4 ms·

> nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself. Nobody said that they were. You must have forgotten to read the thread. When 'MrBeast' co

by 9rx 7mo ago

> nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself. Nobody said that they were. You must have forgotten to read the thread. When 'MrBeast' comments on YouTube to those who pay for a subscription to his channel, it is claiming to be MrBeast, however. But is it him? You completely understand he doesn't have time to flip burgers, and thus would never expect him to, so why do you think he has time to chat to random internet customers?

otterley 7mo ago
> You must have forgotten to read the thread There's no need to be rude. The issue here comes down to money and therefore reliance and damages. Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. So there's no material reliance and no damages; the 4th and 5th elements above aren't satisfied. On the other hand, people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. Thus the 4th and 5th elements are satisfied, in addition to the other three.
- 9rx 7mo ago
  > There's no need to be rude. There's no need to interpret words through the arbitrary lens of silly feelings, yet here we are. > Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. According to what? Is this something you made up? If someone is willing to pay to talk to an internet figure, as you asserted they are, why not MrBeast? We can probably find agreement in MrBeast not being "herself". Is that the difference you find? The white knights only consider it fraud if the figure identifies as "her"? > people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. I'll have to accept your personal experience for what it is, but what in the marketing suggests the model is anything more than a brand? You even literally call it a model, not a person. That is quite telling that you understand the business at play, even if you want to pretend you don't for the sake of the fake argument. We all know full well that MrBeast is a brand. Why are you treating MrsBeast differently?
  - Dylan16807 7mo ago
    You're getting mixed up. Some people would pay to talk to Mr. Beast, but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying. > You even literally call it a model, not a person. That's the name of the job. With this, the feelings remark, and half of your statements so far it's hard to believe you're not trolling.
    - awesome_dude 7mo ago
      > it's hard to believe you're not trolling. Look at the account's comment history - I've had the misfortune of interacting with them, and they're not replying in good faith at all (IMO) If there's a way for someone (with moderation powers) to look at the account to see if it is ever doing anything but trolling that would be good.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - 9rx 7mo ago
      > but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying. MrBeast is allegedly the highest paid YouTuber and yet, I guess, you think he works for free? While not exactly public information, industry analysts estimate that $5MM per year revenue is generated from direct fan funding to support his channel, so that, you know, "he" can do things write comments to the patrons. > That's the name of the job. Exactly. "Model" is used in recognition of the dehumanized object. In art, a human model is considered to be no different than a clay model. In fashion, the human model is considered to be no different than a clothes rack. The point of using the word is to separate the person from what the person is displaying. Otherwise you could simply say "person". "Model" is also used in this context because the concept is the same — the product isn't the person.
      - otterley 7mo ago
        I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for. In the model-customer dynamic, a customer is giving money to a model on a quid pro quo basis: the model -- or so the customer believes -- is promising the customer personal attention and customized content in exchange for money. No money, no attention. In the MrBeast example, nobody is paying MrBeast specifically in exchange for his YouTube comments, which are public. Paying MrBeast is not a precondition for his engagement; he (or his agents) are responding spontaneously. His fans may be inspired to contribute to funds, although MrBeast gets a lot of money from ad revenue. But there's no quid pro quo arrangement here.

by 9rx 7mo ago

otterley 7mo ago

> You must have forgotten to read the thread There's no need to be rude. The issue here comes down to money and therefore reliance and damages. Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. So there's no material reliance and no damages; the 4th and 5th elements above aren't satisfied. On the other hand, people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. Thus the 4th and 5th elements are satisfied, in addition to the other three.

9rx 7mo ago
> There's no need to be rude. There's no need to interpret words through the arbitrary lens of silly feelings, yet here we are. > Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. According to what? Is this something you made up? If someone is willing to pay to talk to an internet figure, as you asserted they are, why not MrBeast? We can probably find agreement in MrBeast not being "herself". Is that the difference you find? The white knights only consider it fraud if the figure identifies as "her"? > people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. I'll have to accept your personal experience for what it is, but what in the marketing suggests the model is anything more than a brand? You even literally call it a model, not a person. That is quite telling that you understand the business at play, even if you want to pretend you don't for the sake of the fake argument. We all know full well that MrBeast is a brand. Why are you treating MrsBeast differently?
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  You're getting mixed up. Some people would pay to talk to Mr. Beast, but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying. > You even literally call it a model, not a person. That's the name of the job. With this, the feelings remark, and half of your statements so far it's hard to believe you're not trolling.
  - awesome_dude 7mo ago
    > it's hard to believe you're not trolling. Look at the account's comment history - I've had the misfortune of interacting with them, and they're not replying in good faith at all (IMO) If there's a way for someone (with moderation powers) to look at the account to see if it is ever doing anything but trolling that would be good.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - 9rx 7mo ago
    > but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying. MrBeast is allegedly the highest paid YouTuber and yet, I guess, you think he works for free? While not exactly public information, industry analysts estimate that $5MM per year revenue is generated from direct fan funding to support his channel, so that, you know, "he" can do things write comments to the patrons. > That's the name of the job. Exactly. "Model" is used in recognition of the dehumanized object. In art, a human model is considered to be no different than a clay model. In fashion, the human model is considered to be no different than a clothes rack. The point of using the word is to separate the person from what the person is displaying. Otherwise you could simply say "person". "Model" is also used in this context because the concept is the same — the product isn't the person.
    - otterley 7mo ago
      I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for. In the model-customer dynamic, a customer is giving money to a model on a quid pro quo basis: the model -- or so the customer believes -- is promising the customer personal attention and customized content in exchange for money. No money, no attention. In the MrBeast example, nobody is paying MrBeast specifically in exchange for his YouTube comments, which are public. Paying MrBeast is not a precondition for his engagement; he (or his agents) are responding spontaneously. His fans may be inspired to contribute to funds, although MrBeast gets a lot of money from ad revenue. But there's no quid pro quo arrangement here.