4 ms·

As a content creator Mr Beast only acts as a conduit for what we, the audience, are willing to pay for. It's not he who is the monster but us.

Otek 4y ago
Exactly. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. And the game is humanity, who wants this type of content. But overall i disagree that anyone is monster here. No one forces these people to be a part of these challenges.
- igorkraw 4y ago
  Why not both? And why does "criticism" imply "hate"?
- pfisch 4y ago
  You could get people to fight to the death with enough money as a reward. Is that ok?
  - greatquux 4y ago
    No, but we're not talking about that. We're talking only about if these particular videos cross some kind of imaginary line which is different for everyone and constantly shifts in our minds based on the last comment we read on HN.
igorkraw 4y ago
While true I love how the norm of discussion about this is bouncing between two things as if they are mutually exclusive. Yes Mr. Beast is just following incentives that youtube + attention economy + other factors created for him. But also: he chose to do that. I've personally walked away from good gigs when I was eating rice and beans because they didn't align with my values. He doesn't seem to realise or care. And maybe that's because of his situation, which should the also be addressed. But there still remains some personal responsibility for choosing to make money (lots of money) this way
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Mr. Beast is giving away millions of dollars. Imo his channel is unequivocally making the world a better place by providing entertainment and giving people the choice to forego a decade of work for 100 days of humiliation.
noja 4y ago
> only acts as a conduit That's a lazy analysis. His creation is expanding a small audience into a larger one.
jrootabega 4y ago
Our children are the victims. They're willing to watch anything, and unfortunately this is the kind of stuff that they think is normal and good.
wil421 4y ago
That’s like saying it’s OK to create CP or torture someone because there’s an audience. Complete nonsense.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  No, it’s not like that.
dustedcodes 4y ago
But we are not paying for it. He just gets the views and Google (YouTube) are those who think it is ok to pay for this content. People will always consume content about some crazy shit if it is made for free, but would we actually have to pay for it then it would show that most kids who watch MrBeast content today couldn’t actually care less about it. Let’s look at it from another angle to bring my point home. If a person gets assaulted and the assault gets recorded by CCTV cameras and then shown on BBC news then lots of people click the article and view the video, but nobody (or mostly nobody) would pay the BBC to assault another person and film it and then stream it. Do you see the difference?
- sumedh 4y ago
  > But we are not paying for it. Not sure who "we" you are talking but his fans buy lot of merch from his store which brings in lot of profit.
- unglaublich 4y ago
  No, Google doesn't think it's okay. A company has no such emotions. The financial benefits just outweigh the financial downsides.
- em-bee 4y ago
  would we actually have to pay for it then it would show that most kids who watch MrBeast content today couldn’t actually care less about it but the kids are not the ones paying. if we had to start paying for it, the result would be an argument between parents and kids.
tpush 4y ago
Nonsense. Mr. Beast isn't an unthinking tool, but an intelligent human being. Exploiting people for money is unethical no matter how much 'the audience' wants to see it.
- gambiting 4y ago
  I mean, so is something like Who Wants To Be a Millionare[0] exploitative as well? The whole idea is that people voluntarily sign up, to be "tortured" with difficult questions, for a chance to win some money. Of course the TV producers make money on the show, by broadcasting the whole thing for the audience's amusement. I'm just curious where you think the line lies between this and what Mr Beast is doing? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%...
  - zigman1 4y ago
    That's an interesting thought. I'll try to brainstorm a bit, since my meeting is a bit boring :) First, what was also mentioned in the linked blog post, Mr Beast's videos lack a certain level of fairness, winners of his competitions are often decided by luck, not merit. Second, maybe there's an added benefit for both competitors and audience when watching Who Wants To Be a Millionare. I'm not sure if that's measurable metric, but it's definitely present. I can learn something new, or test my own knowledge, maybe even decide to sign up.
    - sumedh 4y ago
      > winners of his competitions are often decided by luck, not merit. So just like real life?
  - notafraudster 4y ago
    The air quotes around tortured are doing 100% of the work here. There may indeed be some nervousness associated with taking part in any sort of competition, but I think most people would stipulate that white collar adult professionals answering 15 multiple-choice questions in 30 minutes in a comfortable studio wearing clothes of their choice, preparing in a green room, given access to water and bathrooms is pretty low on the torture scale. Likewise, we don't typically consider, say, taking part in a poker tournament to be torture, or taking part in a 10K race or submitting something to an art contest. There are, in fact, quiz shows that add torture elements. Rob Lowe hosts Mental Samurai, which is a quiz show where participants are put through physical disorientation[0]. This might be a closer parallel to what you are highlighting, but even still there are coherent and easily articulated ways in which this is not torture. There are a great many reality programs that do actually involve a sort of physical depravation which is closer to torture. Big Brother and Survivor both involve not just physical challenges, but also punishments that are centered around depriving people of the sorts of creature comforts they are accustomed to in normal life. Even then you don't have torture, because again the vast majority of the experience involves being treated with comfort and dignity, the punishments that are small in scale and support systems in place to ensure they do not present real threat. So, for instance, you might have someone being awoken in the middle of the night as a part of a challenge, but they will be informed of that in advance, given additional time to sleep later, and the disruption will be minimal. Mr. Beast's stuff has more in common with challenges like the Hands on a Hardbody challenge[1], where poor people go to a car dealership and have to touch a truck for an extended period of time to win the truck.[1] The contestant pool are mostly people who are quite poor, some of whom seem to be mentally ill, the willingness to do it for the prize almost surely implies they have inadequate access to transportation, and it's extremely undignified. But even this has hourly breaks. It seems like a bit of feigned ignorance to respond to someone criticizing the Mr. Beast stuff by suggesting it is difficult or impossible to draw a coherent line in the sand, and then offering such a patently absurd example as something you think would have to be definitionally included. It comes off as playing language games rather than seriously engaging the substance of the criticism. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3gglCEsvGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3gglCEsvGg [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_on_a_Hardbody:_The_Documentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_on_a_Hardbody:_The_Docum...
emptyfile 4y ago
You're both equally disgusting.

