My kids love Mr Beast. I'm uncomfortable with it and can't put my finger on it. It feels like he makes life look like you stand a good chance of having someone walk in and give you $100,000. Maybe there is no harm in thinking that? But it feels like the same thing as buying a lottery ticket. I guess YouTube is free? But is the time spent on that channel worth it over doing other things? I admire the approach he takes with his craft but I don't really enjoy or respect the work.
I'm also uncomfortable with it. There's nothing inherently wrong with philanthropy but what I'm seeing is a very successful business with an enormous and very expensive campus. MrBeast himself is very rich. So what I'm seeing is a corporation claiming to do everything for the benefit of others while actually taking a lot of the money very visibly for themselves.
His channel made $54m from youtube in 2021, and probably a lot more from corporate sponsors. Make no mistake, this is big business - not charity.
And some of his side businesses are downright shady. His burger chain is run out of ghost kitchens which make food for multiple virtual chains like MrBeast's. The burgers are apparently a crapshoot - it depends on which ghost kitchen made your burger as to what you get. Quality control is zero. Yet they charge top dollar for the MrBeast name.
Not attempting to be an apologist, however it sounds to me like there just needs to be some quality control over the licensing of the brand, perhaps?
Not sure how that's shady, sounds like it might be a bit egregious but its not like he isn't honest about this being a business based around his brand of philanthropy either.
Licensing deals aren’t the same as starting a burger business. Clearly the partnering institutions aren’t living up to par but he’s just licensing and marketing which is a pretty common arrangement for these sorts of things.
I believe he is supplying the food. So if the ghost kitchen is a burger chain, they have their own burgers and then separately cook his as well. All of the quality control issues should be from preparation.
How is this any different from Kirkland brand stuff from Costco? They just happen to have a reasonably high bar because they're playing the long game. It's not the practice that you likely have an issue with, it's the individual.
Good example. Kirkland stuff is good. It would be shady if Costco put their name on anything and didn’t care about their product.
So if you see something with the kirkland brand, you have some expectation of quality. And if you have a problem Costco will fix it (or drop the product).
The MrBeast brand doesn’t really stand for anything. And he doesn’t correct quality problems.
Kirkland Brand isn't Ghost Kitchens, it's usually reputable brands who slap a label on their product to build additional sales channels.
The most common example is that Kirkland Vodka is widely reported to be Grey Goose, and it's speculated that Kirkland Mac & Cheese is just repackaged Kraft.
No Brand or Quality Control needed; mostly contract and supply chain control since you're dealing with brands that already do good QC.
It’s actually a quite interesting and experimental business model. The man is a business genius. You’re seeing the early buggy days of an insanely profitable food chain business model
Business genius lmao, he got lucky and made a huge chunk of money on crypto. After that, the money makes itself.
When they say it takes money to make money, that's pretty much it. Reach a certain threshold and the interest on it will pay off any failures you make.
& because the general masses adore and love to watch rich people dance around screen, ofc his YT does well, he's got the money to do some crazy stuff. Everyone watches "who wants to be a millionaire", nobody watches "who wants to win 10 bucks".
He has a fast food restaurant chain that has grown insanely quickly by partnering with local restaurants. He has no kitchens yet dozens of these fast food restaurants operating solely on Uber/DoorDash.
And this Eddy Burback Video https://youtu.be/KkIkymh5Ayg on that rabbit hole. Also, seems like his Chocolate Brand is going to be in a ton of places now after seeing him announce the locations in his latest video (the cruise ship one)
Charities like Komen, and the American Cancer Society, and all those charitable Foundations and Societies that fund research on incurable diseases: they are exactly the reason why breast cancer and all the other diseases will never, ever be cured. They must never be cured. Billions of dollars in revenue depend on their incurability. Scientists and researchers have an amazing cash cow, a goose that lays golden eggs, and to identify a cure for breast cancer would strangle that goose where it sits. EDIT: I think I like the cow metaphor much better in this case.
Therefore, mark my words: donate to the "X For A Cure" charities at your own peril, because the perverse incentives mean that they will move Heaven and Earth to avoid finding a cure for anything at all.
I don’t fundamentally disagree with you, but I think people’s conception of curing cancers is just out of touch with reality. Cancer is a group of diseases, and we have come a very long way in successfully treating many members of that - there are many many millions who would have gotten a death sentence just a decade ago, being completely cured nowadays.
I don’t know about these foundations, maybe it is mostly funded by governments/EU funds, whatever instead, but there is good research out there.
Isn't every philanthropic foundation also a "business"? The Gates Foundation had $150 million of income from their investments in 2022. The CEO of the Gates Foundation was paid $1.176 million last year. Their net assets went up by $13 billion in 2022 and up $20 billion since the beginning of 2021.
MrBeast claims he is not rich, that he puts all the money back into his videos. Of course that means he has a huge production. That doesn't mean it makes a lot of profit. Unless there is factual evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe MrBeast. He has never been caught lying, which is virtually impossible given his presence and reach.
Just like Holiday Inn, Marriott, or any hotel chain. So weird that you take issue, he makes it exceptionally clear his burger brand is all ghost kitchens.
> There's nothing inherently wrong with philanthropy
Why not? To be able to "give" you first need to accumulate way beyond what you need to attend to your material needs. Accumulating such wealth means taking more resources than you need in the first place.
It's still fully within the scarcity and separation mindset of capitalism.
> you first need to accumulate way beyond what you need
Or... Produce way beyond...
The kleptocapitalism narrative as well as the neocapitalist narrative depend on using a myopic perspective. There is a fair debate about the negotiation over what to do with the excess between all parties involved and that can be a useful conversation. If you didn't mean to agitate in that way I apologize for being too sensitive.
His channel made $54m from youtube in 2021, and probably a lot more from corporate sponsors. Make no mistake, this is big business - not charity.
that is is? that is a rounding error for almost any decent-sized tech company. We're talking a household name, and one of the most popular channels ever, which is on the front page of youtube by default. I would have thought it would be more.
yes, he made $54 million, but surely a lot of expenses too?
$54m was just a forbes estimate and that was 2 years ago in 2021. He reached 50M subscribers sometime in 2021, 100M subscribers in July 2022, in June 2023 he has 163M. Then if you look at video views, he was doing about 500M/month all of 2021-2022 but in only 2023 he is doing 1000M baseline with spikes to 1500M-1800M for some of the big hitters.
See: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/mrbeast6000
Also: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2022/11/30/could-m...
That's just his main channel, he has many other large channels (Beast Gaming, Beast Reacts) plus the other social platforms (TikTok, etc).
Then in the last 2 years he launched Beast Burger and Feastables (mostly chocolate bars currently). There are some public numbers about $10m revenue on feastables in the first few months and over $100m of revenue on beast burger orders sometime last year.
He spends a lot, talks about it a lot, $2-4 million per video on each main channel video. He has also talked a lot about re-investing everything back into the channel to grow and grow. Which seems evident by the growth rate if nothing else.
That's just snippets of info and I'm not remotely experienced enough in any of these spaces to make any attempt at a real number but between the increased views, feastables and beast burger I don't see how it's any less than 100s of millions of revenue at this point. My main point, though, is that he has grown a lot from 2021-2023 where that $54m number came from :)
But having said that.. he was still very popular and long on the front page of YouTube back in 2021 perhaps with those much more modest numbers.
Something like this is worth a watch. While I'm sure there is plenty he doesn't talk about, he talks about a lot publicly including money spent, strategies, statistics, etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGrk7Mzm4uo
The thing I love about MrBeast is that he's YouTube "Playing to Win" [0].
Google's YT algorithm is whatever it thinks makes Google the most money. "Doing YT right" is an oxymoronic statement, because YT doesn't care in the least about ethics.
MrBeast found a way to optimize algorithmic ranking, in a fairly altruistic and ethical way.
On the scale of "{Politician} hates {group}, see what to be outraged about" to "See what the drug companies don't want you to know, via this simple trick" YT optimization... MrBeast is comparatively saint-like.
> and over $100m of revenue on beast burger orders sometime last year.
Gross revenue is almost meaningless. Restaurants are known to have very low margins, so how much of that money was paid to the local restaurant, to the delivery service, _in taxes_?
Even once it reaches Mr Beast's company, the company has to pay for a lot of things before it ever reaches him.
I'm sure he's doing well, but he didn't personally pull in $54M in 2021; it's actively counter productive to discuss gross revenue without also discussing expenses, because it conflates "Mr Beast" the business with "Mr Beast" the nom de plume of an individual and likely misleads folks on how much money the individual actually earned.
I saw an interview with a (admittedly much smaller) full time YouTuber and he said that YouTube ads where between a quarter and a third of his total income.
MrBeast is exactly the media phenomenon a broken system would come up with in some 80s cyberpunk movie, as a bandaid to give people the illusion of hope: the 'happy hour' show in a boring dystopia.
That is not MrBeasts fault, it's the environment's. Say you see MrBeast give thousands of people help, and you have the same problem as these people - sure, you're happy for the other people but why didn't you get any help? The show is over, you're left alone, your problem is currently not interesting.
Edit: There is also the power gradient in all of this performance that this video[0] highlights well. Nobody can complain about how they're being treated or portrayed, because they are in need. That is taking away something from the people who receive something, this kind of charity treats them as less - they're extras on stage.
> MrBeast is exactly the media phenomenon a broken system would come up with in some 80s cyberpunk movie, as a bandaid to give people the illusion of hope: the 'happy hour' show in a boring dystopia.
Nicely put. Some people claim that MrBeast's actions are better than nothing, but the money he's using are not growing on trees.
The same money could have been used to fund a fair health system, where people receive treatments based on their needs without their life becoming an exhibit for youtube.
> The same money could have been used to fund a fair health system...
Yes! How dare people choose where to spend their time and money? We should take it from them at the barrel of a gun and spend it for them! Stupid people are always spending their time and money on frivolities when there are smart people willing to spend it on purely benevolent things which never experience abuse or corruption.
Personally, I want someone to threaten me with violence if I don't give them money. It's how I know I'm doing my part.
The same money could have been used to fund a fair health system
no it could not. it would take a lot more than that to fund healthcare.
as it is MrBeast is doing the best he can with the means available to him.
in order to do anything better it would take every member of our community to push for a government will actually implement such changes. the problem is, i don't see many people pushing, and i see a lot of people pushing back. things won't get better until that changes.
I'd expect Mr. Beast to appear in a Robocop movie.
> ... with the Nicaraguan capital expected to recover from the fallout within 200 years. That's it for the news tonight, up next is Mr. Beast with a big charitable payout of 150 000$ tonight, followed by It's Not My Problem!
> With that large a payout from Mr. Beast, you know what they say: I'd buy that for a dollar!
What makes me uncomfortable is the elitism running through many of his videos. Put 100 "poors" in a circle so they can fight it out for $500k [1]? It's just another rich person making poor people do demeaning things for his entertainment and profit. It's disgusting.
They explicitly call this out in the article, but, how is what he’s doing any different than what we always were told reality TV was doing or gameshows do?
This is worlds better than casinos, sports betting, or any other form of gambling, IMO.
People are entertained through watching or participating and some are making big dollars.
My kids watch his videos because the algorithm feeds it to them and from what I’ve seen, I’d rather they be watching MrB than ads for DraftKings where they might believe that some day in the future their free $500 will make them rich. Or worse yet: state lotteries selling a dream for $2 and making millions off the stupidity of those who don’t understand basic stats because the education the lottery is supposedly funding doesn’t do a very good job.
> how is what he’s doing any different than what we always were told reality TV was doing or gameshows do?
It's not. Those things are bad too.
> My kids watch his videos because the algorithm feeds it to them and from what I’ve seen, I’d rather they be watching MrB than ads for DraftKings
I'm curious what your goal is here. It seems like you're disagreeing with me by saying "look, Mr. Beast is equivalent to/better than these other bad things, right?" I don't find your particular applications of whataboutism and false dichotomies terribly convincing or at all relevant to the discussion.
Like, you understand that "these other things are bad too" and "it's this or draftkings ads" are not substantive or relevant arguments, right?
A good point. It's disgraceful how broadcast sports have changed in the last five years to be all about gambling. MrBeast is marginally better than that at least.
I'm not exactly a fan of Mr. Beast, but this comment reeks of more elitism than any Mr. Beast video I've ever watched. Are "poors" too stupid to make decisions for themselves? Everyone in that video received thousands of dollars. I'm nowhere near poor, but if I was given an opportunity, I'd probably participate.
> Are "poors" too stupid to make decisions for themselves? Everyone in that video received thousands of dollars. I'm nowhere near poor, but if I was given an opportunity, I'd probably participate.
No one's saying they're stupid for participating. If I was offered thousands of dollars for peeing in my pants in public for a video, I'd very probably take the offer and no one would think I was stupid for it; it would still be a demeaning and exploitative offer to make.
Why do you get to be the arbiter of what's demeaning? Are "poors" too stupid to determine their own limits? Playing silly games is hardly comparable to peeing your pants in public.
It's about power imbalance. Using your power (in this case, wealth) to encourage other people to do actions they otherwise would not want to.
It's also not a topic that is easy to define as "right" or "wrong". Some game shows will be more empowering or enjoyable than others. Some contestants on the same show might find the experience more emotionally rewarding than other contestants. There's a very subjective, fuzzy, grey area here rather than a clear line in the sand defining what is morally good or bad.
From the odd Mr Beast video I've watched, it's felt like the driving factor was that the contestant didn't want to be there if it wasn't for the money. And that Mr Beast and his friends go out of their way to make the contestant want to leave. Mr Beast has all the power and makes his contestants perform like dancing monkeys to earn their prize. Now as long as the contestants do still find the overall experience more rewarding than demeaning (and that's for them to decide), then I'm fine with it being made as "entertainment". But like many of the others, I personally don't find it entertaining to watch -- I find it uneasy to watch. And that's fine too, people don't have to enjoy the same things. But it's hard not to claim that there is a massive imbalance of power in his videos. In fact that seems to be the point of his videos.
The earlier comparison with 80s cyberpunk seems quite apt. If you take away the fancy post production editing, there is something rather dystopian about the concept of his videos. Sure the stakes are significantly lower than, for example, Running Man, but the power imbalance isn't that dissimilar.
> It's about power imbalance. Using your power (in this case, wealth) to encourage other people to do actions they otherwise would not want to.
Like working at a sprocket factory? I think that somewhat fairly fits here. You could be describing how most of the world looks at their work. My point is that there might be deeper to look for the more "honest" objection.
There are laws (in Europe at least) to protect employees from being exploited due to that power imbalance.
Whereas it's not so clear cut, in my opinion at least, that contestants of Mr Beasts videos aren't being exploited. But as I said, the only people who can honestly answer that are the contestants themselves.
I haven't watched Mr Beast's videos to have an opinion. He popped up on my kid's screen once, we banned him and some associated channels and forgot him. It was clearly garbage content for us in our brief experience and not worth our time to identify why.
Again, no one is claiming that people who participate are stupid for doing so. Why are you insisting on the idea that others see people in financial difficulty as stupid?
Nor did I say I'm the sole arbiter of what's demeaning. We both seem to agree at least that peeing oneself in public is demeaning, but some third person might not see it that way at all.
Sorry. I didn't realize you were a different person. My point is that the only opinion who matters is the contestants. If I were a poor Mr. Beast fan, I would be offended by the original comments denial of my agency.
It's not about being stupid, it's about dependency and power. The offer alone is morally corrupted.
If they'd all get their equal share of money and could compete out of their own volition and quit anytime they'd want then this would be morally ok. But then nobody would watch it. And that there's exactly why this whole thing is morally wrong.
