MrBeast has become a viral sensation for his acts of altruism
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
No, only the corrupted ones.
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 know about these foundations, maybe it is mostly funded by governments/EU funds, whatever instead, but there is good research out there.
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.
Would you start a burger business without quality control? Would you let random companies put your name on crap? That’s shady.
Not sure I agree it’s shady, egregious maybe.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Giving time, care, an ear to listen is really valuable.
These things make big differences because it’s often what people pay money for too
Giving is not just for after earning lots of money.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"There's a guy on YouTube and he just gives people money. That's how I'm going to get money!"
"I don't think that's a great strategy because (broad discussion)."
"But he might choose me!"
"I don't think your odds are great."
"But it's possible. You didn't say it was impossible!"
"I think we need to discuss this when I'm not also trying to drive in peak-hour school traffic."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who then would pay for their pimp-mobile and bling, and the upkeep of the ho's?
In doing good, Mr Beast bring to light the uncomfortable lack of support we provide as a society.
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.
Keep on working on fixing our system, but it doesn’t make sense to complain that others aren’t when you are extremely unlikely to succeed.
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 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."
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.
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.
The same uncomfortablenesses would arise if this were videos of some govt leader going around granting early retirement to people.
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.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/pookleblinky/status/1309325764739858432?...
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.
YMMV.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
orphan crushing machine
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> ... 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!
> Ha ha ha.
Is that the standard by which you judge all leisure activities?
Your are supposed to educate them and give them values, not be a victime of some random youtuber hit videos.
Not to juge but as a parent you can have so much positive influence...
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.
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.
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.
Your downvotes don't matter to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's all about repugnant materialism and self-promotion
Now apply same standard to literally any other Youtube channel
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 agree there is something icky (discussed in the article) but it’s weird to say zero impact.
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.
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.
Two different concepts that should be looked at separately.
True. Which is why a lot of people recognize this and perform acts of charity anonymously.
I don't mean to say there is anything wrong with non-anonymous donations by the way.
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!
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?
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.
As for the puppy, try this: replace it with a black widow spider drowning in a toilet. How many people will save it now?
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.
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...
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."
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.
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.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/imperfect-spirituali...
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)
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.
Like those act of kindness videos on YouTube with millions of views and earning the creators thousands of dollars.
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.
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.
Put your comment in context.
I feel like you meant the opposite. . .
Sure he is extremely generous to his employees, but that would also fall under altruism...
I mean I googled "mr beast merch shop" and now I'm pretty sure it does, so dunno why you throw that claim without checking literally anything
Afaik, all of MrBeast's stuff is conducted with the rule that at least 1 person is going to win the jackpot.
The most famous game shows of all time don't work this way.
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?
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.
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.
And they can tell people MrBeast was the reason.
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?
There are at least 1000 people in the US right now, probably far more, who have just as much money or influence as him.
What's stopping all of them from going to that next step?
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 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?
What's stopping you or anyone else?
> 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.
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,
Ehh. You probably wouldn't?
Unlike a lot of people like yourself who just say a bunch of brain dead vapid shit that gets nothing done.
All people need to do is vote for the change they want to see if you want to see societal change. Yet they don’t.
It’s that simple. Not my problem people don’t show up.
There are maybe 100k super rich people in USA. 300 million everyone else.
I think "philanthropy" in the sense GP meant it specifically means donating money, so Richard Stallman's work wouldn't qualify.
There are no more controversial example than him.
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.
The guy took 1000 blind people and made them see again and in return he made more money to continue doing more good.
There's giving a man a fish and then there's giving people their vision back, far out.
Quick nitpick: if you think RMS haven't milked the "free software" cow enough, you're probably delusional. Its basically his lifestyle.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism
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.
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.
One doesn't preclude the other. But if my benefit is a pre-requisite for the benefit of others, it changes the dynamic.
Would Mr. Beast continue these acts if he weren't also turning it into content? I'm sure everyone has an opinion, but I'm not particularly convinced.
I suppose what makes it hard to be skeptical here is there is real "good" being applied here, but the motivations behind them are important, too.
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.
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 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.
Shocking question, but here's an answer: millions of non-billionaires who donate some money to [good] charities.
You never hear from them because they don't go around bragging about their donations.
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 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?
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.
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?
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?"
It might, there's only one way to know.
Good lord, y'all are just never satisfied with charity work.
"Mr Beast literally cured blindness for a thousand people and gave them a bunch of money, no strings attached."
"Yeah but he did it for views!"
So what?! He markedly improved 1000 peoples' lives in the process. What have YOU done today?
Get over yourselves.
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?
Do you think girl scouts are scumbags too?
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
Learning about the different types of social enterprise, it’s not uncommon for for profit ventures to incorporate aspects.
Still, some of this can come down to sour grapes that earning money can disproportionately and more sustainably be used for good than normal.
Uniqlo's core business is apparel. They buy in massive bulk. Mr Beast buys in maybe tens of thousands.
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.
Ref: https://www.uniqlo.com/jp/ja/products/E458468-000/00?colorDi...
https://www.uniqlo.com/jp/ja/men/tops/sweatshirts-and-hoodie... 2990 yen and up for regular price.
That's still only about $20 and up, so right there is a factor of 2x between Japan and the US.
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.
I thought the discussion here was about cataract surgery.
Australia has "free if you're poor and can wait" o/wise relatively cheap depending on your private health insurance.
https://www.finder.com.au/cataract-surgery-costs
Working vision correction to avoid glasses | contacts is purely elective in .au
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.
