• dev_null
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    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.

    • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      19 days ago

      Knowingly hired a sex offender". Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point?

      I generally agree with this point, except, Mr.Beast channel is specifically catered to and often involves minors. In that particular environment there should be an absolute zero tolerance for any kind of sex offender. That’s a no brainer. If you somehow find out after already hiring the individual the correct response is to publicly and candidly let that person go.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        I understand what you’re saying and to a degree I agree but do we know why he was labeled a sex offender? I’m not here to necessarily defend him but I know of people who have had to register when their offense was whipping out their dick near a school to pee. Nothing sexual, they were just drunk and didn’t realize it was a small elementary the building over, the cop wasn’t having a good day and he got fucked by the law.

        Again, I’m not necessarily defending him but there’s at least a bit of wiggle room in my opinion depending on circumstances.

      • dev_null
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        19 days ago

        I don’t know, I feel something that you did as a teenager, and that you have already went to court about, shouldn’t haunt you for the rest of your life any more than it already does with the legally mandated registry.

        • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          19 days ago

          The guy was accused of raping a child between the ages of 1-11. Do you think that person should ever have anything to do with children? Being 16 does not make this excusable.

          • dev_null
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            I’m not from the US, but I assume they have laws for this. I’m against vigilante justice against people who were already judged by the legal system. Do you also support not hiring any felon?

            I don’t think he should or shouldn’t be allowed near anyone, I assume if there was a reason to be barred from it by the judge, he would be. Clearly he wasn’t, so I’m not going to be an armchair legal expert and override the judge.

            • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              You have a very optimistic view of the American legal system and it does not include nuance such as this. It depends from state to start but generally a sex offender is not legally prohibited from holding just about any position beyond teacher/day care. Some states make it difficult for them to obtain professional licenses. I do not believe any of them actually prohibits “children’s entertainer”.

              Typically that would be considered the purview of the employer.