Is Mr Beast a good person?
I know this is going to sound like some clickbait bullshit title, but I'm genuinely curious, asking in good faith. My two oldest sons are enamored with him, and he seems like a genuine guy, so I'm asking - is he a nice guy? If you google the question, you get a bunch of reddit hate, which I don't always trust, because...it's reddit. I have not watched much content (not my thing, I'm old) but I'm just curious what the fediverse has to say.
I only know him from the TeamTrees and TeamSeas projects. Using his huge viewer base to promote projects like this is one of the best possible things an influencer can do IMO.
I would ask a different question - is Mr. Beast a good role model for the kids or not? Whether he's a "good person" or not is largely irrelevant, the fact is he is doing good.
Personally I'm a big fan of his philathropy, but I don't think he makes for a good role model. He's found a way to influence and doing good for the world, but I don't think it's easily replicable nor should kids try to emulate him - because to be Mr. Beast, you need to be in the influencer / clout-chasing game, which can have roads that lead to success but at the end of the day, it's an endless game of trying to get eyeballs and capture attention.
I would encourage the kids to forge their own path and not necessarily emulate Beast, but try to make the types of impact he makes in the world.
kinda cringy, but seems like a nice guy.
sure, he does his philanthropy "for views" but that's what allows him to continue doing it.
not a fan of his, but he's alright.
He also does a lot of philanthropy that doesn't get made into content, which leads me to believe he is just a philanthropist. Making content out of it isn't negative in my mind anyway, it just allows more philanthropy to take place.
He is one of the kindest people you can find on social media. He has helped lots of people through financial and other means. Some say he's evil for recording and posting these acts of kindness but the views from his channels are what enable him to do these things. He also has a philanthropy channel named Beast Philanthropy.
Basically this, he does a lot of good stuff, but since he does it "for views" some people hate him/think he's "taking advantage of their situations."
IMO, he didn't make those situations, and he's providing an avenue for those situations to get resolved (even if maybe someone has to get "embarrassed" by virtue of appearing as the benefactor of one of his videos -- to be clear, he to my knowledge never does anything like "kiss my feat and I'll give you a million dollars" to these people).
Kind of one of those, "there's always going to be someone who doesn't like you" things; if you ask me, he's overall doing good.
General takeaway is: letting your kids be enamored by mr beast is teaching them to get clout. Teaches them that to do nice things, they must be recording themselves doing it. Its different if youre an adult that can think for themself
“If i cant record myself helping this person out then ill wait till i can find a camera.” Theres a good chance thats the type of thing your kids are gonna unconsciously think about.
I completely disagree. Mr beast genuinely does good. To say that you have to be completely selfless, and can't want anything in return from helping people is a good way to keep people from helping. Philosophy tube has a great video about just this. She'll be able to elaborate far better than I can.
I somehow agree with both of you. It's okay to do good things to feel good, but it's also not good to glamorize chasing clout.
Yeah but his general point about kids thinking nothing is worthwhile unless it is recorded goes far beyond philanthropy. Many times they’re thinking so much about how something will be filmed that they are never actually present for that something. Or they do only things that will film well because that’s how they register value. You can say that Mr Beast does well AND it’s not good for kids to watch those videos, and both can be true.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I stated at some point that this isn't a dichotomy, and there are legitimate concerns with the system he's playing into, but I think that those concerns exist without Mr beast. He may be feeding into a bad system, but at least the how of it is helping a significant number of people. Often, that's the best an individual can do.
It's an interesting dilemma. I don't disagree with anything you've said but, at the same time, Mr Beast is helping people, even if he's also personally benefitting. And the only reason he's in a position to help as many people as much as he does is because of his "clout" - without his platform and the sponsors he attracts, he wouldn't be able to have nearly as much of an impact as he does. And I'd rather influencers like Mr Beast exist than the Andrew Tate of the world, or the nasty "prank" influencers.
But, at the same time, you're right that it teaches people they'll be rewarded more if they wait until they're on camera before doing any acts of charity. If he can inspire people to do charitable things just for the the sake of helping make the world better then that's great, but if people are only doing charitable things for "clout" then it's definitely not ideal.