I'd wager that small referral fees in Australia amount to considerably less than surgery costs in countries with no socialised health care systems.
You’re kidding yourself if you think people on HN are contributing anything to better society.
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
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.
Just like many other celebrities that continue to make money of their lifestyle which isn’t something to applaud.
I believe Snoop Dog did his fair share of charity but I definitely don’t applaud his endeavors in pornography and drugs.
On the other hand I don’t have any idea if mr.Beast spends money on hookers.
But if I would choose which content should be more available on the internet I’d go with me.Beast not Snoop Dog.
Maimonides has a different viewpoint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah
Is it better to give privately, knowingly kneecapping your capacity to do so again in the future?
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.
If Mr. Beast steals money to donate it I'd be against it regardless of motive.
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 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
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.
Does that have to be a thing? If he was growing vegetables for his neighbours or his community wouldn't we be going 'what a top bloke'?
-->
"This guy is a champion of generosity, a paragon of goodness. I admire him so much." --people like you, and other children
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
It’s not a competition; OPs view is not yours.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So he donates mainly to please God, not to help others.
Don't overthink it too much, yo.
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?
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.
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.
[1] https://jacobin.com/2021/10/philanthropy-is-a-scam
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
[3] <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#:~:text=This%20i...>
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.
I hope you find some optimism in your life.
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.
Btw he is not "earning money by helping people", he is "helping" people to earn money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that really altruism ? It sounds more like a business deal to me.
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.
I know i wouldn't, i would just feel like shit. Because it is shity.
I'd rather have him keep doing silly video and dedicate 10% of his revenues to non-profit, period, no filming, totally anonymously.
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.
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.
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 .
I agree with what you typed there, even though based on the rest of the context, it's probably not what you meant to type.
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
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.
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.
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?
He’s effectively transferring dollars from large advertisers to poor Americans. Very unlikely he would be doing this at all if not for YouTube.
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.
All of history so far.
It is a very far cry to suggest that people watching his videos are "being more charitable" by doing so.
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.
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
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.
Truly, never celebrating altruism and celebrating Mr. Beast's bullshit are the only two choices.
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.
I don’t see why it has be done with the utmost anonymity for it to count
I dont think i 'm jealous because i would never do something similar, i just find it unethical
How does one can acquire money in the first place without recieving money from other people?
Does your money should appear from nowhere, so you will become "true" philanthropist?
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?
Please explain why you think its weird.
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.
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.
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.
> "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.
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.
Talk about grasping at straws. Seriously?
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.
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.
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.
if they are incapable of doing so on their own, then i very much believe that they are entitled to help.
the reverse is the problem. people believing that they have no responsibility to help others who are not capable to support themselves.
as a society we do have that responsibility.
It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be
not where i come from.
Schools definitely not
education is a human right, and must be available to everyone regardless of their financial means.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't many people call this "learning"?
The difference between the flower TikTok’s is that the contestants in his video signed up for it.
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.
There's a comparison to be made to choosing to stay in the matrix or unplug yourself from the illusion.
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.
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?
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.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-rem...
Those are just recommendation algos, they are not specifically want to annoy you.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A1...
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.
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.
Giving it to poor people, even if not from pure generosity, is far from the worst thing he could be doing.
There is no margin. The money eventually ends up in the hands of people that wouldn’t have otherwise had it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Also, this isn't strictly a Christian concept, but similar ideas exist in
Judaism: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256321/jewish...
Buddhism: https://www.learnreligions.com/perfection-of-giving-449724
Islam: https://www.quranexplorer.com/blog/Education-In-The-Light-Of...
Hinduism: https://www.hindupedia.com/en/Ideals_and_Values/Charity_and_...?
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.
Did you even watch the video in question? It was very much not based entirely in the US.
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.
Most people have health insurance in the US (92.5% of Californians have health insurance, for example).
Things are not as bad in the US as people often claim.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36276100
we may not have literal serfs (well, we do still) but hierarchical command under threat of violence is alive and kicking
Maybe it's my immaturity as a 21 year old, but I love Mr. Beast videos. Whenever I remember he exists, I go to his channel and watch a few videos.
The videos are super high quality. Instead of spamming like a lot of YouTubers do, he invests a lot into each video.
Are we going to start criticizing doctors next because they're saving lives to get paid?
A doctor is a profession, unless doing charity work, the act of being a doctor is not philanthropy.
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.
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.
> 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.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/mrbeast-inspiration-porn...
It looks like, in the USA, children with an IEP qualify under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) https://www.understood.org/en/articles/at-a-glance-free-and-...
Also, it appears at least in some states, those with Medicaid would also qualify.
Very on the money.
On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33016185
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.
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.
Good for him for having elevated doing good things to an art form.
Though I did enjoy this dark gory horror version of him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV7ef2Y0bcE (a genre that is surprisingly popular and snowcloned)
What percent does he give to charity? And how is it audited?
How does he compare to top charities?
Step 2) provide no evidence
Step 3) ask others to provide evidence
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can I think of a thousand worse ways that people make money every day?
I sure can.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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.
It's also pretty hilarious to boot.
Edit: he made a follow-up LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VRKJthNmWw
Feels like those metrics would cut to the quick much better than soft pro con feelings.
What do people think about YouTube's Pleasant Green and "The Story of Chikaordery"? Ref: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLeykLlB1Bftscawq_q1u...
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.
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?
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.