3 ms·

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

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 8mo 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 8mo ago
  [deleted]
9rx 8mo 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 8mo 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.
  - 9rx 8mo ago
    > I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for. Exactly. I asked for details on exactly how the models are being marketed for that very reason. It was fully recognized be me that we cannot meaningfully discuss this without understanding the communication taking place. What I'm missing is the answer. No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it?
    - otterley 8mo ago
      Honestly, I think this was just a case of other folks already understanding the nature of the issue discussed in the article (pay for DMs), while you did not. This isn't an insult or anything, just an observation. A little humility is, I think, helpful for everyone here. Let's be kind to one another.
      - 9rx 8mo ago
        Most certainly. I wouldn't be here if I understood the nature of it. Nobody talks about the things they know about. The mind loses interest in what it already understands. If it didn't we'd all be sitting here discussing 1+1=2. The whole point of having a discussion is to work together to build mental models around the things not understood. Kindness is irrelevant, but lack of information did leave us without having learned anything. I suppose that's the game of trolling: To suck someone in thinking there is mutual desire to learn something and then leave them hanging in the end. But to want to control others is illogical, so that's life. On to the next learning chapter!
    - Dylan16807 8mo ago
      > No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it? Well my disappearance is because you're a pain to talk to, not because you're crumbling any worldviews. And the main person you're talking to didn't disappear at all. I could go into how referring to a nonspecific person by their job title is not dehumanizing them the way you claim, but based on earlier comments you'd just say nuh-uh and it's just not worth it. And your unrelated comment saying nobody upvoted you, "that goes without saying", and acting like nobody uses the upvote button... that goes so far beyond wrong that if it's good faith your faith is very mistaken. Yes someone upvoted that comment. Yes people upvote. (For the record, the joke was that the reverse of "man exploits man" is also "man exploits man".)

awesome_dude 8mo 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 8mo ago
[deleted]

9rx 8mo 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 8mo 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.
- 9rx 8mo ago
  > I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for. Exactly. I asked for details on exactly how the models are being marketed for that very reason. It was fully recognized be me that we cannot meaningfully discuss this without understanding the communication taking place. What I'm missing is the answer. No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it?
  - otterley 8mo ago
    Honestly, I think this was just a case of other folks already understanding the nature of the issue discussed in the article (pay for DMs), while you did not. This isn't an insult or anything, just an observation. A little humility is, I think, helpful for everyone here. Let's be kind to one another.
    - 9rx 8mo ago
      Most certainly. I wouldn't be here if I understood the nature of it. Nobody talks about the things they know about. The mind loses interest in what it already understands. If it didn't we'd all be sitting here discussing 1+1=2. The whole point of having a discussion is to work together to build mental models around the things not understood. Kindness is irrelevant, but lack of information did leave us without having learned anything. I suppose that's the game of trolling: To suck someone in thinking there is mutual desire to learn something and then leave them hanging in the end. But to want to control others is illogical, so that's life. On to the next learning chapter!
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    > No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it? Well my disappearance is because you're a pain to talk to, not because you're crumbling any worldviews. And the main person you're talking to didn't disappear at all. I could go into how referring to a nonspecific person by their job title is not dehumanizing them the way you claim, but based on earlier comments you'd just say nuh-uh and it's just not worth it. And your unrelated comment saying nobody upvoted you, "that goes without saying", and acting like nobody uses the upvote button... that goes so far beyond wrong that if it's good faith your faith is very mistaken. Yes someone upvoted that comment. Yes people upvote. (For the record, the joke was that the reverse of "man exploits man" is also "man exploits man".)