Otek 4y ago

Exactly. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. And the game is humanity, who wants this type of content. But overall i disagree that anyone is monster here. No one forces these people to be a part of these challenges.

igorkraw 4y ago
Why not both? And why does "criticism" imply "hate"?
pfisch 4y ago
You could get people to fight to the death with enough money as a reward. Is that ok?
- greatquux 4y ago
  No, but we're not talking about that. We're talking only about if these particular videos cross some kind of imaginary line which is different for everyone and constantly shifts in our minds based on the last comment we read on HN.

igorkraw 4y ago

While true I love how the norm of discussion about this is bouncing between two things as if they are mutually exclusive. Yes Mr. Beast is just following incentives that youtube + attention economy + other factors created for him. But also: he chose to do that. I've personally walked away from good gigs when I was eating rice and beans because they didn't align with my values. He doesn't seem to realise or care. And maybe that's because of his situation, which should the also be addressed. But there still remains some personal responsibility for choosing to make money (lots of money) this way

colinmhayes 4y ago
Mr. Beast is giving away millions of dollars. Imo his channel is unequivocally making the world a better place by providing entertainment and giving people the choice to forego a decade of work for 100 days of humiliation.

noja 4y ago

> only acts as a conduit That's a lazy analysis. His creation is expanding a small audience into a larger one.

jrootabega 4y ago

Our children are the victims. They're willing to watch anything, and unfortunately this is the kind of stuff that they think is normal and good.

wil421 4y ago

That’s like saying it’s OK to create CP or torture someone because there’s an audience. Complete nonsense.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
No, it’s not like that.

dustedcodes 4y ago

But we are not paying for it. He just gets the views and Google (YouTube) are those who think it is ok to pay for this content. People will always consume content about some crazy shit if it is made for free, but would we actually have to pay for it then it would show that most kids who watch MrBeast content today couldn’t actually care less about it. Let’s look at it from another angle to bring my point home. If a person gets assaulted and the assault gets recorded by CCTV cameras and then shown on BBC news then lots of people click the article and view the video, but nobody (or mostly nobody) would pay the BBC to assault another person and film it and then stream it. Do you see the difference?