Why do they need to get equal share? This doesn't sound much different than game shows to me. People make money off of other people competing against each other to earn less money than the people organizing it. The difference is we view the contestants on Wheel of Fortune as earning it by playing a few minutes worth of games instead of whatever Mr Beast does. I don't watch his videos, I'm just piecing what it sounds like from the comments. It sounds like it could be a crude version of Survivor, Fear Factor, or Tough as Nails. People do unpleasant things, voluntarily, in the hopes of earning money.
For me, the discomfort is that Mr Beast's content relies on exploiting people's desperation due to the lack of social safety net. It's not his fault that they're in such dire straits to begin with, but he's nonetheless behaving opportunistically and his actions have no chance of changing the system that landed these people in such tough situations
Right, exactly. It takes advantage of systemic problems and relies on the perpetuation of those very problems for its continued feasibility and existence. This is why it feels kinda dirty and wrong to us even though it has a surface presentation of being "morally good".
It's sort of like a recast economic version of colonial white savior ideology—"educate" the primitives—"donate" to the impoverished, all while ensuring the inequalities and social division persist.
He’s making these peoples lives better though. How would him not doing this stuff help anyone? Just because he’s not overthrowing the system the happiness he’s provided is worthless?
Mr beast is not able to upend society and convince enough voters to provide a better support system. You’re advocating for doing nothing, that’s what would happen if he focused on politics instead of fun videos.
i don't see the parent comment as suggesting that pointing out the lack of support in our society is a bad thing. personally i think pointing out how the social net is failing is exactly what we need. if that is really the effect that his videos have then that is good.
is he really? how much good is a one-time payment of a lump of money helping? sure, it may allow someone to afford something they could not before, but unless they are able to invest that money into something that will improve their live for the long term, then such a payment doesn't really do anyhing to actually change their situation.
one time payments need to be used strategically, and we know from lottery winners that many don't know how to do that.
if we want to help people we need to work on changing systems that allow them to raise their income or lower their monthly expenses or carefully guide them to use one time payments to fix a problem in their life that will have a long term benefit.
i have no qualms with MrBeast's business model. using his youtube videos to raise money to help people in whichever way is certainly not a problem. most of the entertainment industry is doing a lot worse (by keeping the profits to themselves).
the question is not, who is doing more, but whether what anyone of us is doing has any lasting effects. so it matters how the money is used. most of what i have seen from MrBeast is giving random amounts of money to individuals, which sometimes can be helpful, but often only provides short term relief. his recent examples of paying for eye surgery or funding an orphanage are an improvement over that, and if that is where MrBeast's philanthropy is heading, then i am all for it.
the eye surgery is obviously an example of a one time payment with a long term benefit. if he is able to generate income to solve more problems like that then he is indeed helping people.
But then he'd have no money to give away. I don't see how it's this difficult to understand. Either you have Mr Beast as we do now - curing blindness and deafness, giving people houses and cars, raising millions for tangible, proven reforestation and sea cleanup efforts - or we don't have Mr Beast at all.
I also find his videos uncomfortable to watch for many of the same reasons stated here, but I don't find them harmful, and I can appreciate how he's helped these people.
But these videos only get watched exactly _because_ they are demeaning. So the problem is the nature of the videos itself and this alone disqualifies any good this guy supposedly does.
I have literally never watched a Mr Beast video but if I go to youtube under a new username or stealth mode then the probability of Mr Beast being on the front page I would put at about 95% and it has been that way for a long time.
We have agency. Anything could be promoted instead but instead we get this nonsense. Over time of course all this gets lost and we just pretend this is all organic.
I agree with you, I have only seen one of his videos in which he paid for people to have cataract surgery I found it strangely absurd.
The issue is if he was to instead start using money to tackle systemic issues then it moves beyond philanthropy and it becomes political. "I paid for 1000 people to have cataract surgery" as a video hits a lot differently to "I lobbied congress to make cataract surgery free"
Systemic change is hard and a lot of people won't want to engage with it. It is easy to look at an altruistic act and say "this is a good thing" a lot harder to question the underlying causes that necessitated the act.
There is a famous quote "When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist."
The basic counter point to that is that dozens of millionaire content creators partake, too.
For many people it's also a novelty to be in a MrBeast video.
For those already rich content creators an additional motivator may be the clout, of course.
Or put simply, he's not lobbying for improvements to minimum wage, or housing, or healthcare, or transportation -- he's schleppin for views. It's poverty-porn.
It's no different than Olympic Athletes and other professional stars telling kids to work hard in school and one day they too can compete in the olympics/be a professional athlete, with no mention to the tens of thousands of hours of training, long hours, strict diet, and frankly unhealthy levels of obsession typically required to propel someone to that level.
As a kid I admired a lot of people/shows that I later wised up about. Probably harmless. In your place I might just every now and then watch it with them, play along with the better moments and shake my head at some of the stupider moments just to plant the mind-worm that what they see isn't "real life", but I'm also not sure how old your kids are or how they watch him.
It’s probably actually beneficial to believe some difficult task is reasonably obtainable. You’d try harder and be more motivated than if you believed it was virtually impossible.
I have believed for a long time that accurately assessing your chances of success on big bets is maladaptive. Ambitious projects (whether they be science, construction or mammoth hunting) could benefit society enough that on a societal level they're good even if a lot of them fail, but the benefit to the individuals taking on the risk could be low enough that it's not worth it for them (due to the diminishing returns of additional wealth on an individual level).
Gambling is just exploiting this mechanism to extract wealth.
I swear YouTube kids is worse for children than 18+ YouTube.
My nephew was obsessed with MrBeast. Every device we had was littered with search histories of Mr Beast, and it was infuriating because of how low-brow the content is. It's teaching kids to turn their brains off. People are talking about charity, but they need to actually watch a few videos before commenting... it's really not something you want your kids imitating.
> My kids love Mr Beast. I'm uncomfortable with it and can't put my finger on it.
Same.
I'm going to sound like an old-man-yelling-at-cloud, but the content is, well, just mindless drivel. There's a near-endless amount of informative content on youtube, but no, instead kids are drawn like a magnet to this kind of stuff. Not saying kids must spend all their screen time on Khan Academy or serious documentaries, but watching this drivel for hours on end can't be healthy for a developing brain either.
From an adult perspective, I'd agree, but on the other hand I've spent hours upon hours of my childhood watching fail compilations and random video game parodies and newgrounds animations on youtube. I'd say it's a "let kids be kids" kind of deal, even if I faint at the amount of money that goes into youtube video production these days.
For me I felt the same way. To clarify I was watching one of the videos where contestants compete for large sum of money. Part of it may be that the contestants don't do anything useful. They are paid to degrade themselves, albeit it in a G rated manner Also that he is an arbitrary judge jury and executioner so to speak. A benevolent dictator.
1) His way of giving away things for free undermines the suffering people go trough to make a living; it makes effort and hardship look like a joke (maybe in the future no effort is required, and we are reminded about this possibility here, and it's sad); 2) It promotes consumerisms: getting stuff (phones, cars) is supposed to liberate us, and doing it in this way reveals how empty it all is; 3) It feels rarely personal and well-thought: he just throws away stuff, so it undermines the gift giving culture also.
It's almost like it's a parody of materialism/consumerism. Let's not pretend like Mr Beast is anywhere close to the genesis of this. Mr Beast is exposing what a lot of us don't like about the broader culture. Change will only start with the individual and the family. Secular values don't have to be the compass direction we drift towards.
This is really well said. And I just imagined trying to tell my kids that and can see that it wouldn't go well. They can only see that he is helping people by giving them money and that's a good thing to them. It just feels like it is creating a set of values for them that is very unrealistic.
>It feels like he makes life look like you stand a good chance of having someone walk in and give you $100,000. Maybe there is no harm in thinking that?
It's the "system is so broken, that some guy can video charity acts to make money off of" that's icky.
Some people will go "Where's the harm in that? Those people do get some money, that's a good thing, isn't it?"
It's the normalizing of dependance on such charity / "acts of god", as opposed to having available decent jobs and health covered plus a government and a community support system.
I second that. I try to teach my family that the only way to success and happiness is working for it. Success and happiness come from satisfaction with who you are and that comes from knowing, on a deep level, you earned it.
So not only your chance of winning a lottery is remote, even if you somehow win a lottery it is unlikely to make you happy. Interviews of people who won a lottery show it.
I also think people have very distorted perception of where success comes from. People think it is a matter of chance and luck that somebody made this or that decision at a particular point in time. But my understanding is that luck only plays small part of it, much bigger part is the preparation to increase your luck and to be able to risk it and to be able to make something with it and to be able to avoid bad luck.
All that comes from usually hard work and a certain mindset of being honest with yourself rather than playing a victim on every possible occasion. I have never heard about a person who would be constantly complaining about their bad luck and then got successful.
Then they'll resent you and watch it on their friends' phones anyway when they can. And they'll suffer socially because they won't be able to talk with other kids at the lunch table about the most recent episode.
I dunno, my parents didn't let me watch The Simpsons when I was a kid. Sure, there was occasionally talk about the latest episode at the lunch table, but it wasn't a big deal, and I turned out ok. One of my closest childhood friends watched it, and we're still friends now, 25+ years later... he's never held my lack of Simpsons knowledge against me.
I think the idea that "parents won't let kids watch X" is somehow damaging to a kid's social health is a bit silly.
My perception about this based on my experience and my kids’ experiences is that these matters are more ubiquitous and socially relevant than ever. Memification of everything permeates their social fabric and if you aren’t in on it, you’re disadvantaged. Kids are simultaneously too young and too immersed to have perspective on this, so being excluded simply hurts.
My approach is to allow exposure but to maintain dialogue around it. They know I accept them watching it, I don’t criticize them for it, but I encourage them to be critical about it themselves and wonder about why it’s popular and so on. At least seeding the idea that they should observe themselves and their peers can hopefully lead to making better decisions later.
Sort of a “let them make their own mistakes” thing, with fairly manageable stakes.
Depends on their friends. I was for all intents and purposes banned from virtually all the pop-culture my friends were into as a kid, it essentially forced me to sit quiet at the lunch table and I was left out of a lot of stuff because I wasn't allowed to participate (what happens on the latest episode of X, movies, concerts, game nights, etc). It sucked.
I fully intend to give my kids the tools and access they need to relate to other kids, with the understanding that I don't always get to decide what that is. I might draw the line at something particularly egregious, like an R rated movie when they're 9 or something, but if my kid and their friends want to watch Power Rangers Mega-Samurai-Viking-Cosmic-Super-Force, I'm not going to ban it because I find it mildly annoying and eye-rolly.
Your children aren't going to resent you because they can't watch a YouTube channel. Nobody has ever resented their parents as an adult because of something like that. My parents didn't let me watch adult-rated movies or play adult-rated games (eg The Godfather, Call of Duty) as a child, while others' parents did. You'd have to be insane to resent them for that. How far do you take this? No rules? "Sorry, no chores in this house: our children will resent us." No boundaries at all?
Your children are more likely to resent you when they grow up incapable of hard work and with no sense of delayed gratification because their parents were terrified of ever imposing any rules or expectations on them for fear of causing "resentment".
No child is going to suffer socially because they don't watch Mr Beast. It's literally one thing. A child might conceivably suffer socially if they're cut off from all leisure activities, but not being able to watch a YouTube channel is so minuscule as to be laughable. I didn't watch Saturday morning cartoons as a child, as my parents didn't like having the TV on in the morning. Did I suffer socially? Not remotely.
not letting your kids watch saturday morning cartoons because you find them to be annoying seems pretty dickish and seems like it has an extremely asymmetric possible negative long run consequence.
you're talking about it to this very day in a way that seems like you can't wait to enforce these rules on your own children.
i can't recall a single thing my parents did along these lines. this is just not how they operated - by just laying down restriction after restriction. seems kind of shitty, honestly.
also my parents didn't teach me how to sit in front of a computer for 20 hours until i got a program to compile without errors. did they MAKE you do stuff like that? lol in fact i remember my parents complaining that i was wasting time on the internet.
joke's on them though, now they spend all their time glued to their devices.
> not letting your kids watch saturday morning cartoons because you find them to be annoying seems pretty dickish and seems like it has an extremely asymmetric possible negative long run consequence.
What negative long run consequence could possibly be created by not being able to watch noisy, annoying, brain-mush kids TV? I'm glad I was discouraged from watching TV on a saturday morning. I didn't miss it at the time either. I did more interesting things, and half the time I had swimming lessons or sports on a Sat morning anyway.
And how is it "dickish"? It's their house. It's their TV. They paid for it, they own it, they control it. That's how the world works, and will always work, and should always work. The idea that they have some sort of obligation to put up with obnoxious screeching American cartoons is just... I don't even know what to say to that. It's just so backwards I can't even put it into words.
>you're talking about it to this very day in a way that seems like you can't wait to enforce these rules on your own children.
I brought it up because it was relevant to the conversation, It's not like I'm sitting here thinking about it all the time. I probably haven't thought about it once in the last.. 15 years?
>i can't recall a single thing my parents did along these lines. this is just not how they operated - by just laying down restriction after restriction. seems kind of shitty, honestly.
Restriction after restriction? I mentioned one thing, mate. Relax a bit please. I really don't understand your mindset though. Should parents not set boundaries? People talk all the time about how it should be parents that set boundaries for their children and not the state. Then people like you turn around and suggest that if they actually do that, they're somehow stifling their children and will breed resentment for their whole life.
>also my parents didn't teach me how to sit in front of a computer for 20 hours until i got a program to compile without errors. did they MAKE you do stuff like that? lol in fact i remember my parents complaining that i was wasting time on the internet.
Of course they didn't "teach" me how to do that, but their parenting influenced by development, because that's what parenting does.
we didn't even have a TV to begin with, so there was no argument about what we can or can't watch. but it didn't feel like a restriction. we had a lot of freedoms and we could spend money on things that we needed or wanted. the wish to have a TV just didn't come up, and internet wasn't available yet.
now in my home, there is no TV either, but there are computers and internet which provide plenty of entertainment. and yes, MrBeast was popular for a while.
i think the problem is not which restrictions are in place but how they are introduced and enforced.
If all their friends are watching said youtube channel and they have to sit quiet at the lunch table, yes they will. I was often the low one on the totem pole as a kid in large part because my parents wouldn't allow me to participate in practically any pop-culture my friends were into. I had to be the relatively quiet one at the lunch table more often than not while everyone else was constantly talking/laughing at references I wasn't allowed to get. It sucked. If I had grown up in the smart-phone age I totally would have used my birthday money/occasional lunch treats to bribe my friends for time on their phones, and not told my parents.
And where do you get "No boundaries at all" from "perhaps you should let your kid watch Mr Beast because it's relatively harmless and allows them to connect with their peers"? You seem to have a very binary mindset.
If letting your kids watch Mr Beast is the deciding factor that makes them incapable of hard work then you're a horrible parent.
Of course not. But building up resentment over an ultimately useless restriction is just a waste of resources and time. Make them resent you for smooth-brain restrictions and they won't listen to you when it actually matters.
Your job as a parent is to train your kid to be a functional adult, not impose counterproductive and arbitrary restrictions because you're frightened by something you don't understand.
Any parent who goes to war with their kid over the mere watching of Mr Beast really needs to consider their priorities in life, and if they're just taking out their insecurities on their kid.
Raise your kids or watch the world raise your kids for you.
