Hacker News Reader

Comment by sweeter | Hacker News Reader

I think the authors intention was to pull any positives from this document that they could, but it seems almost negligent to not even mention the "no doesn't mean no" section of this document. As well as the context of the current ongoing gigantic mess, where Mr Beast tortured a guy while doing a "I spent X Hours in Solitary Confinement" video, and had to scrap it after the contestant was harmed.

They refused to shut the lights off for days on end and then coerced the contestant to run a literal marathon on a treadmill... and then there's the sexual abuse allegations high up in his team, hiring a convicted child predator and someone else with a long sexual abuse criminal history, among other things. I'm not sure I would talk his business practices up without directly making some kind of distinction or acknowledgement here.

View on HN

I didn’t try to extract positives, I extracted what I personally found most interesting.

I skipped the “no doesn’t mean no” section because it felt like pure hustle culture to me, not to mention something which wouldn’t work outside of MrBeast because they can lean so heavily on their brand - “find an employee who has a kid who is a fan” etc.

I didn’t actually spot the relationship between the “no means no” section and the sexual abuse scandals (I’m apparently not completely up to date on MrBeast scandals) - I caught the bit about squid game and though that would be a useful thing to highlight to remind people that MrBeast’s history isn’t without its nasty incidents.

You didn’t spot the relationship with the “no doesn’t mean no” stuff because as you said in the next sentence, you skipped it. Nice one.

> You didn’t spot the relationship with the “no doesn’t mean no” stuff because as you said in the next sentence, you skipped it.

No, it was because I had not read the news about MrBeast having a sexual predator on his team. My interpretation of the earlier comment here was that this should have been a flag that the heading “no doesn’t mean no” should have been called out.

Without that knowledge of the current predator scandal, I don’t think I was wrong to skip that section when writing up my summary. I read that section and it didn’t make my “highlights” list for when I wrote about the document.

I’m being defensive here because it sounds like you are calling me out for something, but I’m not sure what that something is.

Fair, it wasn’t clear to me that you meant “skipped writing about it” - I thought you were just some rando that was commenting on something that they skipped over reading in the article (which I now understand you wrote). Sorry for the misunderstanding!

sigh skip as in skipping to write about it in the blog

you empower your employees with a mindset of "no doesn't mean no" and have them get results with pushback on no's. they are young kids mostly, don't you think that they will apply the same learned mindset the next time a girl tells them no?

Honestly I think the biggest problem with that section is the choice of title. I don’t think we would be having this conversation if that part of the document was titled “If someone says something is impossible, always try to explore and see if there are alternatives ways we can get it to happen instead”.

When a big chunk of your business is about filming ludicrous stunts that nobody else on YouTube has been able to film it’s understandable that this idea would end up in your employee handbook.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com