4 ms·

While I'm no fan of him, I think you might be too harsh. > is to imagine he’d given them the money up front and told them that to leave his enter-torture-ment

While I'm no fan of him, I think you might be too harsh. > is to imagine he’d given them the money up front and told them that to leave his enter-torture-ment they have to pay up a ransom matching the initial gift. People enter those challenges fully knowing how they're going to go. It's random, rules don't matter, you might get money you don't expect or not get money you expected. The point at which they get the money doesn't really matter, I don't find it a different situation. > That’s what he’s subjecting poor people too, for fun and profit, because he knows the money is worth that much to them Well, he gives amounts of money that are worth very much for a lot of people. I doubt there's a lot of people that can make $500k in 100 days, for example. I watched the one where there's 100 people in a circle, and people got quite a lot of money for the most random things (I think one gets several thousand dollars for being the first to go, for example). I'd get this criticism if the amounts of money were lower, but I don't think it's really the case. A lot of non-poor people would consider those challenges very much worth the money. > And of cause because he’s making a fortune doing this. He says that a lot of his videos lose money and I honestly believe it. Between the money he gives and the amounts he spends to make the videos (like renting entire stadiums) his costs must be incredibly high, even with as many subscribers as he has I imagine some videos might not break even. And he could very easily break even on all of them just by lowering the amounts of money and toning it down a little.

dustedcodes 4y ago
MrBeast is pushing the boundaries on the ethics and morals of how easily people with money can coerce poor people who are in dire need to perform extremely questionable things for the sake of his own amusement. Personally I don’t think this is good in any meaningful way. You could only rationalise such behaviour with the same arguments that other forms of exploitation are explained.
- gjulianm 4y ago
  I'm not arguing that it's good, only that it's not as exploitative as the parent made it to be. Also, until now, the most questionable thing would be the 100 days in a circle one, and the reward is $500k. I think most people, even if not in dire need, would happily go and do that. Here in the comments you already see examples of that. And, most importantly, I don't see the "coercion" anywhere. Most of the people participating are subscribers to him, he's not just searching for poor people out of the street.
  - citizenkeen 4y ago
    The argument is that money is coercive.
    - gjulianm 4y ago
      Following that line of argument, every interaction with money involved is coercive. There must be something else that defines whether there is coercion or not.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Is mrbeast worse than a McJob at fast food? I’m currently doing tech support for mr cooks phone company and the abuse I’ve endured this week has been insane.
- mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  The premise is mostly the same as a lot of game shows. You don't see rich people showing up to get on game shows. From glimpses I've seen of Japanese game shows, Mr Beast's takes a lot from them with the ridiculousness and over the top entertainment factor, the money involved is much more. Another counterpoint is that they do good as well - 30+ million pounds of trash cleaned out the ocean with TeamSeas. Go see the one where they take over a bank in his hometown, no game show antics just handing out money in an entertaining way.
  - CaptArmchair 4y ago
    The problematic part is that Mr Beast offers little if any critical reflection about the systems that create wealth inequality, pollution, etc. and even less regarding his own role as a perceived philanthropist within that context. It's not that it's inherently morally wrong to clean up the ocean, open a free bank or handing someone 500k for staying 100 days in a 100ft circle. It's the manifest obliviousness of not challenging the system and the premises that allow him to make his videos that's - industries generating single-use plastics, people not able to take out a mortgage,... - which is the issue. His videos aren't in any way a social commentary. They are nothing more then entertainment, and they don't pretend to be anything else. That's what makes all of this morally questionable.
    - sumedh 4y ago
      > Mr Beast offers little if any critical reflection about the systems that create wealth inequality Why should he?
      - CaptArmchair 4y ago
        For the exact same reason why we teach little kids to throw their litter in the garbage bin instead of the ground, and hope that it will stick into adulthood: a range of values and ideas that display a due sense of caring and compassion.
        4y ago
- hackerlight 4y ago