If you think that certain media is imparting negative morals on your child, then it's on you to control that. On the other hand if you think it's unusual, but ultimately harmless, then it's also your prerogative as a parent to allow them to watch it.
But the whole stance of "I can't control what my kids are doing because they'll resent me if I do" just sounds like an excuse to deny your own agency over the situation.
Whether Beast is a good person and whether what he’s doing actually helps people are two separate questions from whether he’s good for your kids to watch. My answers would be maybe, no, and no.
Why ‘no’ for the third one? Mostly because it’s just intellectual sawdust. Nobody learns anything from a Mr. Beast video or engages with any new concept. It’s just the same ridiculous kinds of jokes and contests and clickbait churned out over and over again. He has literally no reason to stop making the exact same video 500 times over when people will still watch it. His video titles
Obviously up to you and your wife/husband if you want to continue letting them watch it.
*His video titles and thumbnails have set a new standard for low-quality, eye-catching, bottom-of-the-barrel hogwash and he is dragging the rest of YouTube down with him as people try to emulate his success.
I think the discomfort comes from a deep, pretty much unconscious understanding we all have about how capitalism, taken to it logical extremes, will always perpetuate inequality to the extreme degree, and how gross inequality donned up in the guise of philanthropy is still gross inequality.
His content is a direct display of our economic system at the limit, at which point it becomes absurd. When you recognize that this is quite literally the system under which the majority of the world's economics are organized it becomes deeply serious and deeply uncomfortable.
There's also the plain psychological elements surrounding the fact that the content takes something that used to be valued for its moral goodness (generosity, charity) and transforms it into something valued strictly for its economic fruitfulness (means for generating capital) but this is capitalism's totalizing effect at work: because money is such a pure abstraction it's possible to monetize anything thereby killing off the more humane and traditional values that used to make certain pursuits meaningful to humans.
I fail to see how, given the system we currently have is called capitalism and given that this content is contemporary. The behavior is analogous to behaviors that would have potentially been possible under aristocracy, but it's pretty clearly a phenomenon of late capitalism unless you take a completely ahistorical view of existence. Ideas with historicity have history, they aren't fixed idealist definitions...Mr Beast is functioning in a system we call capitalism because of the general rules it follows and taking actions enabled by the flow of wealth in such a system.
Capitalism isn't just some abstract Platonic definition, we are living it, it evolves in time. Just as the feudalism before it was a lived system that evolved in time, that eventually collapsed, giving way to a new mode (capitalism), the same will happen under this economic system.
This has nothing to do with capitalism, it does have to do with the power dynamic though when one person can easily have a significant impact on another person’s life though.
The same uncomfortablenesses would arise if this were videos of some govt leader going around granting early retirement to people.
And such power dynamics are (at least partially, if not to great extent) enabled by the fact that late-stage capitalism like we have in the US emphasizes individual wealth over social support systems that would otherwise redistribute wealth, make people more equal (read: give them less undue power over each other), and generally remove the conditions of possibility for this sort of content.
I'm sorry but to watch Mr Beast's videos and turn around and say "it has nothing to do with capitalism" stinks to me of the worst kind of kool-aid drinking and willful ignorance. This isn't an either/or game. You can remain a capitalist and still be aware of the inherent flaws of the approach when it lacks proper guardrails, acknowledge the real problems we have, and level critiques to try and make the system more equitable. People get so dogmatic about it, it's practically a religion.
> And such power dynamics are (at least partially, if not to great extent) enabled by the fact that late-stage capitalism like we have in the US emphasizes individual wealth over social support systems that would otherwise redistribute wealth
The social systems you talk about are the biggest they’ve ever been, and the US is going to need to raise tax revenues by 30% just to break even on the current ones.
At no time in history have social nets been so strong in the west, yet it’s never enough.
I don’t know what the solution is, but saying social nets are the solution and we need more of them are about as black and white and unnuanced views as saying we need to abolish them. Neither is true.
the problem with social nets is the holes that some people fall through. most social nets are one size fits all solutions that ignore the individual issues that prevent some people from benefiting from them. so yes, we need to keep working on those social nets until those holes are closed and they will help everyone that is actually in need.
Totalitarianism is much different because ultimately some human is making all the decisions on the allocation of capital. The uncomfortableness that the parent is describing isn’t with the power disparity, it’s with the fact that our world is increasingly controlled by paperclip maximizers.
He is either a tool and does what he does because he has to,
a benevolent, yet idiotic in his ways entrepreneur or
a calculating one.
Neither one is good.
This miracle making is very very very bad for the average person imho. People need to learn that they shape their life by working on it, not waiting for some tooth fairy to give them a thousand dollars. Plus there should be institutions for those who are in need and health related services should be available to everyone.
Mr Beast cannot fulfill these roles, no matter how hard he tries.
Being poor doesn't mean you don't work hard. In fact, poor people often work a whole lot harder than anyone making good money.
Hell, the more I have been paid, the less I have had to work and use my brain. The same applies to each of my friends. I have never come across a person in the opposite scenario in my life.
To what you say should be available: There is a state in the USA that has an overwhelmingly single party government which has overwhelming amounts of money (towering many entire countries). Their homeless population is ranked #2.
MrBeast is substantially better for the poor than each person in this state who votes to keep things as they are. He's better than anyone who has conducted even slight amounts of NIMBYISM.
It's unsurprising that HN has a negative view of the guy doing a better job than they are.
I don't know what would wake up people from their ego dream to see that in order to be a human, to be able to walk with your head held high and not live as a caged animal, you need to have certain basic things in your life. Free health services is one, a small space if you are homeless that is yours until you can get a better job/home/etc., where you can keep your things and the like is another.
It's just mind boggling to see how people do not give a flying fuck about others and only care about their very surroundings and well being.
MrBeast comes into this equation who earns his money by doing these stunts, but seemingly also gives back... I have ambivalent, but lopsided, feelings about creators who do videos about vulnerable people and playing the white knight in armor for who knows why. Anyway, it would be an interesting study how it affects those that are in need and I mean those who watch his videos and daydream away their life in hope for a better life.
His videos are fun and well-edited. It’s usually superior entertainment to a random Netflix show. That’s enough for me. I also really enjoy how his feedback loop has resulted in the videos gradually having reached absurd scales.
Right - I don't think kids understand the philanthropy angle, what they understand is the lottery angle. People randomly getting $10,000 (or $1,000, or $50,000) just for being a bystander in a video.
He doesn’t post a ton of content. Not sure if the time spent is enough to worry about. He also has a channel dedicated to showing his people helping poor and disabled people around the world. Pretty wholesome if you ask me.
he makes success seem so easy even though the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against someone else replicating anything close to his success, except for maybe a few people. when the barriers to entry are low means lots of competition. like muckbang videos. for every video that gets >100k views of someone shoveling food in his or her mouth, there are hundreds of videos that have just a few thousand to 10k views.
It's not altruism if it's your source of income. Sorry but I don't buy this bs. He's doing it to generate income, that's all. Altruism is "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" but we have quite the opposite here - a selfish way of milking poor people for emotions in order to generate income. Real altruism is hard and done only by a few. Literally EVERY man/woman/child on this planet will say yes to receiving millions of dollars annually with the sole condition that they have to let go some part of it. The money he spends are just fuel for a marketing engine.
While I see he seems like a nice guy overall, his actions do more good than harm. His impact is very low, his "philanthropy" is localised down to the individual level and his impact is absolutely none on the actual problems that people who he targets face. The more negative side of this is that he inspires the next generations to only go by extreme things on Youtube and other social media platforms and these extreme things are, more often than not, on the negative side (stupid and dangerous pranks, throwing stuff at people from 20th floor etc).
He chose this path because his viewers were probably reacting to it the most. I'm not a hater but I feel like the real altruistic people doing good stuff on a much grander scheme don't get any recognition at all while this money making business man selling snake oil to children is getting everything from the table.
Despite throwing millions and millions, his impact is absolutely ZERO. I find it quite predatory.
I listened to his interview on the Joe Rogan show and was really impressed.
Mr. Beast built his channel by taking all profits from each video and plying it into the next video. Using this approach he was able to produce progressively larger and more expensive videos. He has demonstrated his frugal lifestyle, has publicly given away an incredible amount of money to good causes, and has stated his future goals for his businesses will be for charity. Everything about his actions strikes me as genuinely good, it just seems like the publicity is the best way to get more money to accomplish the charitable goals.
You're right that what he's doing does not conform to the definition of altruism specifically, but that doesn't mean what he's doing is not good.
How can you watch the video where he pays for the blindness surgery for all those people and say that that was anything other than an amazing win for all those nice people?
"Mr. Beast built his channel by taking all profits from each video and plying it into the next video"
To me this seems like a semi-obvious minmaxing solution to making popular videos: make essentially zero profit, regardless of revenue. At some point you get so much revenue that you can't spend it all so the next logical step is to simply give it away as part of the video. And in this case it's a virtuous cycle - apparently giving away money generates more revenue so it just keeps going. But this doesn't strike me as being done out of any noble purpose - all he wants is YT view and charity is just a side-effect of that.
"How can you watch the video where he pays for the blindness surgery for all those people and say that that was anything other than an amazing win for all those nice people?"
My criticism would be that it's local change vs trying for structural change. Why don't those people already have access to surgery? The counter-argument to this would be that structural change is somewhere between very hard and impossible, so just spend the money locally. A more cynical take is that lobbying for restructuring the US health care system doesn't generate YT revenue, so he's incentivized to fund the most clickbaity charity projects.
> But this doesn't strike me as being done out of any noble purpose
Money given away doesn't have to have a "noble purpose", the act is good in itself. The people receiving it don't care about motive, I don't care about motive, and the only reason you care about motive is because you're threatened by another person doing good. There's no virtue inherent to giving anonymously. A piece of food or a warm house don't care about the intentions of the original owner of the money.
In fact the only reason I could see for someone pushing a narrative of "only some donations are good because of motive" would be to discourage donations, which I'm not sure why anyone would do unless they are utterly evil.
Pablo Escobar gave free money away. Would you take the money? He also built schools.
Motive matters. His intents were to build loyalty masked as charity. MrBeast is building (or has built) something else, masked as charity.
I hope MrBeast never stop giving away money and curing people, but there are some considerations to make here, and not just taking as granted the reasons the very same person doing charity is clearly trying to transmit.
What you are talking about is accepting stolen funds or goods. That means the source is illicit, but it doesn't say anything about motive. Motive and source of the funds are different things. I obviously don't support crime or people knowingly accepting stolen funds. You can have a bad motive with legal funds, a good motive with legal funds, a bad motive with illegal funds or a good motive with illegal funds. Your conflating of these concepts is bringing a different aspect I didn't comment on, but I can:
If Mr. Beast steals money to donate it I'd be against it regardless of motive.
He's not viral because of charity, he's charitable because he was already a highly viral video creator. It's not a comment on his videos, it's a comment on the NY Times framing.
"My criticism would be that it's local change vs trying for structural change. Why don't those people already have access to surgery?"
The reality is that Mr.Beast will not be changing the entire U.S. healthcare system. And that hundreds got life changing surgeries they wouldn't otherwise have gotten.
Do you think if you asked those people, they would say Mr. Beast is predatory? Would they have preferred that he Mr. Beast not run a donation-focused youtube channel?
He's created quite an ingenious way to siphon money from advertisers to random people. It's not the most 100% effective way of creating change, but viewing it so negatively is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> The reality is that Mr.Beast will not be changing the entire U.S. healthcare system.
The reality is that Mr Beast has a better shot at it than 99.99% of americans; the argument is he won't take that shot because he prefers to be Mr Beast
Not to mention this is not all or nothing. He could flip or decide hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of votes, in favour of candidates that do want to reform the healthcare system. All it takes is about half the politicians plus one, no?
I'm not an US voter and don't suffer its healthcare system, so maybe it is an immutable part of life and I can't grasp it - but I doubt it
The reality is that Mr Beast has a better shot at it than 99.99% of americans
better by what margin? given that the likelyhood of anyone else making that change is almost zero, even if his chances were 10 times as high, that is still not enough to make any dent.
part of the problem here is thinking that changing the system can only be done by some single person with superhero powers, when in reality it takes a mind change in all of society. the US healthcare system will not change until everyone starts demanding that change.
the best MrBeast can do is to influence his audience, but he'll need to convince more than a few million people before a change can happen.
If not structural changes, does Mr. Beast continue to donate every month to some fixed cause(s)?
AFAIK they do food donation drives regularly (or something similar) and probably supports other causes consistently. Those come from a place of passion, vision and commitment. Otherwise the YT videos are good execution to serve the audience and sponsors.
Tbh I haven't been tempted to watch his videos. Like many other commenters, I find something is off
It’s never enough. This guy is throwing millions towards others and helping their lives, but because he’s not suffering enough to do it, or doing it out of your defined pure intentions, it’s hardly good at all? It’s clear you care more about the sacrificial theater of giving than you do about actual impact.
What good have you done for anyone but yourself in the last month? Do you even fulfill your own standards? Is any charity less than implementing your preferred political policies useless? It’s hard to even describe how childish and selfish your take is.
He is a content producer who has built a brand on large cash prices not a charity manager. It’s a for profit company. The fact that apparently half of the readership can’t make the difference is a bit worrying to me.
Of course it’s for profit. No one dispute that. But his business involves giving away money. It doesn’t matter if he keeps 50% of the profits for himself and 50% is given away. He’s doing a million times more to help people than anyone on this forum.
I seriously doubt he's producing more QALYs than some effective altruists on this site. Someone on a typical software engineering income (going w/120k) can donate enough to save ~2-3 lives a year[0] at 10% giving, let alone someone trying to maximize their impact (of which I'm sure there's several).
[0]: https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates
I finance significantly more through taxes than American giving 10% of its income to charity which allow every citizen of my country to enjoy the benefits of socialised medicine and unemployment insurance. The idea of cheering from someone making money by paying from basic medical treatment for poorer people makes me frankly queasy.
Sorry I meant cataract surgery. I just happen to be discussing eye laser surgery with a friend considering it.
Seems misleading for that site to say it’s free. There’s small fees which you end up paying that Medicare doesn’t cover. And afaik you require a referral for public hospital which is not covered.
The reason those people don't have access to surgery has nothing to do with mrbeast.
Do you think he could actually get a law changed and help more people than he already did? Why wouldn't a "Mr Beast goes to Washington" style video get as many views as his direct support videos got?
"Do you think he could actually get a law changed and help more people than he already did?"
The most popular YT video creator could probably start a fairly large lobbying effort although yes, the multi-trillion dollar US for-profit health insurance industry could probably do better.
"Why wouldn't a "Mr Beast goes to Washington" style video get as many views as his direct support videos got?"
None of us are in his position to make as much change though. Are we not allowed to criticize someone that has far more power than us for not using it to its full potential?
You can criticize anyone for anything you want. Many people will ignore you or think you're a crank when you criticize someone for restoring the sight of 1000 poor people because it wasn't "to its full potential".
Not only did he improve 1000 lives. He bought awareness to 100s of 1000s of people who didn’t know it’s relatively affordable or can be cured for some.
I thought he was cool until he launched a chocolate line. Really? Is that what we need? Most of his audience is young gen z, and I'm sure the last thing the most obese generation ever needs is someone pushing more sugar on their diets
Girl scouts are children selling sugars to adults. Mr beast is an adult who sells sugar to children.
Anyway, I don't think he's a scumbag. I think he's a nice guy and I'm sure I would be his friend if we took the same pottery course or whatever. I just don't think trying to "cram one more treat into America's already bloated snack hole"[1] is very 'cool'.
