"Mr. Beast built his channel by taking all profits from each video and plying it into the next video"
To me this seems like a semi-obvious minmaxing solution to making popular videos: make essentially zero profit, regardless of revenue. At some point you get so much revenue that you can't spend it all so the next logical step is to simply give it away as part of the video. And in this case it's a virtuous cycle - apparently giving away money generates more revenue so it just keeps going. But this doesn't strike me as being done out of any noble purpose - all he wants is YT view and charity is just a side-effect of that.
"How can you watch the video where he pays for the blindness surgery for all those people and say that that was anything other than an amazing win for all those nice people?"
My criticism would be that it's local change vs trying for structural change. Why don't those people already have access to surgery? The counter-argument to this would be that structural change is somewhere between very hard and impossible, so just spend the money locally. A more cynical take is that lobbying for restructuring the US health care system doesn't generate YT revenue, so he's incentivized to fund the most clickbaity charity projects.
> But this doesn't strike me as being done out of any noble purpose
Money given away doesn't have to have a "noble purpose", the act is good in itself. The people receiving it don't care about motive, I don't care about motive, and the only reason you care about motive is because you're threatened by another person doing good. There's no virtue inherent to giving anonymously. A piece of food or a warm house don't care about the intentions of the original owner of the money.
In fact the only reason I could see for someone pushing a narrative of "only some donations are good because of motive" would be to discourage donations, which I'm not sure why anyone would do unless they are utterly evil.
Pablo Escobar gave free money away. Would you take the money? He also built schools.
Motive matters. His intents were to build loyalty masked as charity. MrBeast is building (or has built) something else, masked as charity.
I hope MrBeast never stop giving away money and curing people, but there are some considerations to make here, and not just taking as granted the reasons the very same person doing charity is clearly trying to transmit.
What you are talking about is accepting stolen funds or goods. That means the source is illicit, but it doesn't say anything about motive. Motive and source of the funds are different things. I obviously don't support crime or people knowingly accepting stolen funds. You can have a bad motive with legal funds, a good motive with legal funds, a bad motive with illegal funds or a good motive with illegal funds. Your conflating of these concepts is bringing a different aspect I didn't comment on, but I can:
If Mr. Beast steals money to donate it I'd be against it regardless of motive.
He's not viral because of charity, he's charitable because he was already a highly viral video creator. It's not a comment on his videos, it's a comment on the NY Times framing.
"My criticism would be that it's local change vs trying for structural change. Why don't those people already have access to surgery?"
The reality is that Mr.Beast will not be changing the entire U.S. healthcare system. And that hundreds got life changing surgeries they wouldn't otherwise have gotten.
Do you think if you asked those people, they would say Mr. Beast is predatory? Would they have preferred that he Mr. Beast not run a donation-focused youtube channel?
He's created quite an ingenious way to siphon money from advertisers to random people. It's not the most 100% effective way of creating change, but viewing it so negatively is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> The reality is that Mr.Beast will not be changing the entire U.S. healthcare system.
The reality is that Mr Beast has a better shot at it than 99.99% of americans; the argument is he won't take that shot because he prefers to be Mr Beast
Not to mention this is not all or nothing. He could flip or decide hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of votes, in favour of candidates that do want to reform the healthcare system. All it takes is about half the politicians plus one, no?
I'm not an US voter and don't suffer its healthcare system, so maybe it is an immutable part of life and I can't grasp it - but I doubt it
The reality is that Mr Beast has a better shot at it than 99.99% of americans
better by what margin? given that the likelyhood of anyone else making that change is almost zero, even if his chances were 10 times as high, that is still not enough to make any dent.
part of the problem here is thinking that changing the system can only be done by some single person with superhero powers, when in reality it takes a mind change in all of society. the US healthcare system will not change until everyone starts demanding that change.
the best MrBeast can do is to influence his audience, but he'll need to convince more than a few million people before a change can happen.
If not structural changes, does Mr. Beast continue to donate every month to some fixed cause(s)?
AFAIK they do food donation drives regularly (or something similar) and probably supports other causes consistently. Those come from a place of passion, vision and commitment. Otherwise the YT videos are good execution to serve the audience and sponsors.
Tbh I haven't been tempted to watch his videos. Like many other commenters, I find something is off
It’s never enough. This guy is throwing millions towards others and helping their lives, but because he’s not suffering enough to do it, or doing it out of your defined pure intentions, it’s hardly good at all? It’s clear you care more about the sacrificial theater of giving than you do about actual impact.
