News

I never watched any of his videos but to friends that did I always said he would eventually make headlines for some kind of problematic behavior or involvement, and when asked what it was based on I just said I could tell by his face. Unnatural and disingenuous in appearance and actions if questioned further but none of them could see it.

doesn't smile with his eyes

You are not getting any ice cream.

You're getting downvoted because people don't like to have their poor critical thinking skills called out. They'd rather ignorantly eat up whatever BS is served to them.

Nah

also giving a way free money is a pipeline to becoming Mr Beast

I was going to say I got it from somewhere, but apparently the term is usually "charity porn." I think "philanthropy porn" works better though because it's just as much about the philanthropist themselves as it is about what they're offering.

I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that.

This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don't know if they would be worse off if they weren't helped.

He "built 100 houses and gave them away" earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they're tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don't like their job and there isn't another job available? They're stuck.

Home ownership isn't necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.

Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?

Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it's always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it's worse than if it weren't allowed to accumulate in the first place.

Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren't so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.

That's just not how sustainable charity or development works, especially when it comes to things like building wells. There are existing charities that can do more than he does with the money he spends and have sustainable methods of doing so. Maybe some of them aren't great, but if he actually wanted to address those issues he could set up a foundation with people who know how to do that work.

This isn’t even a reaction to known allegations—apparently he’s just anticipating potential future trouble:

the reason that Donaldson hired the flashy lawyer is to conduct an internal audit of his company, the likes of which has recently come under fire as the result of various scandals.

So I think it’s fair to say it’s an admission that his conduct might be legally questionable, without taking it as a confession of guilt

The allegations are that he is a dickhead, and him resorting to hiring a flashy lawyer to fight it pretty much confirms that.

He is not a defendant here he will be a plaintiff in those suits.

Kind of reminds me of this.

People like to pretend that karma is somehow real. It's not. In real life, the bad guys win and live long and happy lives.

After watching the videos, and the analysis from Legal Eagle, I find the criticism a little dubious.

"Rigged challenges" is how he introduces surprise things mid-video, like "I'll give you $10,000 if you quit now, but your team loses a team member!" It's obviously part of the show and participants agree to it happening before hand.

"Knowingly hired a sex offender". Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point? The person in question was convicted when he was 16, and was hired 7 years later with nothing indicating he would reoffend. Don't we have courts for justice? Instead they should never be hired as punishment? To me it sounds commendable he's not prejudiced against people's past.

"Attempted to silence anyone" Did he? There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist. Do we know that C&D was baseless?

That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?

Like many, I find the MrBeast videos a cancer of YouTube, which makes hearing any critique of him convenient. But I don't like assuming, and I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn't offering an objective view.