There's definitely not a black and white answer or solution. I think Mr Beast has a positive impact on the world overall, but there are definitely both good and bad things people could take away from watching his videos if they don't consider things correctly. It's something that touches on a number of philosophical subjects: capitalism, materialism, individualism versus collectivism, the influence of social media, external validation versus internal satisfaction, to name but a few.
The best thing OP can do is to teach their sons the nuances of it all.
I wish there were some way to know the net impact of this. Once helping the poor becomes entertainment, do people actually get up and go do it themselves anymore? Very often these days people don’t actually do things but rather watch others do them online. You can say sure that one person did get money and help, but what is the larger impact of this phenomenon? Are more people inspired to go give? Or do more people “get that itch scratched” and walk away from the video feeling all warm inside just from watching it? And what is the impact to the poor person of their publicity? This stuff is hard to know but I point it out to say there is more to it than “well one person did get help so it must be good.”
One thing it reminds me of is prosthetics viral videos. People love videos where a kid with one arm sees their new robotic prosthetic for the first time. We get all misty watching their excitement. But many people actually go on to have a crappy experience with their prosthetic. There’s one woman I heard on the radio who said she tried many of them and they were heavy, painful, and hard to make work right. She just prefers to use her stump now. And she wishes people would watch a video celebrating that, instead of everyone telling her she should get a cool robot arm. People are icked out by her stump and they all ask her why she doesn’t get a cool robot arm like in the video they saw.
Feelgood porn is problematic.
I agree with you, although I prefer this to “it’s just a prank bro” kinda stuff that kids see and want to do for “fun” and clout.
I feel like it might show them that doing nice things is a way to get attention. Maybe that'll encourage them to do nice things. Is probably more favourable than influencers that teach doing mean things is ok because it's on camera or it's funny or just a joke, and that being mean is a way to get attention. Though its important for children to know that attention isnt everything.
My personal take is that content creators and celebrities in general should never be judged as “people” in the sense that you might deem a teacher or a neighborhood kid as a “good” or “bad” influence. Rather, you should treat them as “media personalities”. Content creators are characters. They’re personas meant to drive engagement and clicks. Some achieve this by engaging in risky behavior or drama. Some just do wacky challenges. The motivation is the same in that the persona presented on the screen is a combo of the creator and the engagement from their community meant to drive up click rates and brand-building.
Mr Beast has kind of a “wacky semi-wholesome” image. Odd challenges and charities that hand out cash to random people for views. That’s a cynical take, but at the end of the day he’s a content creator, that’s it. If handing out free surgeries to correct childhood blindness didn’t drive engagement, he wouldn’t do it. If anything, the fact that his community is interested in seeing that project reflects more on them as people than on him.
So in my opinion the better questions for assessing his influence on your children are things like “why does his content appeal to you?” “What about his character do you find likable?” “What aspects would you want to emulate in your own life if you could?”
Again, just my personal view.
Ask yourself this: Does he offer the same "generosity" off camera ?
If not, then he's an actor who's only doing what he does to continue his acting career.
If your kids watch him because he's entertaining, then I wouldnt worry too much.
But if they are trying to emulate him (I.e. trying to garner internet clout by doing "good deeds", but only on camera), then that would worry me as a parent.
yeah. i heard many people are vastly different, depending if they are in front of a camera. i really wouldn't judge people by what the do and say when the camera is rolling.
I think deep down he is, although he has the moral compass of a 4 year old.
Edit - oh I thought you said Mr Bean
Tek Syndicate has a philosophical breakdown of Mr. Beast's content that's really interesting, but as far as being an example to your kids goes, it's a tough one. I think his charitable acts are fundamentally good, but the fact that he does them all on camera is fundamentally icky. He's a complicated figure. He's not using hate speech or indoctrinating kids into cults or anything, so he's clear of at least the bare minimum of alarming behavior. lol
Gonna preface by saying I'm not a Mr Beast fan and I've only watched about 2 of his videos...
But that said, the fact he films them and puts them online to millions of viewers is how he's able to do all of this. He likely couldn't keep doing this without the YT, sponsor, and merch income. While I agree that it's icky, it is definitely necessary to continue doing it.