[1] Simpsons, season 8, episode 164, The Twisted World of Marge Simpson
A line of anything already pegs you as a run-of-the-mill influencer, exploiting the parasocial relationship your victims have with you to peddle them substandard ware at high markup.
I am always shocked when I see the prices for "merch". Why does a hooded sweatshirt, that might cost 10-20 USD at Uniqlo, cost 55 USD as "merch" with a 2-5 USD silkscreen print. I agree: It is absolutely "exploiting the parasocial relationship your victims have with you".
Those are pretty high prices. Are they manufacturing those sweatshirts in the US or other Western country, or are they just positioning themselves as premium brand and selling with 400%+ markup?
Or has the clothing market in the US hollowed out in the middle completely? That's what I'm worried about where I live (Poland, EU) - I feel like the middle tier, of normally priced, regular quality clothes for regular people, is all but gone now, leaving us with the choice between a) second-hand stores and bazaars selling counterfeits imported from the East, and b) lifestyle brands selling rags at ridiculous prices.
Older people love to talk about how they bought a house working a minimum wage job or how the janitor became CEO of the company when neither are a reality due to their greed.
Most young people are angry about the fact that their living and educational expenses are far higher than the older people responsible, and profiting from that increase. Refer also to the increase in retirement age and poorer pensions for younger generations.
Can't blame them entirely. Competition drives down costs, and the cost is very close to free (or some of your data), or else it's some whale indirectly paying for others. Richer get richer, and some are shocked when they are priced out of big ticket items.
> He has demonstrated his frugal lifestyle, has publicly given away an incredible amount of money to good causes, and has stated his future goals for his businesses will be for charity.
Pretty much all of this is typical “rich philanthropist” stuff, just dialled down to appeal to a demographic cohort of 20-35 year olds.
It’s incredibly easy to be altruistic when literally every financial and social incentive says you should. I think people are uncomfortable with this because he hasn’t sacrificed anything. His financial incentives just line up with “doing good things”. When they no longer align it still remains to be seen whether he will act the same.
>Mr. Beast built his channel by taking all profits from each video and plying it into the next video. Using this approach he was able to produce progressively larger and more expensive videos.
That's what every sensible businessman does in the early years of a new venture. It's only a stark contrast to the avera social media personality who takes out as much as they can early on to fund car leases, rent for fancy homes and designer brand clothes.
Lemme know if he does it without filming and I'll be the first to call out my BS. Some people just don't see the forest from the trees but it's all good with me, MrBeast needs you for income. True altruism is hard, this is business.
I have heard anthropologists tell anecdotes about Red Cross refusing to help a village just a couple of hours drive away from their outposts because there is no press coverage and they would rather spend their supplies on places where it'd get reported on, because the report brings in more donations. Emotionally I sympathize with the people that the speaker spent time with and resent Red Cross's decision, but pragmatically I can see that it make sense.
I've talked to nurses who volunteered at MSF say they passed by many villages that needed help on their way to their destination, a more well-known location that will bring more attention for their services. Lord knows they lamented over it, but the decision was made by the organization to ensure they get the maximum donation needed to help more people.
I have literally never watched a single Mr Beast videos, but going by what I'm seeing in articles like these, I fail to how what he's doing is any worse than most charities.
"Look at me doing good for these people! This was MR BEAST that did this, me, I'm MR BEAST AND I HELP PEOPLE! REMEMBER THE NAME FOLKS, IT'S ME, MR. BEAST. Make sure to like and subscribe!"
-->
"This guy is a champion of generosity, a paragon of goodness. I admire him so much." --people like you, and other children
That last sentence is just not true, I think it's okay to deeply respect someone with a BUSINESS MODEL (because it is what it is) that's based on helping others for views. Let's say he stopped doing it and just worked a shitty job and gave all his money, being then a true altruist, the impact he'd have on the lifes of people would be far lower than the one he's having now.
Yes the media overhypes his actions as some sort of altruism god, as they do with everything, but that doesn't take away that he came up with a model that feeds on helping people, and that alone deserves my respect.
No, he came up with a model that glorifies himself to the max (by helping people.) There is a gigantic difference. I cannot imagine respecting that.
There are so many people out there who deeply deserve your respect and yet this guy is the one with your attention - because vainglorious self-promotion is his mantra and his mission. Go read about any of the countless people out there making serious, meaningful contributions without pasting a photo of their face and bio links over everything they do. Oh, I guess it'll be a bit harder to find them. Easier to just keep watching Mr. Beast and pondering how much respect his brilliant business model deserves.
Nobody said he is a champion of generosity or a paragon of virtue, that's your take on strawmanning an easy to win point because you don't want to have an actual conversation here.
The alternative is advertisers spending their money on rap videos glorifying selling drugs to kids and committing felonies. Personally, because I don't see the world in black and white, I see Mr Beast as a massive upgrade from the previous status quo.
Why does it being a business make what he does any less? Don’t the acts stand on their own without the need to pontificate on his motives? He could have started or ran his business in many ways, he chose a charitable one… I think that’s all that matters
Being a cynic isn’t cool, and it is not being objective - the good he does is staring you in the face and you can’t even see it
Emotional responses to content are subjective. It’s never been, never will be, that all humans are of a normalized opinion on anything, I’m not sure what the point of your take on OPs take is?
Must we role-play feeling like Shiny Happy People about everything? Why must everything be framed in toxic positivity?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into this concept of "charity" myself[1].
It is wonderful that people can see, but how much money you have should have no bearing on whether you stay blind or not.
These people are victims of a system and charity is just painting over the cracks.
Perhaps he could devote his energy to start the change.
Charity (and alms) is what people did back in the day. Some societies moved on.
[1] Better said: I'm not against charitable acts. I'm against charity as a replacement for an humane and fair society. Sometimes it feels like having a water station next to workers being being whipped to build the pyramids. Perhaps stop the whipping?
> I listened to his interview on the Joe Rogan show and was really impressed.
I wonder many of the critics in this thread have seen him like this. I've also seen a few videos where he's talking about his channel and he certainly has me convinced he's not in it for his own benefit.
It's not cynical, it's fairly neutral. It doesn't mean he's a bad person. There are worse things he could do with his money and at the end of the day, he's doing a lot of good.
But it's not altruism, it's philanthropy. It's more about the performance than the act itself. Some of his videos literally reycle game show ideas ("do X contrived thing successfully and you get $Y money"). His antics help people and that's a good thing. But he's also making them jump through hoops (not literally AFAIK, though I wouldn't be surprised) and perform gratitude for his audience. Things can be good and bad at the same time.
Consider the American trope of "feel good" news reports about, say, an elementary school kid doing a successful fundraiser to pay off his classmate's school lunch debt. Yes, it's amazing that an elementary school student did that but it's also horrifying that this means school lunch debt is just a thing society has come to accept as normal and that society is so dysfunctional a literal child had to take the initiative instead of just getting to be a child.
I think Mr Beast is one of the better people when it comes to using their ridiculous wealth and social capital for good, but it's horrifying that people have to perform misery for an online audience to get relatively cheap medical treatments and frankly it's horrifying that a single person can have access to and control over such an amount of wealth that they can perform this kind of stunts on the regular while at the same time so many people are so desperately poor that their lives can be changed by being gifted mere crumbs in comparison. Mr Beast may be a relatively good person but that he (i.e. his channel/brand) can exist at all should be deeply concerning.
It’s a bit hard not to be cynical when he himself describes how he developed his channel by optimising and a/b testing everything “like a psychopath” including the amount of views per dollar given away - he says himself that 100k seems to be the inflection point, you don’t get so many more views by going from 100k to 500k or 1m. Not once did he ever appear to have thought about the impact on the lives of the people receiving this random lump sum, which plenty of research on lottery winners shows is often very disruptive and negative on their overall long term wellbeing. As for his “donating” for blindness surgery etc, there are plenty of actual charities staffed by volunteers working hard day after day, he could easily donate quietly to any of those and he chooses not to.
It's a flywheel with exactly one input: YouTube. If YT changes their rules or payout schedule tomorrow, it all goes away. But sure, for the time being he's hit the infinite charity glitch.
I also don't understand the take that altruism/philanthropy has to be zero sum. i.e. true altruism means that I lose something and you gain something.
Maybe it is a hold over from religion and the idea of sacrifice being the ultimate good. The times I have had the most impact (helping people in need, teaching, starting my own NPO) it has been very much positive sum.
If he has zero impact, then everyone else here has negative impact. I certainly haven't cleaned up an entire beach.
Can someone give me some examples of philanthropy that is NOT predatory/extractive?
> Can someone give me some examples of philanthropy that is NOT predatory/extractive?
Richard Stallman and his work on free software?
I think what OP is saying is that at Mr Beast's income level, he can effectively create a lasting change that most of us can't. Instead he focuses on people individually, giving them nice gestures but nothing life-changing, and he continues to do this because his viewers demand these types of low-scale altruism. So effectively he's just an entertainer that earns his salary by doing small acts of kindness, nothing more.
It's like the old proverb in a way: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But teach him to fish, and you feed him for life". Mr Beast is just giving people fish for a day, but it doesn't help anyone after that one chance encounter with him.
So the 1000 people who can see now or hear “got one fish for a day”? Come on bro.
It should be up to society to ensure the health check doesn’t return just 200 OK but that everything else that makes that 200 OK possible is also actually fine.
MrBeast is an entertainer who happens to make a brand by doing stuff that does some impactful thing. More than most people.
Now those 2000 people who can see and hear.. maybe they have a new chance at life. Even if 1% of them become mega successful that’s 1-20 people who will go on to impact more than 2000 people EACH.
Right, that's on the individual level. You and I can donate to a medical organization that helps people 'see and hear' too. Or fund a go-fund-me to help that person. It's great that person got immediate access to the healthcare they needed with this money. We can do basically what Mr Beast does right now if we pooled our resources together.
The bigger issue is why that healthcare is inaccessible to them in the first place? How do you or I go about solving this? How are you and I gonna bring this attention to Congress, and get their asses to work on that issue? Unless we both quit our careers to go into politics, it's not really possible for a random no-name person to make that change for the greater population. How about the other 10k people who can't see or hear? What about them?
If I had Mr Beast's financial or influence level, the next step I would be doing is wondering why those 1k or 2k people didn't get their healthcare and then trying to patch that. We all know how much of a scam our current system is. Once that's patched, everyone gets to eat for life, not just a single batch of 1k people in my lifetime.
Individual contributions are great and welcomed, but temporary. Societal change is where things get real. Cmon bro. It's why we have 40 hour work weeks, why women can vote and get college education, why lgbt community is accepted. And it's not like individual contributions and making society change are mutually exclusive... So what' stopping Mr Beast from going to that next step?
> If I had Mr Beast's financial or influence level, the next step I would be doing is wondering why those 1k or 2k people didn't get their healthcare and then trying to patch that.
It sounds like you know what should be done. Why don't you have Mr Beast financial or influence level? And why is that necessary to structurally improve healthcare?
> So what' stopping Mr Beast from going to that next step?
> Why don't you have Mr Beast financial or influence level?
> What's stopping you or anyone else?
Ad hominem fallacy. Life is not lucky for most people in the world. Don't really have to explain this if you look at how wealth disparity or how poverty trap works. You can wikipedia this yourself.
> why is that necessary to structurally improve healthcare?
Have you ever tried to intensely petition something? Or get an issue in front of your representative to take seriously? Do you know how much work and effort that takes? It's not simply doing an online poll. You literally have to go door to door every day to get signatures, to go out and talk to convince people to your cause, all the while fighting billionaire-funded counter groups and cops.
Everyone's gotta work to feed themselves and their families, get access to employer-only healthcare. People don't have time or money for intense political work. There's a reason why disinformation and interference in politics from Russia was such a big deal.. You have a state-level actor with state-level infinite money pouring into political groups creating societal havoc at the structural level. A regular joe can't do this kind of damage. Only people with serious money can.
The only other way things change structurally is through solidarity. Everyone protests in the streets. Cop reforms didn't come about because people asked nicely. People died and got mad.
So yea, unlike literally 99% of the people on earth who have to slave away at a job, if I had Mr Beast's money I would do the next step and fix issues permanently, because at that income level it's possible to give it a try. Instead, I see a few comments saying he spent a good chunk of that fortune on running a low quality burger chain lol.
> Have you ever tried to intensely petition something? Or get an issue in front of your representative to take seriously? Do you know how much work and effort that takes? It's not simply doing an online poll.
So, why do you expect mister beast to be able to change things? He's doing more than me for sure.
> if I had Mr Beast's money I would do the next step and fix issues permanently,
Exactly. What's stopping them? Nothing, right? They've got all the money they'll ever need, and powerful friends if they need something money can't buy. Yet like you said, what's being done to fix structural issues within society?
The only structural changes I see are wealth disparities getting increasingly wider in society, with laws and tax cuts being favored for the ultra rich after each new presidential leadership. Who's putting the work into this? Not me, and probably not you. So who?
They for sure donate to make-a-wish foundations or whatever, which is great. But think of it this way: how does that help you or your kids when cost-prohibitive life-saving surgery is needed? Are you gonna quit your job and camp out near a rich youtuber's house to get that lucky chance encounter in the hopes you'll get picked for the next individual success?
It doesn't help when a random person needs that surgery. But it certainly does help the random person that gets the surgery. My point is that he can't just drop $300M on some topic and get the world to change. Can you tell me how he could use his money to ensure that everyone in America gets that life saving surgery? Is he going to somehow convince die hard Republicans that it isn't socialized medicine? Biden and Trump each spent far more than Beast's net worth on trying to get elected in 2020, and one of them lost after spending $800M. I don't really see what he is supposed to do to effect structural change in the US with his measly $300M or whatever.
Does philanthropy have to be utilitarian? In the sense that if you donate money your only goal should be scale? Is that the definition?
Which one is better, donating $1 to 100,000 people or $100,000 to one person?
Similarly is donating $10,000 to cancer research better than $10,000 to one person? The cancer research may never have an impact, but it makes us "feel" good becasue it has the potential to change millions of lives.
Just an interesting one to me how we diminish the impact of helping one person when that one person could go on to be a Steve Jobs or the first person in the family to go to college. Literally life changing, where as donating for scale is a drop in the ocean and means almost nothing to a ton of people.
By the first definition it requires “unselfish regard”. If MrBeast is pulling 54 million a year (along with lots of fame and clout) he’s not exactly qualifying for the first definition.
Definition 2 is the one I’m most familiar with from the animal kingdom, and it actually requires that the giver either gain nothing or lose something. So that may be where people are coming from who take exception to his behavior being described as “altruistic”. By definition, it is not.
That makes sense. Thanks for that. If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting I don't think I see altruism as a super positive thing.
Turns into "he gave up his last dollar for that person!" which is seen as a super altruistic thing to do, but now, not only does that person only have a dollar, you've taken yourself out of the game and can no longer do any more good in the world because you don't have any resources left.
I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue.
I give you 30 grand or cure your blindness or buy you a house and you participate in my video. It seems like a win win.
If the argument is that he is making more than they are making off that one video, again, that goes back to me having benefit less than you.
Maybe the problem is the framing people have of it being a charity? Even in that light, he creates content for people to consume for free, the content is driven by him giving things away, the people who pay him are businesses who also get a service provided by all of those people finding out about their product/service. It seems a lot less extractive than most business models.
> I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue.
Not exactly what I was saying. Let's say he stopped today. Or when he hit $25M in total wealth. Some figure where he could live a comfortable life while still contributing to these kinds of acts.
