For example, no matter what else they do, Food Not Bombs feeds hungry people, and that is worth doing.

The point the video made was that while it is a good thing to do, it isn't toppling the conditions that give rise to starvation or homelessness in the first place, so it's not the most effective thing to do. Our org tried to do red charity and organizing work for a while, but we eventually had to face the fact that the charity work was eating up too much of our limited time, energy, and funding. Since we were such a small group of people, it was sapping most of the energy we could've been putting towards organizing, so we eventually had to make the difficult decision to suspend the program. The decision was delayed for quite a while because some people thought it was too heartless to stop doing grocery handouts.

At the same time they offer a chance for meeting people with similar values and philosophies.

They touched on that, too, and came to the conclusion that a limited grocery distribution could be useful as a stepping stone to connect with the advanced masses. If it's done with that in mind, with the intention of moving on to bigger and better things once you get more people on board, then it can be a good starting tactic.

That’s where having pre-established networks of people willing to help each other may be life saving - both for you and others.

Sure, I agree with this. I have a side project that I run that would fall under your definition of mutual aid (I can't say what it is, due to OpSec). But it's not a massive drain on my time or resources, so it's feasible for me to do. I think mutual aid should be something that the masses do themselves to support each other. The issue I'm talking about is when a self-proclaimed revolutionary org is spending all of its time and energy doing one-sided "mutual" aid work that doesn't get them any closer to revolution.