sumedh 4y ago
> But we are not paying for it. Not sure who "we" you are talking but his fans buy lot of merch from his store which brings in lot of profit.
unglaublich 4y ago
No, Google doesn't think it's okay. A company has no such emotions. The financial benefits just outweigh the financial downsides.
em-bee 4y ago
would we actually have to pay for it then it would show that most kids who watch MrBeast content today couldn’t actually care less about it but the kids are not the ones paying. if we had to start paying for it, the result would be an argument between parents and kids.

tpush 4y ago

Nonsense. Mr. Beast isn't an unthinking tool, but an intelligent human being. Exploiting people for money is unethical no matter how much 'the audience' wants to see it.

gambiting 4y ago
I mean, so is something like Who Wants To Be a Millionare[0] exploitative as well? The whole idea is that people voluntarily sign up, to be "tortured" with difficult questions, for a chance to win some money. Of course the TV producers make money on the show, by broadcasting the whole thing for the audience's amusement. I'm just curious where you think the line lies between this and what Mr Beast is doing? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%...
- zigman1 4y ago
  That's an interesting thought. I'll try to brainstorm a bit, since my meeting is a bit boring :) First, what was also mentioned in the linked blog post, Mr Beast's videos lack a certain level of fairness, winners of his competitions are often decided by luck, not merit. Second, maybe there's an added benefit for both competitors and audience when watching Who Wants To Be a Millionare. I'm not sure if that's measurable metric, but it's definitely present. I can learn something new, or test my own knowledge, maybe even decide to sign up.
  - sumedh 4y ago
    > winners of his competitions are often decided by luck, not merit. So just like real life?
- notafraudster 4y ago
  The air quotes around tortured are doing 100% of the work here. There may indeed be some nervousness associated with taking part in any sort of competition, but I think most people would stipulate that white collar adult professionals answering 15 multiple-choice questions in 30 minutes in a comfortable studio wearing clothes of their choice, preparing in a green room, given access to water and bathrooms is pretty low on the torture scale. Likewise, we don't typically consider, say, taking part in a poker tournament to be torture, or taking part in a 10K race or submitting something to an art contest. There are, in fact, quiz shows that add torture elements. Rob Lowe hosts Mental Samurai, which is a quiz show where participants are put through physical disorientation[0]. This might be a closer parallel to what you are highlighting, but even still there are coherent and easily articulated ways in which this is not torture. There are a great many reality programs that do actually involve a sort of physical depravation which is closer to torture. Big Brother and Survivor both involve not just physical challenges, but also punishments that are centered around depriving people of the sorts of creature comforts they are accustomed to in normal life. Even then you don't have torture, because again the vast majority of the experience involves being treated with comfort and dignity, the punishments that are small in scale and support systems in place to ensure they do not present real threat. So, for instance, you might have someone being awoken in the middle of the night as a part of a challenge, but they will be informed of that in advance, given additional time to sleep later, and the disruption will be minimal. Mr. Beast's stuff has more in common with challenges like the Hands on a Hardbody challenge[1], where poor people go to a car dealership and have to touch a truck for an extended period of time to win the truck.[1] The contestant pool are mostly people who are quite poor, some of whom seem to be mentally ill, the willingness to do it for the prize almost surely implies they have inadequate access to transportation, and it's extremely undignified. But even this has hourly breaks. It seems like a bit of feigned ignorance to respond to someone criticizing the Mr. Beast stuff by suggesting it is difficult or impossible to draw a coherent line in the sand, and then offering such a patently absurd example as something you think would have to be definitionally included. It comes off as playing language games rather than seriously engaging the substance of the criticism. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3gglCEsvGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3gglCEsvGg [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_on_a_Hardbody:_The_Documentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_on_a_Hardbody:_The_Docum...

emptyfile 4y ago

You're both equally disgusting.