  How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true. I'd agree it's unethical only if their cognition was compromised (meaning he wasn't capable of analyzing the costs and benefits and deciding if it was in his interest) or if there were surprises hidden (meaning he didn't really agree to what happened) or if it's a particular type of decision where people are known to not be capable of factoring in long-term costs properly into their decision making. But we don't know if any of this is true, do we? An argument I would be sympathetic to would be that it's unethical not because of what happened to the subject in particular (after all, he net benefited if the above assumptions are met), but because of the negative flow-on impacts to culture and the social fabric.
  - b800h 4y ago
    There used to be a website where someone gave homeless people money to fight each other. Perhaps it still exists. Is that ethical?
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      I thought of bumfights when writing this, and decided that no, it's not ethical, because homeless people often suffer from mental illnesses which violates one of the assumptions that I laid out.
      - jrochkind1 4y ago
        What if the person isn't mentally ill, but doesn't reliably have enough to eat to survive adequately, and can get it by fighting for the entertainment of others (who do have plenty to eat, and more to spare). Is that ethical, because it's a rational cost-benefit analysis? There are few people in the US who don't have enough to eat to fuel their bodies, but in other countries there are more. I am not trying to describe the particular people in "bumfights", who I don't know, but hypothetically working the boundaries of this analysis. I also don't in fact think that people can be divided, in binary fashion, into those who are "rational" and "not rational". It seems pretty clear to me that enticing desperate people to fight each other, for the entertainment of others who find their desperation emotionally engaging, and for the profit of the promoters -- is unkind and disrespectful and an attack on their dignity. Even if they are not "mentally ill." It seems hard to argue otherwise. Is it how you would treat a relative or friend? To hypothetically say, well, sure it's unkind and disrespectful and an assault on their dignity, and I wouldn't do it to someone I loved, but it's not unethical to do to make a buck or a laugh -- what is the point of "ethics", then, exactly?
- mcv 4y ago
  I think the comparison with Squid Game is apt. Of course he's not killing anyone, it's all voluntary, legal, and far more benign than what the Frontman in Squid Game does, but in essence it's still using extreme monetary reward to tempt people to subject themselves to treatment they wouldn't otherwise consider. Then again, if you keep scaling down like that, in what way is regular work any better?
prepend 4y ago
> People enter those challenges fully knowing how they're going to go. People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes. It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a power imbalance so even perceived consent isn’t really consent because of the leverage and greater power of one party.
- gjulianm 4y ago
  > People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes. Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need. At the prices we're talking about, quite a lot of people will find it a good deal. And "degrading" might be a strong word, maybe the being alone in a circle for 100 days is pushing it, but from what I've seen (which is not too much) it's mostly games and small challenges. > It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a power imbalance so even perceived consent isn’t really consent because of the leverage and greater power of one party. Well, applying that strict line of thought, you can argue that people can't really consent to having a job, or playing the lottery, or betting on a game because there is a power imbalance and greater power of one party. For a more practical approach, the useful thing is to look at how many people can realistically reject the offer if they don't want to do it. In the case of "blowing your boss", rejecting the offer means losing a job you might need to survive. In the videos case, rejecting means just not getting the money, it'd be similar as offering lottery tickets specially given how the participants seem to be random subscribers.
  - prepend 4y ago
    > Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need. I don’t think it’s fair to say that. The person who “won” the chance has two young kids and a spouse. I’m fairly sure he really needs $500k. If he’s like a typical person he has student loans, bills and lots of debt. It would be kind of perverse to have someone compete who didn’t really need the money. If you ask a random human to degrade themself for $500k there’s a power imbalance as most people don’t lead a zen existence where that’s not a life changing amount of money.
sumedh 4y ago
> He says that a lot of his videos lose money and I honestly believe it. Lot of big Youtubers say that the videos themselves dont make lot of money but the more views a video has the more merch they sell, that brings in the profits.