He films them so he can earn money so he can do more good things
The camera portion is literally how he makes the money in the first place. The only way we'll really know for certain how he is beyond that is to see what he does with his money after "retirement".
I don't expect much, but it's pointless to guess about his actual character now.
He seems pretty genuine, but I can't watch his content because I personally find the cult of money... repelling?
I mean, obviously under capitalism money will have cult following, duh. But this stereotypical handing over tons of cash to someone and someone loosing all their shit makes me feel very uneasy.
We can go into big depths on how he's actually a corporate slave making his business on sponsorships instead of promoting big systemic changes, but that misses the case you make on how it affects kids.
On the kid side, he can be a somewhat good role model, a generous philanthropist sharing what he has to make people's lives better. I'd say the effect his may have on kids is mostly positive.
There is at least one video (maybe an interview, not necessarily on his main channel) where he talks out of character about how he runs the channel etc.
His on screen persona is just that, a persona. This is something your kids should understand (and they can, if you find one of those out of character videos).
That said, I believe Jimmy Donaldson (the person behind the on-screen persona) does genuinely seem like a good guy, who is also smart and knows how to run a successful business while entertaining people. He also talks a bit about clickbait and how he tries to not make it too extreme but has to play the game.
Depending on how old your kids are, it may also be worth talking about the business aspect (sponsors, merch, the various brands he creates, how Beast Burgers actually works with ghost kitchens etc., Feastables) - no need to criticize or put it in a negative light, just explain that it's also a business.
Wikipedia has some notes about controversies and criticism.
The main problem is that his videos are like "I saved 1000 kids from the orphan grinding machine!", and I'm just like, why is the orphan grinding machine even a thing.
Like when he restored sight to 1000 blind people. It's a good thing, but also, it's a drop in the bucket and why isn't public healthcare doing that for all blind people?
Yeah, I don't think your issue is with Mr Beast in this scenario lol
Right, there are a ton of systemic issues, but unfortunately someone like Mr beast can't really do anything about that. What he can do is his best within the system we have, and the resources and platform he has. He also seems like he genuinely wants to just help people. I think overall, he's pretty clearly a force for good given the totality of the situation.
Your problem with him is that he tries to help people that society isn't? That's a weird beef to have.
And that's fine. But given he can't just magic public healthcare, does that make his drop in the ocean "bad"?
Even if he is not the same person off camera, he's still helping a lot of people in his videos. Sure it might be to "make money" but he turns around and uses a large portion of that money to do more good things on camera in other videos. He does far more for others than the vast majority of people in this world.
I find him annoying, doesn’t mean I think he is a bad person.
I watched some really interesting video essays on him and his style and I think the general sense that his philanthropy is good holds true. I think there are two consequences of his videos and content that are negative and have had negative consequences for the rest of YouTube as channels copy his style. The first being the glorification of money and materialism as many videos feature expensive products and piles of money. While they are used in a positive way, they are promoted in a light which I think is negative especially for kids and which has created a genre of YouTube videos focusing on giving and spending huge amounts of cash. The second is the loud jumpy editing style which has spread similarly to copycats. That seems less existentially negative and more just annoying. But ultimately, I think he contributes good to the world, perhaps more in the way that Oprah does than a charity.
This comes down to the old debate over which philosophical framework is the basis for ethics and morality.
If you're a deontologist, you might say that Mr. Beast is not a good person because he intentionally exploits people when he provides medical care for someone, by uploading their reactions for engagement.
However, a consequentialist would say that the outcome is more important; the means by which people receive medical care is irrelevant, and in this case, their treatment essentially necessitates compensation via engagement.
Since it's not a financially good idea to be seen as a douche, I think it's in his best interest to put videos on the internet that look good- but is he really? Nobody knows that but him.
While it's obviously a different niche, unfortunately being a douche can also be very profitable.
Colin and Samir did and excellent behind the scenes hour long interview on Jimmy's life. He seems to be a genuine guy who just wants to do nothing but entertain. Check it out on YouTube.