Would he still do it? Or is continued profit / brand building / etc a key component? Is this fundamentally a transaction?
I would assume not. I don't think he thinks of it as a charity, but the tension between continued profit and doing amazing things in this case doesn't bother me. I think it's positive in that the better he does the more people he can impact. Transactions can be incredibly positive even if they are dispassionate.
I understand your point. It's a good one and well taken. Very eloquently put.
Those two things are definitely not always aligned and probably arent always in this case either.
So is the problem that he has a lot of money or that he is telling people about it?
If the former, it goes back to my point about good being about sacrifice and pain. I.e. me giving 10,000 is better than bezos giving 10,000.
If the latter, the charities they donate to are all talking very loudly about what they are doing. That is literally their job is to bring awareness to a cause and fundraise. They brag about their donations in that they tell you all the good that they have been able to accomplish.
I asked the question because I’m trying to understand the dissonance people feel with him that they don’t feel with what I just outlined.
I listened to an interview with him and Lex Friedman a while ago. Interesting discussion. He's very systematic and data driven and that's part of what drives the success of his channel. A lot of what he does is indeed ruthlessly optimized to tap into whatever it is people appreciate across the different social media channel he targets. The guy undeniably has some serious skills and he's built a highly effective revenue engine around the most pointless thing on this planet which is people spending hours looking at whatever big for profit social media companies feed them via their algorithms. It's a big market opportunity to tap into and he's done so effectively.
Instead of getting hung up on what is or isn't altruism, the other point of view here is that he leaves a trail of people that are objectively better off having encountered him. That's advertising money that is spent on worthy causes. Yes, it's self serving. But that money also serves the people he helps. It's an interesting dynamic. Ceasing to do what he does would actually be bad for the people that are on the receiving end of this. So, why should he?
He's found a way to funnel of some of the stupid money slushing around on the social media platforms. There are billions of it. And he's managing to do something more interesting with it than just squirreling it away. Compare that with the average influencer, viral marketing expert, troll farm or other sources of clickbait that are thriving on these platforms. At least this goes somewhere vaguely useful. Good for him and whoever is on the receiving end. And if he pockets some of that, how much worse is that than all the other nonsense on those platforms where most of the publishers just pocket 100% the revenue? I'm not judging that either.
If you are going to watch stuff on Tik Tok, Youtube, or whatever, you might as well watch his. Best case some random people benefit from this, worst case you watch some silly nonsense and are mildly entertained by that. Either way you feel good and nobody is getting hurt. I don't watch this stuff myself but that's just because I have other things to watch that I find more interesting.
I listened to the same interview and can recommend it too. The key to understand him is how he views what he does as hacking: mastering all aspects of YouTube, every detail that attracts views.
Instead of getting hung up on what is or isn't altruism...
It's interesting how people gets stuck in that point. They want him to suffer in order to qualify for saint status. Otherwise, doing good is meaningless. On the contrary, I find very nice his happy, positive, laid back persona.
I wonder what people criticizing him thinks of well-known NGOs.
Instead of getting hung up on what is or isn't altruism...
Until BeastHQ PR agency decides that it needs to plant stories in major news publications to counter the original narative and rebrand away from hacking: mastering all aspects of YouTube, every detail that attracts views to full fledged saint.
> thinks of well-known NGOs.
I have many uncharitable words for the vast majority of charities, workers, donors and charity galas - the problem with both cases is when people stop being honest and go from admitting the reality to claiming they are a saint.
I haven't heard "altruism" or "charity" from Mr. Beast's mouth, it's the article that uses those words and then proceeds to attack the characterization. He talks about giving away money to get views and entertain watchers.
Let me insist in watching the interviews instead of reading about him. The guy is very straightforward about what he does, why and how.
the problem with both cases is when people stop being honest and go from admitting the reality to claiming they are a saint.
So you judge people for what they will do?
Anyway, the charities, from the start, claim that they're saving the world and keep claiming that when corruption cases arises.
Despite what you've been taught, every act of charity comes from a selfish need (ego). Whether that is predatory or not from the standpoint of the donor, I'll leave that up to you to decide.
And to be clear, his acts of charity have made an impact in the people who have benefited from it. Whether the public response is positive or negative is besides the point.
> Despite what you've been taught, every act of charity comes from a selfish need (ego).
This may be some kind of projection or just your personal opinion of society and human motivation. You aren't inside the brains of every human and can't possibly know everyone's motivations at all times. It's quite possible that some or many of them experience authentic altruism.
The idea, cynical as it may seem, comes from the perspective that the feedback loops that govern basic behavior are set up for survival and that things that make you happy are more like survival than not. So it becomes very difficult if you introspect deep enough to not answer "why did you do that" with "it made me feel good" which is viewable as selfish.
Seems to me you've just selected a prior perspective - "the feedback loops that govern basic behavior are set up for survival" - which doesn't allow for altruism.
I see reasoning like this online all the time. A person donates $10 billion, and people say they it must have given them a warm fuzzy feeling, and that feeling is by definition worth $10 billion, because that's what they paid for it. As if the idea of selflessness or human goodness or anything existing outside the real of rational economic exchange is so challenging they find it more plausible that a warm feeling is worth $10 billion.
(Not that I think MrBeast is particularly an example of altruism - although it's probably an example of good)
I was about to type that maybe it's about intention, but then I realised that expectation of feeling good is a reward based motivation.
Having behaviours that benefit your group rewarded and reinforced seems an obvious survival trait. It feels good, like reproduction. I wonder it's purely societal evolution or if there's a genetic component there.
Maybe it's hard to reconcile all this because calling something altruism is subjective, since we are not all knowing.
Selfish means to lack consideration for others or to be concerned only with your needs. A donation that makes you feel good but benefits others doesn’t really fit that term. If it’s done purely to advance yourself through brand or something like that, or gain financial opportunities then I think I’d agree it could be selfish.
Like those act of kindness videos on YouTube with millions of views and earning the creators thousands of dollars.
You sound a little too defensive there, perhaps thou protests too much?
Only joking, but no it is not "projection". It is definition. It goes something like "people do what they want to so if they donate something to others it is because they wanted to do it and therefore it was not selfless."
It's a pretty stupid and pointless definition though, probably sprung from someone's need to economicsify human nature. Even then you can easily get around it by defining selflessness to be the selfish need to give to others.
You’re not wrong, but there’s a big difference between donating money to feel good about yourself or even hope others like you more, and building a capital engine with a veneer of philanthropic paint.
I'd much rather perform my acts of charity publicly for the same reason I like open source coding: to get feedback so I can do it better.
Anonymous charity is more often than not even more a road towards satisfying a selfish need. It elevates the sense that what you're doing is more just because it is anonymous so "surely I can't be doing it to make a show of it" except this perverse thinking often leads to elevating one's own desire to feel righteous above, y'know... Actual proof that the charity works and does any good. Doing it anonymously also means you avoid any criticism so you get to safeguard the selfish narrative in your head that you're a good person because nobody can point out any flaws in your charity acts.
I'd trust someone who is public about their altruism and opens it to criticism any day of the week more than someone who hides it. I trust people who are public about their charity and respond and change based on valid criticism the most.
> I'd much rather perform my acts of charity publicly for the same reason I like open source coding: to get feedback so I can do it better.
What kind of feedback can you get when the donation is not anonymous that you can't otherwise? I really can't think of anything.
> Anonymous charity is more often than not even more a road towards satisfying a selfish need. It elevates the sense that what you're doing is more just because it is anonymous so "surely I can't be doing it to make a show of it" except this perverse thinking often leads to elevating one's own desire to feel righteous above, y'know... Actual proof that the charity works and does any good.
Yea, one can know if charity works without putting their name to it...
> What kind of feedback can you get when the donation is not anonymous that you can't get otherwise? I really can't think of anything
I don't even know where to begin... This is like saying "what kind of feedback can you get when the products you buy are not anonymous." When I buy a phone or some set of products it's usually public in the sense that I go to forums to talk about it, or my friends see the products I use, etc etc and people see what I use and I get feedback of the "hey, there is this product that might do this thing you care about better"
Likewise, if what you care about is x and you just go and donate to some charity, nobody can tell you something of the form "hey, there is this charity that might do this thing you care about better"
Just like with products, de-anonymizing also increases trust when you see a positive review. Same goes with charities. It opens up a more worthwhile place where discussions can be held.
> yea, one can know if charity works without putting their name to it...
Totally true. Except you still run the risk of fooling yourself more if you keep it to yourself. I don't trust myself and prefer to defer to those who research charities for a living. I talk with these people a lot, tell them what my values are, and then get charity recommendations.
I suppose a counter-argument you might make is you can still engage with people anonymously and learn what you need. That I also totally agree with.
I think you and I might be using the word "anonymous" differently.
What I'm arguing against is a kind of charity that is anonymous where the person doing this charity is an island and doesn't talk to or engage with anyone or anything about it out of principle. I think a lot of people think this is a good principle to hold. I am completely opposed to it. Is there even one good reason to do charity in complete secrecy? Even if you prefer to be anonymous (which is completely understandable), it is still better to engage with people to learn why a charity is a "good buy."
True. Which is why a lot of people recognize this and perform acts of charity anonymously.
Curb Your Enthusiasm did a whole episode on anonymous donations. Absolutely roasted the entire premise! The ego of anonymous donors is just as big, if not bigger! The anonymity is worth even more ego points!
Isn't this incredibly circular reasoning? You're critiquing someone for their action (donations come from selfish need), yet any attempt to make the situation "better" makes it even worse. You're defining their good actions as bad for no apparent reason. The only solution would be not to donate.
Let's apply this reasoning to a different topic - if there is a puppy drowning in a river and somebody jumps in to save it, will you also tell them they are doing it to fulfill a selfish need?
My main complaint is with the altruist label. It’s a secularized version of “saint”, as far as I’m concerned. I have no problem with someone doing good deeds for other people and deriving personal satisfaction (and the validation of others) from it. I do this myself. My problem is when we start calling some people “altruists” when they have the same motivations as I do.
As for the puppy, try this: replace it with a black widow spider drowning in a toilet. How many people will save it now?
>Isn't this incredibly circular reasoning? You're critiquing someone for their action
I think it's perfect, as arguably, you could say that about the initial point as well (it's not altruistic because ego). When reduced this way, it doesn't really matter if ego is involved if the result actually makes an impact and betters someone else's life.
This is incorrect. The modern American Gordon Gecko derived brand of capitalism that helps people justify being selfish to themselves.
The OCEAN model demonstrates that we are distributed into camps of "principally considering self first" and "principally considering others first". You take the most high Trait-Agreeable people, and they will all routinely sacrifice their own resources, position, opinion and wellbeing for others. This is fundamentally where maternalism is rooted psychologically too.
But to your point - I agree that if people have benefited from it, then it's still a good thing.
He figured out a sustainable way to keep giving money away. I call that smart philanthropy, not selfish philanthropy. Yes, he makes a lot of money but it mostly goes back into growing his channel and charities.
Here we have some dude who is earning money by helping people - yet for some reason this is one of the biggest sins he can do in eyes of a lot of people. Why? Just because he can't help everyone?
This is so weird take on the matter. What are you doing to help people? Are you taking credit for that work? And if not would you not be able to help more people if you had some notoriety?
There are things that you can criticize MrBeast on - like the MrBest Burger internet kitchens - but him making money off of helping people is not one of them.
No, it's not a sin. Just don't call it altruism or philanthropy because it's an insult to others who are really doing it without selfish reasons or profits.
Btw he is not "earning money by helping people", he is "helping" people to earn money.
Is this the cynical hacker news version of that Friends episode where Joey tells Phoebe that her selfless good deeds aren't actually selfless because they make her feel good too?
I mean I haven't seen his tax returns but from what he says, he spends 100%+ of revenue on the next video. I'm not sure if you are unaware of that claim or just don't believe it.
Sure he is extremely generous to his employees, but that would also fall under altruism...
> a selfish way of milking poor people for emotions in order to generate income.
Monsters, Inc. comes to mind! In that movie they are scaring children, bottling their screams as energy and selling it as a commodity. The happy ending is our protagonists stumbling upon the fact that laughter is a much better source of energy than screams, and so the staff of monsters become slapstick comedians for children everywhere.
YouTube managed to become the boring-dystopia middle-ground where they make money off both.
Those people who were suffering from curable blindness that had been forgotten by society sure are marketed, businessed and entertained by their restored sight. He's doing good things to improve peoples lives and entertaining millions along the way.
Philanthropy can also be marketing. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Like, what's your goal here? Nobody is allowed to help anyone unless they do it wearing a hairshirt and flagellate themselves afterwards? Are you trying to have fewer people get helped?
Of all the things in the world to gatekeep, you pick helping people?
One caveat: the issue is not that someone does "philanthropy" wrong, as if they could also do it right, the issue is that a society hoping for, needing large-scale/impactful philanthropy is fundamentally unstable. In harsher words: philanthropy is a scam [1].
Instead of having a system able to detect it's pain points and be able to self-heal, our current system "solves" issues by borrowing/stealing from the future: from printing money with the velocity of an unleashed spam bot to using finite resources (wood and steel, but also energy, time, attention, expertise) to build ridiculous boats for a few billionaires.
Also, we have a better word than "large-scale/impactful philanthropy": the state. And yes, there has been and there is no state in the world, beyond all the branding and the flags of the nation-states, mainly because we are unable to solve the tragedy of the commons [2], because perhaps in order to solve it we need to develop a natura naturans [3]: how does one build a god? Because, effectively, that's what a system able to care about everyone and everything becomes.
And people saying "it should be free though", maybe should read Mr. Beast's tweet on the issue... he *agrees* it should be free and is advocating for that.
I'm glad MrBeast is the top YouTuber, it could've been anyone, but philanthropy and a spirit of giving took the #1 spot. Good on Gen Z.
After releasing Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg donated several million dollars to the Shoah Foundation. In an interview, he said that he rarely gives his name when he donates to a cause and made the exception because he wanted to use his name to bring light to what the Shoah Foundation was doing — creating an archive of witness accounts of Holocaust survivors. The reason he said he donates anonymously is that, according to his religion, God does not recognize giving to charity unless it is anonymous. The moment a person does a good deed, and their name is given or known, the act is not recognized by God because it was done in pride and not humility.
I don't have a horse in this fight, but, isn't your criticism only valid if he is gaining wealth at a significantly faster rate than he is giving it away?
I think we can both agree that if he gives away more than he makes in ad revenue, he won't be able to keep doing that for long. And hopefully we both agree that if he's able to make back roughly equal to what he gives away, there's no problem there either? At that point he's basically a non-profit. It's only really an issue if he's giving away 1 million and pocketing 10 million, right?
Or is that not quite it either? Because what if he's able to invest that 10m such that the next video gives away 5m and pockets 50m?
My question is, where is the line between being a force for good vs bad, given that his philanthropic potential can grow along with his profits, and he seems to have a track record of doing so? Is it when he starts making 100m but is still only giving away 5m? I have no idea what the actual numbers are, maybe he's already well beyond that point, and now he's just investing his profits into PR to make himself look like a good guy .
But I don't see how his impact is absolutely ZERO when he's at least given 1000 people his vision back.
There's pranking people for money online, then there is giving people life altering treatments for free.
Imagine having a life where you make money helping people and bringing joy to other people's lives. The only caveat is that those people are featured on a video... that they agree to.
So imagine going to someone who's blind, and say "we'll pay for your treatment, but you've got to let us film you... oh what's that ? you don't want to ?... ha.. i'm sorry, next !"
Is that really altruism ? It sounds more like a business deal to me.
