are the best fit for this style.
5. I liked the coffee one.

1. ^{^}

   I assume your theory behind the racism video is that it will attract contrarian thinkers, and contrarian thinkers are good in various ways. I'm kind of sympathetic to that, but expect that it mostly attracts people who are contrarian in ways that I'm not excited about, though I could be wrong.

I agree that the title could have used some work, but I thought that the videos themselves were quite good. Kudos on introducing such a large audience to EA concepts.

Nice videos. Well done.

I thought the first one was really good – very impressive!!

Congrats on your success!

I like some of the thoughts in the videos, and you do a really good job provoking people into thinking more and thinking out of the box. I am new to effective altruism, and I am only learning the things I can do. It’s cool that you use social media to spread the word because many more people will hear about this movement. I think you might use a service like https://enforcesocial.com/buy-tiktok-followers to get more followers to your account and make it more relevant to the algorithm. I know that many creators use it to boost their number of likes, comments, and followers. 

I love the talksfast approach for this content. I feel like you’re delivering as close to Forum-level density as you can in a short TikTok, which is very satisfying to my brain. Hats off!