The behind the scenes of his restaurant opening seems to show how he acts under stress, too, although I’m sure it was cut down a lot
I've never watched any of his content but I've been loosely following the discussion (so I'm clearly more than qualified to comment and have my opinion be taken entirely serious).
What he does is obviously fantastic for the individual people receiving help, whether he does it out of genuine concern or for the attention. There are however concerns that he's (involuntarily) distracting from efforts to actually fundamentally change stuff about how our society works. Nothing he does goes to the root of any issues, it's just treating symptoms.
And he literally recreated Squid Game. I don't know wtf to think about that.
I don't think that it boils down to him being a good or bad person. Is Jimmy the person who hit upon the idea of giving g money away to his mom a good person? Probably as much as anyone generally is. Is Mr. Beast the self promotion based, overexagerated youtube personality a good person? Is he even meant to be?
I think the best analogy is that the shows he produces are a lot like reality television. In that way they are based off the appeal of watchung people display "real" and "authentic" emotional reaction that you just can't get out of actors. But behind the scenes, those are produced and somewhat manipulated to provoke these reactions, and that is the dishonest aspect of it. And while what he is doing is honestly not as bad as most reality television, I do think it is powered by that same kind of dishonesty.
I don't think it is bad for children to watch this stuff, but I think you do have to explain how many subscribers he has and how many people watch his videos, and that the people he involves in his videos is such an astronomically small percentage of people. Kids seem really susceptible to "sweepstakes" stuff - I know I was as a kid. But my parents did a good job of explaining to me how I probable it was for me to win that stuff without judging me for wanting to.
I still think the best way to engage with children's interest is to try to understand it, and then helping them understand more about the world.
he seems mostly well-intentioned, and probably won't be a terribly bad influence on your kids, moreso than any other algorithm slurry youtube videos, so on that scale he's probably fine for your kids to watch
if we were trying to assess his overall morality it would get into "is clickbait millionaire philanthropy an ethical way to spend your wealth" territory, which is a huge can of worms that's difficult to find a solid answer for
I would say he is good enough. He does a lot of philanthropic work and most of his videos are at least "neutral". He doesn't promote hate, discrimination, or spout other nonsense. Yes, he is earning money with his videos but there is nothing wrong with that. Just because his main form of entertainment is about giving away money, doesn't make it bad or evil. There are tons of game shows out there that give away money that aren't criticized. How is it any different from something like "Deal or No Deal"? It's still about making giving money entertaining.
He is still a businessman and not all of his decision can be considered "ethical". For example, his Beast Burger is a rather big money grab and promoted a bit misleading. It's a Ghost Kitchen Franchise managed by one of the biggest Ghost Kitchen company out there. But it was promoted as him actually "opening" 300 restaurants. While in reality, existing restaurants just started serving Beast Burgers under the Beast Burger franchise. In Interviews, he is more honest about this but I would say a lot of customers have the wrong impression of what's really going on.
He uses private jets, which are bad for the environment. That's a legitimate point to criticize him but I wouldn't say that makes him a bad person. I wouldn't call him a saint but as far as influencers/entertainers go, he is definitely not near the bottom of the barrel either. And even compared to most regular people he is somewhere around average.
I think he does good things for the wrong reasons but I don't think that takes away from all the kind things he's done. So maybe?
My son watches him so I made a point of checking in. Making a business by doing good things for people sounds like a dream come true has a lot of positive. For one, there's not a lot of good roll models out there for my kid. I don't know if he's genuine but he's way better than some of the alternatives kids are getting sucked into.
I think most "reddit style" hate for him (ie denigrating his "clout chasing") is worthless, but there is valid criticism to be had about his content. Not because he himself is evil or anything, but he is definitely a force of aggressive "centrism" that maintains an arguably unethical status quo. He feeds the hungry without asking why they are hungry, and ultra online types see this as a negative influence on society due to his popularity
From his own personal content I haven't seen a single thing that would indicate otherwise though I'm not entirely up to date with what he's made. I think the majority of people who no longer directly work with Mr. Beast had nothing negative to say about him when they parted ways.
I think that's been my reservation about Mr Beast. I don't have an issue with him recording his good deeds or whatnot. I've just been concerned that when you put someone up there ... They'll come out with some controversy down the road.