Firstly, it is debatable as to whether there is anything truly altruistic. For MOST acts aren't truly altruistic but that doesn't stop us from doing good things or being seen to be a good person.
Of course there is an element of business, otherwise he wouldn't be able to make these videos in the first place if people didn't agree to be filmed. The difference here is that being on camera is a small price to pay than the price of bringing your own eyesight back, something these people cannot afford.
The ability to do these treatments doesn't come out of thin air.
How is this any different to people being filmed on a game show where they can win millions of dollars if they answer questions correctly or complete challenges in a specific time on national television. Those shows generate revenue by people watching them in the hope that people win against all odds or revel in the fact that they missed out on national television.
The difference here, is that this guy is doing it on Youtube and has a much larger impact on individuals lives.
This is a lot of unsourced, completely gut feeling statements about someone’s philanthropic impact to essentially just have an excuse to shit on them. I wonder how much your own life has impacted the world out there.
Look I don’t know mrbeast, beyond the team trees stuff from a while back. But YAWN at claiming someone’s actions do more harm than good just because your gut says it’s inspired pranksters.
Terrible fucking take that could only come from HN. How many cataract surgeries have you funded? How many pounds of trash have you cleaned up from the ocean? Let's hear what a big impact you're having if Mr. Beast's impact is 0.
If you give me millions of dollars for it? I could clean tons of trash yes, or fund a lot of cataract surgeries. I can found hundreds of thousands if by the end of the year I'm left with more money than I started. Awesome idea.
No one "gave" mr beast the money. He earned it by creating entertaining content. So sure he's not maximizing the good per dollar, but he's taking dollars that would not be spent on doing good and doing some good with them. If you can convince people to give you money for more efficient good deeds you'd be more altruistic than him, but I don't think you can.
Yikes! What a cynical take and I wonder if you bring this degree of skepticism to the world.
From the article:
> The end product was an eight-minute video called “1,000 Blind People See for the First Time.”
This is a huge quality of life improvement for 1000 people directly, and imagine the secondary effects - they qualify for jobs which they didn't, they can contribute money to their families, their families are able to use the money to fund education / savings for future generations, etc.
Leaving aside the altruism, he is a master of his craft. He understands the Youtube algorithm, his viewership, and how to grow his brand.
He managed to build a self sustaining form of altruism that doesn't depend on taxes or a field of call centers harassing people for donations, that has to be worth something, regardless of the ultimate motive.
My worry for instance is that what he's doing in not scalable on the level of a society, yet it's polluting our public thoughts so much that better solutions are stifled.
at the moment i believe the most important thing that our society needs is more awareness that there is a problem to begin with. without that awareness no change can happen.
It might be of interest to know that there is a form of altruism originating out of South Asia where you distribute to others before partaking in their earnings themselves.
There is another that says to earn a honest living through hard work.
Dictionary definitions are rarely complete and independent of the model Christian lens (and sometimes bias) that writes them. It can make things harder.
might technically still be considered "altruism" - after all there is no official definition. but your reasoning holds. i would also question whether his business deserves to be called altruistic given that he gets rich by it. he wouldn't be flying first class without his altruistic deeds.
I find it interesting that people are upset that this, for lack of a better term, philanthropy achieved by MrBeast, while yes, its for the likes, the YouTube popularity, its a cottage industry of "feel good" that he's producing, is somehow bad?
I wonder how sustainable this will be ultimately, but it seems like he's able to just give all this stuff away and help people, and yes, they have to agree to be being filmed participating in some manner, but seriously, he's helping folks who need it. Every day people.
He also makes other content, but this seems to be the "bread and butter" of what makes MrBeast famous. I'm not seeing an obvious downside to what he's doing, seems like a net win for many people
This is philanthropy porn. He is not the philanthropist because he doesnt haev the money in the first place, he is using other people's money to perform charity on camera.
I 'm not very religious but it is a tale as old as humans. The christian gospels called out this hypocricy for a reason:
> Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory before me. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their rewards. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.” – Matthew 6:2-4
The other thing is that philanthropy is about helping people according to their need, not randomly or according to their willingness to get on cam
But if we never celebrate altruism or philanthropy, are we not, perhaps, discouraging it? Don't we want to instill these cultural values of giving?
It seems to me that keeping quiet is a kind of purity ritual that perhaps does more harm than good as well.
Personally I don't care about MrBeast one way or the other, he doesn't affect my life in any appreciable way, if he makes money giving other people money, cool, I can think of a thousand worse ways to make money.
His high number of fans/views? People like him. They like watching him. They like what he's doing. Is that not overt celebration of what he's doing over someone else doing... whatever else on Youtube?
Sure, but other people are making videos playing games or eating food or whatnot. There's clearly an interest in his sort of philanthropic videos that has gotten him more attention than other people.
He's certainly not using anyone else's money. It is money that he's received from making videos.
The difference, I think, is the same difference that there is between donating money anonymously and donating money under the condition that something is named after you. The former is transparently good because it can only be done for a good purpose. The latter may be done for a good purpose. You might want everyone to know you donated so that you can set an example for others: "I am a popular actor and if I do this it will bring attention to this cause". But we often get the feeling, I think, that the donation would not have been given if not for the quid pro quo, and then it feels a bit dirty: more like buying indulgences.
Here he's not giving the money away just so that he can say "look what a good philanthropist I am" but also so that he can record and publish videos of it to make money. That makes it twice as dirty: doing something that ought to be done for its own sake and using it as a means of achieving an end that is, let's face it, his own benefit.
If he were doing it differently, then it might be different. If it felt like he had structured the operation so that he was only making all this money to funnel it into a charity, that would be different. But he's not: he's not making money in order to do charity, but doing charity in order to make money. He's reversed the means and the end. That is deeply uncomfortable.
In the same sense, UNICEF could start making reality charity porn and use the proceedings for charity. Would people accept that, is that ethical? No. Their public campaigns are sensitive and don't slather the faces of hungry children on youtube for advertisers.
I find it weird that i need to explain the difference.
So, basically, hungry people, or people in dire straits, or chronically ill people will not accept money that comes from porn? Why? Whats wrong with porn made by consent adults?
you will find similar quotes in other religious. Most of them disapprove of what he is doing. I m assuming by extension that most people (religious or not) disapprove status-seeking philanthropy.
I dont think i 'm jealous because i would never do something similar, i just find it unethical
> I find it interesting that people are upset that this, for lack of a better term, philanthropy achieved by MrBeast, while yes, its for the likes, the YouTube popularity, its a cottage industry of "feel good" that he's producing, is somehow bad?
It depends on how it's done.
It's one thing to be broadcasting what is essentially, poverty porn, where you, the hero of the world, come in to paradrop money on the problem.
It's another thing to, well, be doing meaningful charity, and promoting it.
And just like art versus pornography, the distinction is one of 'I'll know it when I see it'. Unsurprisingly, people have legitimate disagreements on where that line is.
Unfortunately, the US is just completely broken in respect to treating people with dignity if they fall on hard times. I'm willing to say that as long as things are (and they seemingly are, so far anyway) transparent, and agreed to, up front, by all parties involved, I can't say I'm against this.
I understand the "poverty porn" aspect might be a sour taste, but this is the state we exist in, unfortunately, where these random acts of charity are really meaningful to so many people.
To Jimmy’s credit, a lot of his charity work is done without a camera. He runs a legit food pantry year-round. He doesn’t farm it for views. I think it’s only in one or two videos.
You know the people participating in most of Mr.Beast videos are poor because, well that's the point of the videos in a lot of cases.
I'd say a lot of his videos are fine, but some of them can be quite jarring. In a lot of them for example there's families that are struggling and he spends almost no time in the emotional aspects of it and just kind of jumps into the "BUT HERES 10 THOUSAND DOLLARS!" to get reactions. It actually feels very dehumanising, as if these people are but a prop in the stage.
Of course, no one will say he's doing something bad by giving people money. But ultimately, to make a spectacle out of poverty is worth criticising, no?
I wonder how sustainable this will be ultimately, but it seems like he's able to just give all this stuff away and help people, and yes, they have to agree to be being filmed participating in some manner, but seriously, he's helping folks who need it. Every day people.
the federal govt. spends trillions on aid without having to film people. The whole reason Mr Beast is able to give anything away at all is because of the spectacle. otherwise, no one would watch and he'd have no money to give.
Mr beasts viewers give him money because they enjoy the spectacle. Without the spectacle all the good he’s able to do would not be done. Sure his viewers could just give the money to the government instead, but without the spectacle they don’t want to. Isn’t convincing people to be more charitable good? How is that not what Mr beast is doing
His viewers largely do not give him money. They give him attention, and in doing so give attention to the ads on his videos. Advertisers are the ones giving him money.
It is a very far cry to suggest that people watching his videos are "being more charitable" by doing so.
Attention is not money. Watching a YouTube video is not being charitable. You cannot just blankly assert that "their time is paying for the charity in the videos" without explaining why this is true. You will have a difficult time explaining that, because it isn't true.
As I said in the comment you replied to, but apparently didn't take the time to read, his viewers do not give him money by watching the videos. YouTube gives him money, which it gets from the ads which run on his videos, and I think he gets some money from direct advertising deals too. Those advertisers are not being charitable by giving him that money. They are conducting business deals: they want their image in front of his audience, and they're willing to pay for that. None of this has anything to do with charity.
It literally just is not. Attention and money are categorically different things. If you want to argue that directing your attention at something is somehow equivalent to spending money on it, then be my guest. But you have not done that. You have shallowly asserted that they are identical with the verb "is". They are not.
Their attention leads to him getting money through sponsors, ad revenue and merch sales. I don't think that makes the viewers "charitable", but it does mean that money is flowing into Mr Beast's bank account.
Sure they do, but he’s doing it without any bureaucracy. No real strings for the recover. Government aid is both more political and often has strings attached or requirements. Very different things entirely, nor is it sufficient
Now imagine a government that helps people with no strings attached, without making them feel like shit about needing help, and no cameras pointed at their face either. Who says it can’t be done?
> Now imagine a government that helps people with no strings attached, without making them feel like shit about needing help, and no cameras pointed at their face either. Who says it can’t be done?
There are a lot of things in our modern societies that would seem impossible or magical to someone from just a few hundred years ago. Why assume this is the best we can do, when so much progress was accomplished already?
Because you’re centralizing power. The more you centralize power, the more you increase the spread and power of corruption. This is why it always fails including with the system we have now. The difference is that in socialism, power is centralized from the start which is why it fails faster and why it takes longer for capitalist systems to fail compared to their socialist counterparts.
Because the US governments often values companies more than their own citizens. It is not a fundamental property though, Scandinavian countries do a whole lot better for example.
The MrBeast video where he pays for people's eye surgery felt icky to me and it took me a while to really figure out why. On one hand, I think it's great that people in need were able to receive assistance. On the other hand, why is it that it took some rich YouTuber to pay for their surgeries in the first place? As I understand it a lot of these eye surgeries have been fairly standard for decades, so why isn't there already a government program that pays for this? No paperwork or other bullshit, you just go to an eye doctor and they give you the surgery. It seems like such obvious low-hanging fruit, and it would be a massive political win. Maybe manufacture one fewer jet to pay for thousands of surgeries?
Maybe Medicare For All and these big medical reform programs are too ambitious and unlikely to go through. But maybe we could at least help raise the floor for what medical conditions Americans are treating by default.
If you're reading this, consider calling up your representative and telling them: "Hey, I think it's kinda crazy that we have a safe and proven surgery that lets people see, and I think it should be available for anyone that needs it, figure out how to make it work."
How many people even need these eye surgeries? I bet that raising enough money to pay for this surgery for every single American wouldn't even cost that much (in relative terms). So going the charity path would probably also be viable. However if it's something that enough people agree is worth doing, why not just use your tax dollars to pay for it? Who's going to seriously oppose a bill for giving people the ability to see?
You know what would be a win? Tuning in to the State of the Union next year and hearing: we eliminated this form of blindness from the USA.
The article says the kid tried looking into Social Security for the Blind, but "couldn't figure it out". And I guarantee you that plenty of entitlements and government grants of all sorts, especially welfare type ones, go unclaimed, because the would-be beneficiary doesn't even know about it, can't figure it out, or attempted and failed on some paperwork technicality.
I've been on federal entitlements of various types for over 20 years, and let me tell you, the paperwork and reporting requirements are onerous, and they advertise extremely punitive penalties if you don't comply. It's basically a part time job to gather up all the necessary proof of income, assets, employment, medical records, etc. and fill out the necessary forms, and then get it all filed in the right place at the right time before the deadline. And the agencies will do their best to lose all that and mess it up on their end, so you need to constantly be second-guessing them.
I'll tell you, it's far easier to go beg what you need from a charity like the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Technically, they also have income limits and other qualifications, but they're not going to put you through a scene from Brazil just to get your rent paid in an emergency.
> "Every heartwarming human interest story in america is like "he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine" and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used."
You're 100% right. It's nice that MrBeast paid for those simple and cheap surgeries to restore people's vision, and it's abhorrent that it required someone with money to decide to take that step for the problem to be solved.
> However if it's something that enough people agree is worth doing, why not just use your tax dollars to pay for it? Who's going to seriously oppose a bill for giving people the ability to see?
Unfortunately, I think the same people who oppose universal healthcare would also oppose this.
It’s also hard to draw the line on which things should be covered by the government, short of just covering all essential medical care. Curing blindness is definitely important, but people in the US literally die from not being able to afford other types of healthcare.
Two reasons I find this distasteful. It might be a net good still, I’m not sure. It’s not obvious however.
One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. Someone engages with Mr.Beast, feels like they did good. Later they walk by a food shelter in need of volunteers and thinks “I already did my part.” As we have parasocial relationships, we have paraphilanthropy. I suspect it ultimately makes people less compassionate and caring. This is hinted at here:
> For Miller, what makes Donaldson remarkable is that he essentially asks his audience to see themselves as a commodity, and to therefore see their views and likes and shares as a force for good: “MrBeast is actually telling people that they’re entering a marketplace, by saying, ‘If you watch this, this is worth so much money, I can raise this much money and I can spend it on good causes.’” As Donaldson says in one video for his philanthropic sub-channel: “Beast Philanthropy is literally funded by your eyeballs. Not even joking.”
Truth is, watching hours of YouTube isn't doing good. At best it’s entertainment, at worst it’s hours of human potential wasted.
The other downside is that it normalizes the extrinsic reward to doing good. Kindness done for the “thank you” breeds resentment. The vulnerable can be thankful, but they can also be angry, frustrated, confused, hurt, mentally ill, etc. Sustainable kindness is done for oneself.
> One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. [...] Later they walk by a food shelter in need of volunteers and thinks “I already did my part.”
The exact same argument is made against government programs. And there's a long history of research showing just how much government grants crowd out charitable giving because tax payers feel like "I already did my part".
But I don't see how you can consistently argue against Mr. Beast without also arguing against government funding, if crowding out is the issue you're concerned about.
There's other arguments in favour of government programs though. For one, a lot of the wealth that's generated in a country is due to the collective historical effort of the people which is summed up in the state (for americans, the "government").
So taxation is simply the United States of America, or Norway, or Sweden, taking back some of the resources of the "now" that have been generated thanks to the collective effort of the "past".
Also, there is actual research on the effectiveness of government programs (such as food stamps for example) in increasing quality of life of children who grow up on these; compared to those who grow up without those. In reality, children don't choose where they are born, and as much as it is the parent's job to raise them it is not the child's fault to not have gotten responsible parents.
