Now you are having a conversation with your friend, Friend X, regarding Amazon's $50,000 donation to your friend's hometown, Inland Empire, CA. According to Friend X, this donation is based on bad faith to cover up the pollution issue raised in the region:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqmqVCp1634&t=28s

Upon Friend X's criticism against Amazon, saying that the donation is hypocritical, another hypothetical friend of yours, Friend Y, begins a counterargument as follows: "I can estimate how much suffering the people in your hometown suffer from air pollution due to Amazon. But isn't $50,000 better than nothing at all? It's not much, but it's probably an amount that will help the local economy. Of course, it is mainly to cover up the public complaint on the pollution. However, it ended up making a donation. Moreover, Amazon must have improved employment for the people in your neighborhood a lot. So, I think it's a bit harsh to say it is hypocritical. Again, $50,000 is better than nothing. Are you going to argue that Amazon would not be hypocritical if they didn't donate?"

Do you agree or disagree with Friend Y arguing "$50,000 is better than nothing"? Why?