So I've never been a fan of Mr Beast, mainly because his videos aren't my thing. I'm not a hater neither.
If all is on the up and up, and like you said, so far no one's said anything negative ... then more power to him. He's also quite young, so he should have a good amount of leeway too.
I let my kids, 8 & 9 watch his videos every once and a while. Out of most of the YouTubers out there he is the least problematic iny opinion. For the most part though I only allow educational stuff on YouTube with the occasional fun channels. Snake Discovery and anything about guitars are huge around here.
Definitely better than Andrew Tate from what I've seen. While he's clearly a very savvy clout chaser, and he's overtaken Pewdie Pie as the most popular YouTuber, he has made a serious effort towards philanthropic acts. The fact that he's using these acts as a marketing tool to further increase his influence is clearly intentional, but he's doing real good with his clout. He's also shown considerable evolution throughout his career, including:
...and...
This isn't to say he's perfect, but he's a helluva lot better than some other personalities your kids could be listening too.
Overtaking PDP without being a flaming bigot like his predecessor makes him at least ok in my book.
Yes there is substantial criticism to be made. No, he did not pay people in third world countries to hold up signs with antisemitic texts.
It’s a low bar, but that’s the bar.
Being better than Andrew Tate is like, the lowest possible bar that I could think of.
That's my position as well. He does good, even if it's for self serving reasons, it's still good being done, but I don't know enough about him as a human being to make a statement either way.
So he's a fascist. If you have 11 people trying not to alienate a fascist, you have 12 fascists.
Refusing to take a side when one side has made the extermination of swaths of the population their stated policy goal is taking the side of oppression.
While I agree with your sentiment, it's not applicable in this context. He's stating a simple factor of most charity work (something I'm familiar with working in the non-profit world when I was younger). If you alienate your donators, you lose their donation. The easiest way to alienate someone is to declare a political stance, and the clumsiest way to do so is to do it by declaring an allegiance to a party rather than describing your support or opposition to policy specifics.
Ideological purity always conflicts with the tactical application of positive change. As an example, what would the US Senate look like if Franken hadn't resigned? What could have been accomplished? What positive changes were prevented? What would the Supreme Court look like now?
Secondly, your hyperbole obfuscates the fact that most Republicans are not pro-genocide, rather, extremists within their party are. Additionally, the identification of Republican or Democrat goes further than political identification in America - it's a cultural identification as well, one that splits along rural / urban lines. I know a number of rednecks from high school who are great guys, shoot their guns, love their gay and brown friends, support abortion, give to charity, and publicly identify as conservatives who hate Democrats... even when on a policy level, they agree with most progressive politics. A big factor in this is the conservative media landscape, which has actively fostered this level of cognitive dissonance, but that doesn't address the question of "how do you convince people to help you do good if they don't agree with your politics?"
Is it better to declare your politics and lose the donations that would allow you to do good?
Or is it better to keep your politics private, accept donations from all comers, and use those resources to make the world a better place?
In my opinion, the best path (and the one Mr. Beast appears to be following) is a middle ground. Don't declare your politics, accept donations, but if a donor has an agenda that conflicts with your politics or morals (like publicizing the donation to whitewash their reputation), reject them on a case by case basis. This lays out your support or opposition in specific instances rather than aligning your actions to the whims of a political party, and thus risk being aligned with the views of extremists within that party.
There is no moderate wing of a party which caucuses with people who proffer genocide as a policy position.
10 people having dinner with 1 nazi is 11 nazis and a party that has members pushing genocide is a genocidal party.
Legitimizing genocide as a "political belief" by refusing to call out, "We should do a genocide!" as bad is itself doing a bad.
Again, you're not acknowledging the reality of the non-profit world or donor behavior. You also conflate my examples with the most hyperbolic policy as a defense of ideological purity on party lines, when in my comment I precisely draw out that policy specifics should and can be challenged on a case by case basis.
In other words, you're avoiding the context of the argument and repeating the old "if one nazi enters a bar, it's a nazi bar" trope, which simply doesn't apply in this scenario.