So, in reality, tax payers shouldn't be doing charity. Why would they? If charity is needed then the government is obviously not collecting enough or allocating resources efficiently. I would very much say that charity is a systemic failure, and philanthropy is usually spear headed by the very same people who argue against universalist measures such as higher taxation. Why would a billionaire know where resources are needed better than the government, who has much more data on people to properly know where money should go.
So, in my opinion, it's really easy to argue against philanthropy and in favour of government programs. I mean, there's a lot of data out there.
> The exact same argument is made against government programs. And there's a long history of research showing just how much government grants crowd out charitable giving because tax payers feel like "I already did my part".
How much?
> But I don't see how you can consistently argue against Mr. Beast without also arguing against government funding, if crowding out is the issue you're concerned about.
They could believe public programs and some charitable giving is more effective than no public programs and more charitable giving. Or someone who feels like a friend telling you you gave to charity affects charitable giving more.
no it's not a good argument against government programs.
really the best way to improve everyones lives is by everyone paying their taxes and allow those taxes to be used to help anyone in need and fund infrastructure and improvements for everyone in society.
if we pool our resources we can create a better life for everyone. charities that rely on donations can only go so far, and they allow people to opt out of contributing their share. the betterment of our lives is not the responsibility of individuals who feel inclined to donate, but they are the responsibility of all of us as a community.
this is not about allowing people to say that by paying taxes they did their part and so they don't feel the need to donate, but rather, as a society it is our responsibility to ensure that everyones needs are met such that there is no need for any individual to keep making donations.
if our social net relies on donations then we have a social net that is not properly funded.
It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure his needs are met. If he is incapable of doing so, then charity (collectively or individually) may be necessary.
I am not opposed to a social safety net but what you propose and what we have (all over the Anglosphere) is a system where people are told and believe that they are entitled to have their lives funded by others with whom they have no personal connection.
I don't see why someone living in eg. California should be funding the life of a family living in eg. one of the many Southern states that take more in federal funds than they put in.
Funding certain services is obviously necessary, like insane asylums, prisons, courts, police, firemen and the army. It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be. Schools definitely not.
We have turned a system of helping those in need into a system for redistributing money from middle income people to the poor. We subsidise bad employers that don't pay market rates with things like in-work benefits.
Nothing that needs to be provided to you by others can be a "human right". Human rights are inherent to being human, hence the name. You do not have a human right to every nice-to-have service that you think ought to be government-funded. You have a better argument in the US that you have a human right to be provided with a gun.
He isn’t genuine. In his origin story you’ll notice he talks about trying lots of different strategies to maximize his views and engagement. That’s his only real goal. He stumbled upon his current formula by accident after significant iteration.
It strikes me that he could have just as easily be producing any kind of harmful content if the rules of what’s acceptable to society and YouTube were different. It just so happens that in his case the content is self-reinforcing and easily defensible.
He is the same as the people who film themselves giving flowers to lonely elderly people. Such people do not feel good about doing good acts because of the actual act, they crave the attention and praise that doing good often brings, and they need it in great quantity.
The act itself is just a vehicle for vulnerable narcissism and wouldn’t exist or have been done in the first place without these outlier personality traits enormous investment.
But if he’s honest in telling his origin story about figuring out how to optimally drive engagement, doesn’t that actually make him genuine? There’s no lie here. He’s upfront about how he’s optimizing content for views and using profits to drive further content, grow the business, and donate to charity.
I don’t really find his content very interesting, but he seems like a decent guy and you can definitely make an argument he’s doing some good in the world.
It may make him honest but he doesn’t deserve the type of praise people give to him. He never set out to help people, that isn’t the root of his motivation, and never has been. He is motivated to create content that gets a lot of views and “wins YouTube”.
The content isn’t the point in his mind, it’s getting as many views as possible. So that’s what I mean when I say he isn’t genuine, because the content is only there to get the views, and he’s only doing it because it’s what works.
The way I see it, if those lonely elderly people's days are brightened by being given a flower, who cares what the intentions of the flower-giver were?
This is a very utilitarian way of viewing the world.
Under other philosophical frameworks, intentions do matter, not just consequences. For a deontologist, for example, thinking of Kant's categorical imperative.
My point here is that "who cares what the intentions are" is not really, at all, such an obvious thing. And there's a wealth of philosophy that's non-consequentialist. I honestly invite you to read a bit more on these kinds of ideas because they might genuinely give you a new perspective on morality.
Also, what if the viewers of the video also had their day brightened by seeing someone being nice? No wonder negativity bias is such a thing in media, not only do negative doom-and-gloom articles get more views, but positivity is actively scorned.
By that logic no one should ever do something nice because it doesn’t register at the macro scale. That’s ridiculous and a very dark and distorted way to view the world
I think MrBeast is fantastic, this is what he wanted to do, he made it happen, he's worked out how to run his organization, he's scaled it out. His content is really well done and fun. He gets to help people, he's very explicit about how he makes money, he's not making out he's a charity, he's directly promoting things and starting his own spinoff businesses. Good stuff.
I don't mind MrBeast, but what I really hate is how every other YouTuber has decided to copy his "screaming face" thumbnail strategy. My YouTube home page is full of screaming faces and bright text with some clickbait title. Even middle-age woodworkers (the polar-opposite audience to MrBeast) fall prey to this strategy, and I've started to unsubscribe from channels that insist on doing this.
I suspect that so many do it because it's so often repeated and taught that it works; but they figured out it works when looking at the whole of youtube videos, which percentage wise, is mostly targeted to a younger, less mature audience, and the content is made to match. When a channel's target audience is a similar demographic to the "average youtube viewer," it works very well. But I'd wager it doesn't work very well when the target audience doesn't match the average youtube viewer. I'd love to know if the people that measured and promote these bright, astonished-face, click-bait thumbnails ever bothered to test their effectiveness with different target demographics. My guess would be no.
I really wish the people making videos on subjects like science/physics, engineering, woodworking, etc... would stop putting thumbnails and titles on their work that target an audience that isn't going to care/enjoy/understand the subject of the video. And maybe even keep some of the intended audience away.
> I'd love to know if the people that measured and promote these bright, astonished-face, click-bait thumbnails ever bothered to test their effectiveness with different target demographics
They have bothered to test the effectiveness, and found that clickbait does work. (You'll sometimes see a video title change over time as creators try to find a title that drives more engagement.) The reality is that whatever gets more views or engagement is more valuable to creators -- target audience really doesn't matter.
In this world, most of the money you get is from sponsorships and YouTube ad share, which requires raw views. (Something the "intended audience" doesn't care about!) For a creator trying to make money, the "intended audience" is whoever watches your videos. Does it matter to the creator if the "intended audience" is kept away when the creator ultimately makes more money by boosting views through clickbait?
The video I linked specifically refutes much of your speculation. LTT included their data showing that the clickbait thumbnails improved viewership among their older-skewed audience.
Hate to break it to you, but your YT homepage is filled with the content similar to that you are most interacting with. I never click on perverted faces, and if I see something really disgusting - I take a two second time to click "I don't like it"/"Don't recommend me things like this". Currently there's only two medium-cringe face out of 20 thumbs on my YT home page.
Those are just recommendation algos, they are not specifically want to annoy you.
I agree, like you can stow whatever commentary of envy and capitalism, I can tell you the precise reason I don't like MrBeast is the thumbnails.
Absolutely sets off the uncanny valley alarms in my dumb lizard brain. And then like you mention, people have latched onto the aesthetic because it works, so it's all over the place. But it's just instant unease and feeling of "Absolutely not." that I don't get from something like e.g. this person does not exist. Very anti-asmr like.
(I haven't watched his videos; I only know about MrBeast from this article and passing conversations.)
I think the moral discomfort that's being identified here is a reasonable one, and stems from the same basic (and intuitive) source as the familiar "billionaire philanthropist" thought experiment: many people have a strong intuition that publicized philanthropy is in some ways less praiseworthy than the contents of its actions would otherwise imply.
That source, in turn, is something like our recognition of other self-legislating agents: we know that the actions taken by others are done with independent ends in mind, and it's reasonable to think less of an action when we have a good reason to believe that the person's ends are not themselves free from inclination (desire for praise, fame, etc.).
In other words: people like MrBeast intuitively inspire distrust and "ick" reactions because they give the the impression that the observer is being had in some way.
I'm surprised at the negative view here. He had a very interesting interview with Joe Rogan a while back where he explains his business model. He does crazy expensive stuff on the main channel that might break even but often loses money. But this funnels viewers into the other Mr. Beast channels, like gaming or reacts, that are much cheaper to produce and do make money. The flywheel turns and he makes more money which goes to his philanthropy efforts or bigger videos on the main channel.
At the end of the day he's given away more money than I'll ever be able to by finding a glitch in the system that seems to be working out, at least for now. If kids like it and it inspires them to be charitible themselves in the future then I can't see how that's a bad thing.
I will say that I find some of the videos uncomfortable to watch when it's him just giving out money. But it's not any worse than what's been shown on regular TV for decades. The videos where he bought out entire grocery stores to fuel the food banks his company runs or the car lot where the cars were a dollar each are much better than straight up handing out cash.
> crazy expensive stuff on the main channel that might break even but often loses money
I remember him bringing this up in the interview and it’s an odd statement. “Often loses money.”
It makes more money than it loses, obviously. So it’s weird to call out how some videos lose money. Yes, that’s how the world works. And some make make money. More make than lose, that’s just how everything works.
And then he donates some profits to charitable causes.
Im not sure if he’s not sure how business works or his audience doesn’t. Im not sure why this line about “often loses money” irks me.
I'm not sure why either. My understanding is that the main channel videos are big and flashy but expensive, basically acting as a loss leader that increases the population that watch the rest of his channels. So they make money indirectly I guess.
> Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
> So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
> But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing
> so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
I agree with this, it all depends on your motivations of your acts. If you give to be seen you're just seeking attention but of course for the receiver it's not less valuable.
It seems he gives some money to make more money (views), is that something altruistic? I don't think so.
Can understand why some primitive people were not big fans of gay people, they would not 'multiply' the tribe. I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary, after all it was compiled by 'learned' scribes but more like based upon the needs of those times.
the problem is that he isn't doing it to show of his generosity, but that doing what he does is the way he gets the money in the first place. he is not independently wealthy and bragging about how he spends his money, but he figured out how he can earn money that allows him to give it to others.
so denying him publicity would deny him the very means to do good in the first place.
he gives some money to make more money
or he makes money in order to give money. in the end, what matters is how much money he keeps for himself and how much he gives away. it looks to me he is giving much more than he is keeping.
It’s not altruism, it’s just the cost of goods sold for his entertainment brand. If he could have the same viewership by feeding $100 bills to crocodiles at lower cost, he’d do that.
He’s definitely said that. But there’s no confirmation or audit or accountability. It’s like crypto companies saying on multiple occasions that they were solvent.
The claim is also objectively disprovable since the man lives, has homes, etc. So he’s spending something on non-video things.
And that’s ok. It’s just that “100% into future videos” is clearly not true. Maybe it’s 99.999%. Maybe it’s 0.001%.
We don’t get to know unless he goes public or registers as a charity.
> He’s definitely said that. But there’s no confirmation or audit or accountability. It’s like crypto companies saying on multiple occasions that they were solvent.
There’s also no proof that he’s lying, either. His entire schtick is to be the cool philanthropist and he has staked pretty much his entire reputation on this brand. He has no reason to lie and is in fact heavily incentivized to tell the truth to keep doing what he’s doing. There has not even been a sliver of an indication this is not the case. I get being pessimist, but this is ridiculous.
> The claim is also objectively disprovable since the man lives, has homes, etc. So he’s spending something on non-video things.
He’s not Mother Theresa and nobody claimed he was.
> And that’s ok. It’s just that “100% into future videos” is clearly not true. Maybe it’s 99.999%. Maybe it’s 0.001%.
This is pedantry at its finest. Everyone here is painting him as a selfish person only in it for the money and fame and this is what you have a problem with?
In his most recent appearance on the Fragrance podcast he talked about no longer spending more than he has, as he's responsible for so many people's monthly paychecks. He has taken out loans in the past to cover that, apparently. Usually with upcoming deal brand payments as collateral (as those are sometimes paid up to 90 days after the deal)
He might do so for now, at the moment. That doesn't mean he will do so forever. How long did Amazon run with no margins to build up its business before it made money? How long has reddit been running unprofitably?
He still has room to grow his business. And he can cash out quite easily. If he goes a year keeping just 20% of the revenue from his videos he'd make an absolute ton of money.
From everything he has said, he is not and has never been in it for the money. He could have cashed out many times now (he certainly has had the opportunity to, many times now) and lived out the rest of his life with that money.
Is it technically possible? Sure. But he has made no indication that has ever been or will be the case so I don’t see why people are assuming it will happen.
We shouldn’t be assuming the worst in people when they have shown no indication that this is the case.
I think a reason why people are uncomfortable about him is that boasting about giving to charity is very unchristian. "Be careful that you don't do your charitable. giving before men, to be seen by them, or else. you have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 6:1
If you're not allowed to even tell people you give to charity, I can't imagine what God in the old testament would do to you if you profit from it.
Mr. Beast's philanthropy is specifically enabled by his audience (sponsors contribute to the philanthropy in exchange for short ads), his videos bring awareness to the issue he is donating to, and his philanthropy is amplified by viewers donating their own money in kind to the cause. None of these things could happen (neither the large donations nor the awareness nor the amplification by ordinary viewers) without making the videos. I don't see how you can conclude that a gift only made possible by this process (thousands of people regaining their sight) is not altruistic merely because some ancient books said you have to be quiet about your donations.
My point in mentioning that all major religions frown on making a show of your giving was more to point out how ubiquitous and culturally cross-cutting that belief is than to say "some ancient books" should dictate our values or beliefs. Regardless of what you believe, hopefully you can acknowledge that there's a meaningful signal in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism all agreeing about a particular point.
Mr. Beast doesn't do _philanthropy_, he makes entertainment videos. His niche is giving money away in exchange for challenges or stunts. This gets him views, and has created a profitable business for him. That's not altruistic at all, it's just a business guy who is quite good at knowing his audience and executing his trade. "thousands of people regaining their sight" is a glorified marketing campaign.
Yes, money goes to causes; but the fact that money wouldn't otherwise go there is a policy decision that we've collectively made. We could tax billionaires and use the revenue to fund health, education, housing, infrastructure, research, or whatever. I'd much prefer to see us do that than wait around until we see Mr. Beast's Children's Hospital pop up somewhere.
No, obviously not. I'm unclear how you got to that conclusion, or what your point is. I was responding to someone who was quoting the Bible regarding philanthropy and wanted to point out that it's not just Christianity that makes this point. Further, the fact that it's such a ubiquitous view means that it probably represents a more fundamental value that cuts across cultures and beliefs.
Wow. Cataract surgery? Australia provides cataract surgery free under socialised healthcare. The big concern is that some patients wait up to 2 1/2 years after diagnosis for the surgery, and that indigenous Australians lack access to medical care for even diagnostics. But to just say, we know what's wrong, and how to fix it, and have available doctors nearby, but nah the kid just gets to grow up blind? What the fuck.
You know Medicaid doesn’t cover all poor people right? You do get that we are talking about a concrete instance of a child in the US who spent most of their life unable to get cataract surgery because they couldn’t pay for it?
>and that indigenous Australians lack access to medical care for even diagnostics.
If it is anything like the situation in New Zealand, there is no lack of access but a lack of uptake. You cannot infer from lower rates of uptake that there is a lack of access.