dustedcodes 4y ago

MrBeast is pushing the boundaries on the ethics and morals of how easily people with money can coerce poor people who are in dire need to perform extremely questionable things for the sake of his own amusement. Personally I don’t think this is good in any meaningful way. You could only rationalise such behaviour with the same arguments that other forms of exploitation are explained.

gjulianm 4y ago
I'm not arguing that it's good, only that it's not as exploitative as the parent made it to be. Also, until now, the most questionable thing would be the 100 days in a circle one, and the reward is $500k. I think most people, even if not in dire need, would happily go and do that. Here in the comments you already see examples of that. And, most importantly, I don't see the "coercion" anywhere. Most of the people participating are subscribers to him, he's not just searching for poor people out of the street.
- citizenkeen 4y ago
  The argument is that money is coercive.
  - gjulianm 4y ago
    Following that line of argument, every interaction with money involved is coercive. There must be something else that defines whether there is coercion or not.
newsclues 4y ago
Is mrbeast worse than a McJob at fast food? I’m currently doing tech support for mr cooks phone company and the abuse I’ve endured this week has been insane.
mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
The premise is mostly the same as a lot of game shows. You don't see rich people showing up to get on game shows. From glimpses I've seen of Japanese game shows, Mr Beast's takes a lot from them with the ridiculousness and over the top entertainment factor, the money involved is much more. Another counterpoint is that they do good as well - 30+ million pounds of trash cleaned out the ocean with TeamSeas. Go see the one where they take over a bank in his hometown, no game show antics just handing out money in an entertaining way.
- CaptArmchair 4y ago
  The problematic part is that Mr Beast offers little if any critical reflection about the systems that create wealth inequality, pollution, etc. and even less regarding his own role as a perceived philanthropist within that context. It's not that it's inherently morally wrong to clean up the ocean, open a free bank or handing someone 500k for staying 100 days in a 100ft circle. It's the manifest obliviousness of not challenging the system and the premises that allow him to make his videos that's - industries generating single-use plastics, people not able to take out a mortgage,... - which is the issue. His videos aren't in any way a social commentary. They are nothing more then entertainment, and they don't pretend to be anything else. That's what makes all of this morally questionable.
  - sumedh 4y ago
    > Mr Beast offers little if any critical reflection about the systems that create wealth inequality Why should he?
    - CaptArmchair 4y ago
      For the exact same reason why we teach little kids to throw their litter in the garbage bin instead of the ground, and hope that it will stick into adulthood: a range of values and ideas that display a due sense of caring and compassion.
      - 4y ago
hackerlight 4y ago
How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true. I'd agree it's unethical only if their cognition was compromised (meaning he wasn't capable of analyzing the costs and benefits and deciding if it was in his interest) or if there were surprises hidden (meaning he didn't really agree to what happened) or if it's a particular type of decision where people are known to not be capable of factoring in long-term costs properly into their decision making. But we don't know if any of this is true, do we? An argument I would be sympathetic to would be that it's unethical not because of what happened to the subject in particular (after all, he net benefited if the above assumptions are met), but because of the negative flow-on impacts to culture and the social fabric.
- b800h 4y ago
  There used to be a website where someone gave homeless people money to fight each other. Perhaps it still exists. Is that ethical?
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    I thought of bumfights when writing this, and decided that no, it's not ethical, because homeless people often suffer from mental illnesses which violates one of the assumptions that I laid out.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      What if the person isn't mentally ill, but doesn't reliably have enough to eat to survive adequately, and can get it by fighting for the entertainment of others (who do have plenty to eat, and more to spare). Is that ethical, because it's a rational cost-benefit analysis? There are few people in the US who don't have enough to eat to fuel their bodies, but in other countries there are more. I am not trying to describe the particular people in "bumfights", who I don't know, but hypothetically working the boundaries of this analysis. I also don't in fact think that people can be divided, in binary fashion, into those who are "rational" and "not rational". It seems pretty clear to me that enticing desperate people to fight each other, for the entertainment of others who find their desperation emotionally engaging, and for the profit of the promoters -- is unkind and disrespectful and an attack on their dignity. Even if they are not "mentally ill." It seems hard to argue otherwise. Is it how you would treat a relative or friend? To hypothetically say, well, sure it's unkind and disrespectful and an assault on their dignity, and I wouldn't do it to someone I loved, but it's not unethical to do to make a buck or a laugh -- what is the point of "ethics", then, exactly?
mcv 4y ago
I think the comparison with Squid Game is apt. Of course he's not killing anyone, it's all voluntary, legal, and far more benign than what the Frontman in Squid Game does, but in essence it's still using extreme monetary reward to tempt people to subject themselves to treatment they wouldn't otherwise consider. Then again, if you keep scaling down like that, in what way is regular work any better?

prepend 4y ago

> People enter those challenges fully knowing how they're going to go. People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes. It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a power imbalance so even perceived consent isn’t really consent because of the leverage and greater power of one party.

gjulianm 4y ago
> People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes. Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need. At the prices we're talking about, quite a lot of people will find it a good deal. And "degrading" might be a strong word, maybe the being alone in a circle for 100 days is pushing it, but from what I've seen (which is not too much) it's mostly games and small challenges. > It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a power imbalance so even perceived consent isn’t really consent because of the leverage and greater power of one party. Well, applying that strict line of thought, you can argue that people can't really consent to having a job, or playing the lottery, or betting on a game because there is a power imbalance and greater power of one party. For a more practical approach, the useful thing is to look at how many people can realistically reject the offer if they don't want to do it. In the case of "blowing your boss", rejecting the offer means losing a job you might need to survive. In the videos case, rejecting means just not getting the money, it'd be similar as offering lottery tickets specially given how the participants seem to be random subscribers.
- prepend 4y ago
  > Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need. I don’t think it’s fair to say that. The person who “won” the chance has two young kids and a spouse. I’m fairly sure he really needs $500k. If he’s like a typical person he has student loans, bills and lots of debt. It would be kind of perverse to have someone compete who didn’t really need the money. If you ask a random human to degrade themself for $500k there’s a power imbalance as most people don’t lead a zen existence where that’s not a life changing amount of money.

sumedh 4y ago

> He says that a lot of his videos lose money and I honestly believe it. Lot of big Youtubers say that the videos themselves dont make lot of money but the more views a video has the more merch they sell, that brings in the profits.