For instance, I am Democrat with $500k to donate. I am not a communist. If you were a white male conservative, running a charity to help the homeless, would you turn down my donation because of my possible communist ties? There are certainly Democrats that are communists, and many of them hold extreme views that would curtail the rights that you currently enjoy. Does accepting my donation make your charity a communist supporting organization? Is it worth losing out on the chance to do $500k worth of good to tell me to fuck off because you don't like my politics? Is it worth kicking out all of your Democratic donors to make a point?
No. It's an absurd conflagration of hyperbole, ideology and over-reaction to extreme views that the donor could possibly accept. There's no conversation as to whether the donor actually holds the views you oppose - you simply assume they do because they hold a party identification that conflates politics with regional and culture, and judge them on it without attempting to understand their actual political views or taking into account the positive impact you can make if you find common ground.
And assumption is the path to failure in any endeavor.
The only reality I need to acknowledge is that genocide is bad.
One party is currently enacting genocide and should be made to feel bad about that.
You can feel however you want about propping up the Non-Profit Industrial complex with money sourced from puppy kickers. Your "pragmatism" doesn't make genocide ok, nor does it render a refusal to call it out as anything but harmful moral cowardice.
Harmful.
Refusing to shun evil does real world harm.
Legitimizing evil as not evil because "evil money spends" bolsters evil.
Reducing opposing genocide to "ideological purity" is flippant, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing it.
The fact that the only reality you acknowledge is one you choose puts you in the same bracket of comprehension of those you oppose. An inability to consider oppositional viewpoints is the hallmark of a fanatic.
The world is not made up of good and evil people. No matter how hard you search, you will never find someone who has done only good, or someone who has done only evil. The world is made up of people who do good and evil things. The hardest challenge in this world is encouraging people who do mostly evil things to start doing good things, mainly because the evil things that people do make them rich and powerful.
You can't do that if you're not willing to find common ground. Assuming someone is pro-genocide removes your capacity to find that common ground and work cooperatively. It isolates both of you, leaving neither the wiser and creates a net negative for both parties. On the other hand, working from a stance of knowledge, action, and proven fact rather than assumption allows not only the immediate benefits of cooperative action, but lays the groundwork for discussing and exploring the policies you don't agree on in further detail, and encourage the other participant to see your viewpoint.
You can't encourage people to do better if you won't have a conversation with them, and no conversation is going to be productive if you assume the other person is evil.
Finally, your insinuation that I find genocide "ok" is a repulsive misreading of my statement in a transparent attempt to justify your unwillingness to engage with the argument in a constructive manner. At no point did I justify not calling out genocide. You conflated Republicans with genocide, which is subject to wide debate even amongst the most liberal of circles. It's not moral cowardice to acknowledge this - it's an analysis of the state of the Republican party.
In conclusion, it's not a charity's job to make someone feel bad about themselves - a charity's job is to do good.
Given your language and dedication to calling people out for the most extreme positions of their party, it's clear you've chosen the former.
Why do you want to find common ground with people who are actively engaging in genocide?
There is certain ground you shouldn't want to be in common with.
Certain positions you just oppose.
You are carrying water for people who want good friends of mine executed and you should stop doing that.
A charity's job is to get donations.
He said:
You said:
The whoosh of his point going over your head can be head from states away.
You'll have to include whatever point you think you're making there too.
I'm not the one who made genocide the official party platform, nor am I someone who seems to think a person can vote for a party doing a genocide while remaining morally inculpable for doing so.
Do you know his views on fascism, or are you simply saying you classify all republicans as facists?
What are you doing right now?
A party openly embraces fascism, throws anti-queer pro-insurrection planks in its official platform and you're back-and-forthing about if it's "ok" an 'I Like Ike' button was found among great uncle gerald's personal effects.
Why is that the side of the scale you feel needs weight?
For context, polling shows that around 50% of republicans support the Jan 6 insurrection in some way.
Now, I’m not an American, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do know that simply painting all the supporters of a party as fascist, when many of those supporters have deep concerns about that party’s direction of travel is not the way to get them to jump ship.
Sure, it makes you feel good about yourself, and let’s you stoke your righteous hatred, but it just paints those people as irredeemably evil, shuts down debate and makes it harder for them to switch.