What good have you done for anyone but yourself in the last month? Do you even fulfill your own standards? Is any charity less than implementing your preferred political policies useless? It’s hard to even describe how childish and selfish your take is.
He is a content producer who has built a brand on large cash prices not a charity manager. It’s a for profit company. The fact that apparently half of the readership can’t make the difference is a bit worrying to me.
Of course it’s for profit. No one dispute that. But his business involves giving away money. It doesn’t matter if he keeps 50% of the profits for himself and 50% is given away. He’s doing a million times more to help people than anyone on this forum.
I seriously doubt he's producing more QALYs than some effective altruists on this site. Someone on a typical software engineering income (going w/120k) can donate enough to save ~2-3 lives a year[0] at 10% giving, let alone someone trying to maximize their impact (of which I'm sure there's several).
[0]: https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates
I finance significantly more through taxes than American giving 10% of its income to charity which allow every citizen of my country to enjoy the benefits of socialised medicine and unemployment insurance. The idea of cheering from someone making money by paying from basic medical treatment for poorer people makes me frankly queasy.
Sorry I meant cataract surgery. I just happen to be discussing eye laser surgery with a friend considering it.
Seems misleading for that site to say it’s free. There’s small fees which you end up paying that Medicare doesn’t cover. And afaik you require a referral for public hospital which is not covered.
The reason those people don't have access to surgery has nothing to do with mrbeast.
Do you think he could actually get a law changed and help more people than he already did? Why wouldn't a "Mr Beast goes to Washington" style video get as many views as his direct support videos got?
"Do you think he could actually get a law changed and help more people than he already did?"
The most popular YT video creator could probably start a fairly large lobbying effort although yes, the multi-trillion dollar US for-profit health insurance industry could probably do better.
"Why wouldn't a "Mr Beast goes to Washington" style video get as many views as his direct support videos got?"
None of us are in his position to make as much change though. Are we not allowed to criticize someone that has far more power than us for not using it to its full potential?
You can criticize anyone for anything you want. Many people will ignore you or think you're a crank when you criticize someone for restoring the sight of 1000 poor people because it wasn't "to its full potential".
Not only did he improve 1000 lives. He bought awareness to 100s of 1000s of people who didn’t know it’s relatively affordable or can be cured for some.
I thought he was cool until he launched a chocolate line. Really? Is that what we need? Most of his audience is young gen z, and I'm sure the last thing the most obese generation ever needs is someone pushing more sugar on their diets
Girl scouts are children selling sugars to adults. Mr beast is an adult who sells sugar to children.
Anyway, I don't think he's a scumbag. I think he's a nice guy and I'm sure I would be his friend if we took the same pottery course or whatever. I just don't think trying to "cram one more treat into America's already bloated snack hole"[1] is very 'cool'.
[1] Simpsons, season 8, episode 164, The Twisted World of Marge Simpson
A line of anything already pegs you as a run-of-the-mill influencer, exploiting the parasocial relationship your victims have with you to peddle them substandard ware at high markup.
I am always shocked when I see the prices for "merch". Why does a hooded sweatshirt, that might cost 10-20 USD at Uniqlo, cost 55 USD as "merch" with a 2-5 USD silkscreen print. I agree: It is absolutely "exploiting the parasocial relationship your victims have with you".
Those are pretty high prices. Are they manufacturing those sweatshirts in the US or other Western country, or are they just positioning themselves as premium brand and selling with 400%+ markup?
Or has the clothing market in the US hollowed out in the middle completely? That's what I'm worried about where I live (Poland, EU) - I feel like the middle tier, of normally priced, regular quality clothes for regular people, is all but gone now, leaving us with the choice between a) second-hand stores and bazaars selling counterfeits imported from the East, and b) lifestyle brands selling rags at ridiculous prices.
Older people love to talk about how they bought a house working a minimum wage job or how the janitor became CEO of the company when neither are a reality due to their greed.
Most young people are angry about the fact that their living and educational expenses are far higher than the older people responsible, and profiting from that increase. Refer also to the increase in retirement age and poorer pensions for younger generations.
Can't blame them entirely. Competition drives down costs, and the cost is very close to free (or some of your data), or else it's some whale indirectly paying for others. Richer get richer, and some are shocked when they are priced out of big ticket items.
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.