It is lack of access. Unlike New Zealand, Australia is very big. Many Australian indigenous people live very remotely where there are no medical facilities at all.
The biggest risk of exposing youth to MrBeast is that it devalues the concept of money and hard work. But there's no denial that he's doing some good work for those who are in need.
This may be unpopular, but maybe there’s something to be said for devaluing money and hard work? “Hard Work” is an inherited ethic from Puritanism in the western world. It is often implied that hard work will reap benefits, but the benefits are hit or miss and the rewards are sometimes promised salvation or riches in an afterlife. While I won’t comment on the latter, I think the ethic of hard work is often oversold, and benefits those in power rather than those who issue the effort.
And before someone cries wolf here, this isn’t advocating for laziness or hedonism. I think humans need work. We need to put effort into something whether that’s tilling a field, painting a canvas, or writing a program for a computer. I think everybody needs to experience real challenges to their understanding of life and how other people live. But I don’t think there’s an obvious measuring stick for what that looks like.
As for devaluing money, people need to know how to manage a household, but I think fewer worshippers at the alter of money is a net win.
I was told growing up the measure of good work is that you produce more than you consume. That's how families and communities grow and prosper. If you consume more than you produce, you're a drain on your family and community and that's looked down on.
Maybe that is Puritan but my own observations have reinforced that and I think if everyone strived for it, our world would be a better place to live.
A mindset of producing more than you consume has taken western cultures to where they are now - less poverty and more abundance than ever before in human history. We live freer and eat better and live longer than any of our ancestors. Why do you see it as "disastrous and unappealing"?
What's the alternative? If everyone consumes more than they produce, we all end up in poverty and hunger. That sounds truly disastrous and unappealing.
Most of that hard work goes to the profit of the one doing the work. History shows that arch clearly. Not many surfs or feudal lords about anymore. Your children aren't properly of your owner because you have no owner. Don't buy into the "inequality" BS that's being pushed about. It's not to the benefit of you or the generations that come after you.
Pretty much any influencer/YouTuber you can find across social media... The successful ones make it look like it's an easy work, and while some of them might have put up the hours tk grow their brand, a bunch of them are still chasing their dream of breaking through.
At the end of the day I'd say it's luck + marketing/attention grabbing. If the algorithm doesn't show your content and the content itself is boring or doesn't have a market you won't make it through
Don't worry, when they learn about billionaires, hereditary wealth and the global south. They'll have to reconcile sometimes all the hard work in the world leads to what you have now.
People will always find some reason to complain. As it's said, no good deed goes unpunished. He is not a rich guy using poor people as props. Rather, his entertainment value allowed him to become rich while benefiting those who he helps.
I would feel uncomfortable if a doctor did pro bono work just for attention or for YouTube views instead of out of the goodness of his heart, but acted like he was a wonderful and charitable person for doing so.
Exactly. Anyone who’s ever done something good for someone else partly did it because it felt good. This is what drives humans to help others, and society would fall apart without this basic urge to help others.
I don't think people are't happy for those who got eye sight back, but the article mentions "altruism" when it may not be and I think that is what is being debated here.
Mr. Beast is a content creator creating content. It's pretty obvious he's doing it for content and he doesn't deny it either. I guess the sprinkle of "philanthropy" flavor is rubbing some people the wrong way but he seems far less dodgy than some celebrity philanthropists or evangelists.
Mr. Beast has to be one of if not the most charitable YouTubers. He’s an effective altruist fever dream, curing disease and easing poverty through free entertainment. There are many worded YouTubers for the world. Perhaps it’s just his ostentatiousness that rubs people the wrong way. Do we want our saints to keep things low key?
It's not free. Like anything else, there is an opportunity cost for watching garbage. Mr. Beast and content-creators like him are precisely the reason my children won't have free access to YouTube if not smartphones entirely. He creates mindless garbage content that helps rots peoples' brains. Yes, plenty of other content on YouTube is no better, but this stuff actually gets marketed to people including children, and its aggregate millions if not billions of manhours of people mindlessly staring at this shit is not at all a good thing. The fact that some of it happens to result in people having an affliction cured doesn't reverse any of the wastefulness.
My kids love Mr Beast and I have no real problem with it. I feel more comfortable with his channels than I do with some of the other crap I see them watching. I also think that it is ok for kids to get a sense of kindness and optimism from the content they consume. They have plenty of years in the future to become jaded and cynical.
Mr Beast does a lot of things, but the most philanthropic of his efforts shouldn’t even need to exist in a society with a functioning medical care system.
Instead of dragging him for his “I fixed people’s hearing” videos we (Americans) should be embarrassed that a YouTuber is a medical benefactor for fairly basic problems.
I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I don't actually watch the channel. Is this what you're referring to?
> In it, Donaldson and his team give away over “$3 million worth of cutting-edge hearing technology” to 1,000 people across the U.S., Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, South Africa, Malwai and Indonesia.
I think it's a reflection of the complete monopoly Youtube has on E, pg, pg-13, and R (basically nonexistent on Youtube) content. Video on the internet is basically Youtube with all its restrictions or porn. Mr. Beast is basically the channel a bunch of marketing managers won't get fired for giving a bunch of money to. It's all the pretty fucked up result of our complete failure to innovate anything in-between ad based media and cable subscriptions.
It is perfectly possible to have an altruist and a business agenda in the same space. That's how most non-profits operate - they have a revenue stream (donations, trust funds, etc), they pay operational expenses including salaries for the staff that keep the machine running (just like a company), and funnel the rest for their specific activities.
The only real difference (besides taxation) between a non-profit and a regular company is the distribution of dividends - companies may slice profits directly between their shareholders, and non-profits cannot do this. MrBeast seems to be rebooting the non-profit enterprise with a broader approach and leveraging modern revenue streams - such as ads - instead of the traditional guilt-trip of shocking images or statements to pressure you to donate.
It's a business? Yes. Does it help people? It seems so. To the people arguing it is localized and sparse: so what? Like it or not, they are changing the world - not only those that are reached by them, but also those that are inspired to pursue similar enterprises.
This thread is getting a lot of engagement and your clue should be that this is exactly what successful influencers manage to accomplish. It doesn't matter what opinion you have of MrBeast. It matters that we have an opinion, any opinion, lots of it.
To give another recent example. A young progressive woman on TikTok went viral because she claimed that traditional masculinity (chivalry, providing for her) was absent in liberal men and only found in Republican men. Yet she does not culturally align with Republicans. She wanted both aspects of men and couldn't find any.
As expected, half the world engaged to point out hypocrisy, unrealistic expectations, and so on. Each participant in this conversation thinking they're correcting her, setting her straight, putting her back in her corner.
That's not what happened. She won. All of this is engineered. Engagement traps and engagement farming. And we fall for it every single time because it is a hard-wired feature of our brain: to obsess over deviations of the normal.
Clever move since Charity Navigator rates you very highly if you spend almost all your charity money on growing yourself like the Harvard Management Company does. I don't outsource my moral judgment so I can safely conclude that HMC isn't a "good charity" as CN calls it.
CharityNavigator isn’t perfect, but it is better than nothing. It at least checks for things like independence, board composition, and other factors.
It also confirms IRS charity status.
MrBeast isn’t a charity at all. It’s good he gives money, but we don’t know how much he gives, or what percentage, or how effective he is.
Judging good or bad charities is up to donors. CN doesn’t say if something is good or bad, it just tells you how spend their money. Harvard spends all their money on their school.
This seems to be “the bullshit way” that just squirms the conversation forward and I think encapsulates what makes me dislike MrBeast and YouTube culture overall.
Team Trees was like saying you're "helping" like a 5-year-old stopping a hurricane by playing in the sand with a teaspoon.
Helping would be genetically modifying seaweed to need less iron and making 1000's of robotic seaweed processing and disposal platforms.
Helping would be globally banning all forms of fossil fuel extraction.
Helping would be ending animal agriculture.
Helping would be not pied pipering people into a phony social movement that doesn't bridge the reality gap free from logic and data.
Truth is hard to hear, but necessary. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair: it is impossible to get someone to break through cognitive dissonance when it risks taking away their comfortable but omnicidally-unsustainable lifestyle. This is why climate change solutions cannot use democratic means, because people will never vote to put down their fork or cigarette even if they are dying from diabetes and losing their feet or breathing from an oxygen tank.
I don't get why people like charity so much. It basically just means that whoever manages to get a lot of money gets to choose who does or does not get money. I'd rather see all of this money go to a government and then democratically determine who gets the money so it really benefits society as a whole.
It's funny how "Mr. Beast" with no soul or content cares about others. He does charity because of tax write-off not because it benefits society. I once watched a video of his because of clickbait, and it was a waste of time targeting immature youth. He's all about hype and no substance.
His business seems like a wonderful one. He’s figured out how to make money but also help people.
Seems like most businesses make money but are either a net neutral or negative on the world.
I remember years ago raising money for a company called the AIDS Ride.
Every participant had to raise around $2500 to participate. The aidsride kept around half to support the bike riders (a trip from NY to Boston), and they gave half to an aids charity.
Seemed like a wonderful business to do so much good in the world and also make money (and as a rider I felt like I also got a lot out of the experience).
This seems similar. It’s not a charity. It’s a business. But one that takes advertising money, keeps some of it, and uses the other portion to help thousands of people.
Unpopular opinion, I respect him more than most channels for grownups that pretend to be “educational”.
Take LTT as an example. Their titles are extremely click bite-y. Linus and his team talk an awful bunch about their plans for YT but then their execution feels so cheap.
Mr. Beast instead uses titles that feel like click bites but then goes on explaining why that is true in the video, he doesn’t make a bunch of videos boasting about his media company and he is consistent in his production, at least on the main channel. I am not a fan of his content but wish there were more YouTubers with a solid vision on the platform.
Don't forget that fact that popular = bad. Anything popular is immediately seen as too "mainstream" or "forced" and consistent success begets accusations of favoritism, deceit or it's undeserved.
In semi-related news, a french twitch streamer, "Zerator", just learned that he will become "Knight of the National Order of Merit" which is an honorific title that
"rewards distinguished merits acquired either in a public, civil or military function, or in the exercise of a private activity during at least 10 years."
He is known for organizing a caritative event each year in France with a lot of french twitch streamers and content creator, where all donations go toa different non profit each year.
In the last edition (September 2022) they raised 10 182 126 euros !
I find MrBeast hollow and I doubt he can understand what creeps many of us out about his videos. It's very hard for me to put it into words as well.
His videos seem to reflect a generation that has lost hope and dignity. None of his subscribers care that his style of handout can't scale to a society, everyone want to be that person that gets a free Lambo just because they exist.
What I find most disturbing is how thin the veil of hyprocricy is, and yet still so many people fall for it.
I would be a lot less icked out by these videos if they weren't so succesful.
This is an income stream for him- is it really altruism if you make money off doing it? His "altriusm" doesn't really impact society at all. It is more targeted to individuals so he can make money off the videos going viral.
I mean, as an example - Keanu Reeves (IMO) is also altruistic and probably has had a far greater impact on society for the greater good than MrBeast, but no one ever talks about him. This is because Keanu doesn't talk about it, advertise it, or monetize it in the form of 'viral' videos.
It's the other way around for Mr. Beast, though. Keanu happens to have a huge load of money from doing other things like acting. And as a side note, he is widely talked about on various internet communities like Reddit and gets a huge amount of respect for being an awesome person. (I see much more about him on the internet than Mr. Beast to be honest -- Mr. Beast is mostly confined to the Youtube world.)
Mr. Beast, on the other hand, uses this charitable content creation model to make money to give away. If you remove the advertising, monetizing, etc., Mr. Beast has nothing to give away. That's the genius of the model.
Whether Mr. Beast is altruistic is the topic of 90% of this HN thread, and yet we'll never be able to answer it without knowing his true internal intentions. IMO, whether he's altruistic is irrelevant. He does so much more good for people than the vast majority of individuals or business that it seems odd to critique it.
To me, it's pretty awesome that someone found a way to hack the (often morally dubious) content creation business model into giving away a vast amount of the ad/sponsor income. Any other creator, that money funds the creator and production of content. And we don't typically complain about that, as long as we get entertaining/educational/artistic content we enjoy. (Some of our capitalist senses might even say it's totally fine to get rich off this model.)
Mr. Beast works within the exact same business model while also giving a huge amount of money away, in a way that a lot of people (though obviously not the HN crowd) enjoy. And yet we're complaining about that use of the content creator business model. But when no money is given away, it's fine?
What are we even critiquing!? I'm not even sure Mr. Beast himself would say that this model is truly altruistic. He has always been very transparent and honest about how it works.
I've always hated the social porn aspect of altruism. On one hand, you're doing a good thing by giving something of your own to someone in need, but on the other hand, you're using the publicity to boost your public image. I understand why people say the good side trumps the negatives, but to me it's just off. Watch Drake's music video for the song "God's Plan" and ask yourself if it's heartwarmingly nice, or social porn in the name of making Drake look good.
It isn't often that I can say that a New York Times Article was written well. By written well I don't mean that I agree with its conclusions or that what it has to say is important in some societal context. I simply mean that the author put his thoughts very eloquently and helped me understand the depth of his ideas with beautiful prose. This article was written well in a very fundamental writers skill kind of way!
I find arguments against Mr Beast on the basis of his charity not being properly altruiatic worth considering. I'd be curious to see what percent of his companies pre-"giving" profits are given away vs the equivalent numbers for other youtubers, corporations and even non-profits who also publisize thier "altruism".
Feels like those metrics would cut to the quick much better than soft pro con feelings.
I enjoy watching Mr. Beast's videos, like millions of other people. His videos have a wonderful childlike playful energy, where contestants play schoolyardesque games for the chance of big rewards. The losers usually still walk away with thousands of dollars. He does massive amounts of philanthropy in addition to the mainstream content. Are there really any criticisms of Mr. Beast other than get-off-my-yard snobbery?
I’ve always assumed it’s mostly fake, like damn near everything else. Is there any hard, actual proof that he actually gives away what he says he does? There doesn’t seem to be any reason to actual give away the money if you can so easily fake it and still get the views. It’s kind of a known YouTube scam, and I just figured MrBeast was the biggest.
I know it’s dark but reading some of the comments calling out how much money he has created for charities etc brought to mind Jimmy Saville, the good friend of King Charles made millions for charity throughout his life. If people get an ‘icky’ feeling about this man’s so called altruism, it’s understandable in this world.
Once I tried to watch some of his videos, and I thought it's just a trailer to the "actual video", but then no actual video came, it's just all like that
But it's fine I guess. People watched crappy reality shows in 2000s, now we have this stuff.
How is this any different to people being filmed on a game show where they can win millions of dollars if they answer questions correctly or complete challenges in a specific time. Those shows generate revenue by people watching them in the hope that people win against all odds or revel in the fact that they missed out on national television.
The difference here, is that this guy is doing it on Youtube and is a much larger impact on individuals lives.
A lot of people seem to agree that "the end justifies the means" with his charitable acts. That's what rubs people off imo. Imagine a porn star making vids to give to charity. Would people give equal praise to her?
This kind of attention-seeking is considered too easy, and too easy is usually not considered ethical. I wonder how many will imitate his deeds?
> Imagine a porn star making vids to give to charity. Would people give equal praise to her?
The only difference is the audience viewers don’t see the direct benefit of the charitable acts/contributions. I don’t see what the point of this comment/comparison is.
Good luck organizing a bunch of people to do literally anything in 60 seconds. Also don't see what the point was of having everyone on their knees. The whole story is just really dumb.