If "you're caucusing with nazis" makes a person nazi harder, that person was always a fash.
How, when they can always leave the dinner table?
Ehhhh. He engages in a mix of pity porn and charity-as-self-promotion/criticism shield. Never trust a wealthy person's donations when they have their name attached to them; there's always a reasonable chance that they came with strings. Doubly so when those donations are to charities they actively control.
I can appreciate that he's funnelled his money into things people actually need, instead of into grants so charities can buy supplies from tech companies he's invested in, but it's still PR, not philanthropy.
If you publicise your philanthropy to gain my support for your philanthropy, does that magically make you non-philanthropic?
Yes. Yes it does.
It's not charity then. It's paid advertising.
Charities do a lot of paid advertising.
This is it right here.
Thats narrow minded, it can be both
That's naive. Leaving the rich in a position to "save" the poor is nothing more than enabling a power fantasy for them. It leaves them with all of the power and control.
Do you think the people who get the help see it the same way, or is just us privileged folk who feel uneasy?
Exploiting others for self promotion is always going to cause more overall harm than good.
How?
By that thinking Bill Gates has done nothing but harm, yet he has done leaps and bounds for health research. They're one of the few reasons malaria is even getting research money. He's probably a narcissistic ass, and I'm sure he's partially supporting the foundation for taxes/clout, but he's actually saved the lives of people. If they want to spend their millions and billions on helping people for clout, then go for it. It's better than whatever the fuck Musk is doing.
Exactly, it's like Jeff Bezos thinking the best he can do with his money is go to space.
Regardless of the motivation, surely if that money is going to a better cause that will help others that's a good thing
The last sentence feels a little “perfect being the enemy of the good.” Outside of wanting purity of intention, what is the issue here, if the result is people being helped?
It reinforces the system that leave people needing help, and draws attention away from the need for changing that system.
People are getting helped, but none more so than the one getting good PR. And that's not charity, or philanthropy. That's just marketing.
We don't need more marketing. And relying on the graces of self-helping benefactors isn't "being helped". It's being financially abused.
None of this is ever going to change until regular people start voting for their own betterment, at least in America. There are more of us than them, but half of us are trapped in the idea that we're going to be millionaires someday. Or apathy.
I think he does good work. Does that inherently make him a good person? Who's to say? None of us know him as a person, we only know him as a personality. We know about him only what he chooses to publish about himself, like most other celebrities.
Some people think that the fact that he only does good deeds on camera makes him a bad person. I think this is a short-sighted judgement, because his money comes from content creation. Without it, he wouldn't have the funding to spend on helping people in the first place. Is it exploitative of already-vulnerable people? Yeah, a little bit, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that those people he helped still got assistance from him that they couldn't afford on their own.
I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing the good deeds you do. If it funds future good deeds, and brings awareness that might make other people also contribute, then I think that's overall a net positive.
All that said, his burgers are trash.
I don't know what kind of person he really is, but I do know that there are tons of scammers that pretend to be him and are ripping off young folks. So your boys should be super careful around him and alleged giveaways.
To me he always seemed off and disingenuous.
No
I would say so. He did csgo gambling videos in the past, but that doesn't qualify for me as being bad.
Insane work ethic, for sure!
Probably, but idk the guy. I just know his as seen on Tv persona.
I get some of the criticisms of his videos, but people who have a major hate on for him kind of amuse me - like he as done more to help more people than most of us ever will and I kind of feel like most of the haters haven't done much for anyone else themselves. Also if my kids are going to end up looking up to someone in this world, there are far far worse youtubers and influencers they could be inspired by.
I've personally been fascinated by the get money->give it away->get more money->Give it away content engine he's produced.
He's very unthreatening at least.
It would be good to know. But then Austin does it matter? There are plenty of terrible celebrities, as long as they are putting out decent role modelling for the kids, they get to keep their private life
He's certainly a big ass clickbait bullshitter, which is enough for me to hate him and block his channel.
Ah yes, the king of poverty porn.
Wrapping it up in warm fuzzies doesn't make it any less exploitative. Don't be confused - he is in it to make money, the people he helps are nothing but props to him, and people like him do nothing to solve the problems they claim to care so much about, they've just found a sympathetic way to profit from them while deepening the problem (because if we can't even treat fellow poor people as humans, not props, what hope do we have of uniting against those who exploit us?).
He is not a good roll model. Teach your kids real compassion (which includes among other things understanding that people who are less fortunate still deserve privacy and respect), teach them that kindness doesn't need to be broadcast or be produced (because that's what those videos are - productions), it is something we should all be engaging in all of the time, even, or actually especially, when no one is watching, not because we want more likes and followers. Teach them that if they're that impressed with his efforts, just imagine what they could do if they actually went out and volunteered or otherwise contributed themselves. That'd be significantly better not just for them, but for your whole community.
OP's question was "Is Mr. Beast a good person?" and the answer to that is exceedingly gray and hard to pin down. He does a hell of a lot of philanthropy, but he does it by exploiting people. Do the ends justify the means? One could argue either way.
To the more narrow question that you're posing, "Is he a good role model for OP's sons?" the answer is HELL NO, HE EXPLOITS POOR PEOPLE.
I'm not saying there isn't some truth to your post, but it lacks so much perspective that it's off-putting. There are actual content creators out there spreading misinformation and dangerous ideas. Not using his platform in the exact way you want doesn't make him a bad person or influence on his viewers. You clearly have a very dogmatic world view and I'm sure you would say this about almost any content creator.
Talk about lacking perspective lmfao... 😂
Being an exploitative profiteer who only has a platform due to being an exploitative profiteer
maybe not intentionally or in his own eyes, no, but his actions and the impact of his brand of garbage tell a different story
Yeah, it does, that's kind of part of the problem
says the person licking the boot and pretending everything about this is fine lmfao
if they were making money by exploiting others for gain? Yeah, I would, because that's an actively shit thing to do.
I think you have some valid points, but they all break down when you realize that, in order to continue providing the very real philanthropy he does, he HAS to have a revenue stream. And it seems like feeding his philanthropy back into the system to generate money, to do more philanthropy is a pretty good use of the systems we have in place currently.
There are plenty of people who would do similar things, and then just pocket whatever and fade into the sunset. Mr beast is essentially doing what people always praised billionaire philanthropists but he's doing it more, and smarter.
And the exploiting them that you're talking about, that's giving them cash and cars and stuff? Just trying to be clear on what you're choosing to be upset about and what you are choosing to use YOUR platform for. The rest is just you throwing spaghetti at the wall.
I think the fact that when challenged you instantly said this this says it all about you and the way you choose to judge people. Which is by just inventing whatever fiction suites your narrative and then insisting that is true because you said it. Someone saying "Mr. Beast is not actually literally hitler" is all it takes for you to assume and fill in the blanks for everything else. It takes zero evidence, zero knowledge of a subject or person for you to feel you have the moral authority on it. That's who you are. Reminds me of those reddit guys who ruined all those lives after the Boston bomber.
Mr Beast is fine. His content is fine for kids to watch, that is his demo. He demonstrates that doing good things with the money you have is the best thing to do. Mr Beast gets a lot of flack for his videos but as far as online entertainers go, he’s a good one. Are his videos entertaining to me? No. Are they entertaining to millions of others? Yes. Is he a negative influence on children? No. The only real PUBLIC criticism for Mr Beast is he supports LGBTQ people and his video “exploit” medical problems of people.
Edit since it seems people think me mentioning he supports LGBTQ. Criticism for his support for Chris exists in the world. OP didn’t mention their politics, I mentioned the two things Mr Beast has received criticism for in the public space.
What's wrong with supporting LGBT people?
Conservatives complaining about them, that's who
Yeah holy shit that was such a sudden turn this has to be a joke
There isn’t anything wrong with it, but OP didn’t mention their politics. It is a fair warning for someone asking about an influencer they don’t know much about.
The fact that you mention LGBT folks as if they're a problem or whatever is problematic.
I did edit to clarify, the criticisms I was mentioning were intended as public criticisms. Which both were true. I can understand how you might have assumed I meant my own personal criticism.