I know this is going to sound like some clickbait bullshit title, but I’m genuinely curious, asking in good faith. My two oldest sons are enamored with him, and he seems like a genuine guy, so I’m asking - is he a nice guy? If you google the question, you get a bunch of reddit hate, which I don’t always trust, because…it’s reddit. I have not watched much content (not my thing, I’m old) but I’m just curious what the fediverse has to say.
You must log in or register to comment.
I would ask a different question - is Mr. Beast a good role model for the kids or not? Whether he’s a “good person” or not is largely irrelevant, the fact is he is doing good.
Personally I’m a big fan of his philathropy, but I don’t think he makes for a good role model. He’s found a way to influence and doing good for the world, but I don’t think it’s easily replicable nor should kids try to emulate him - because to be Mr. Beast, you need to be in the influencer / clout-chasing game, which can have roads that lead to success but at the end of the day, it’s an endless game of trying to get eyeballs and capture attention.
I would encourage the kids to forge their own path and not necessarily emulate Beast, but try to make the types of impact he makes in the world.
kinda cringy, but seems like a nice guy.
sure, he does his philanthropy “for views” but that’s what allows him to continue doing it.
not a fan of his, but he’s alright.
He also does a lot of philanthropy that doesn’t get made into content, which leads me to believe he is just a philanthropist. Making content out of it isn’t negative in my mind anyway, it just allows more philanthropy to take place.
He is one of the kindest people you can find on social media. He has helped lots of people through financial and other means. Some say he’s evil for recording and posting these acts of kindness but the views from his channels are what enable him to do these things. He also has a philanthropy channel named Beast Philanthropy.
Basically this, he does a lot of good stuff, but since he does it “for views” some people hate him/think he’s “taking advantage of their situations.”
IMO, he didn’t make those situations, and he’s providing an avenue for those situations to get resolved (even if maybe someone has to get “embarrassed” by virtue of appearing as the benefactor of one of his videos – to be clear, he to my knowledge never does anything like “kiss my feat and I’ll give you a million dollars” to these people).
Kind of one of those, “there’s always going to be someone who doesn’t like you” things; if you ask me, he’s overall doing good.
Ask yourself this: Does he offer the same “generosity” off camera ?
If not, then he’s an actor who’s only doing what he does to continue his acting career.
If your kids watch him because he’s entertaining, then I wouldnt worry too much.
But if they are trying to emulate him (I.e. trying to garner internet clout by doing “good deeds”, but only on camera), then that would worry me as a parent.
yeah. i heard many people are vastly different, depending if they are in front of a camera. i really wouldn’t judge people by what the do and say when the camera is rolling.
General takeaway is: letting your kids be enamored by mr beast is teaching them to get clout. Teaches them that to do nice things, they must be recording themselves doing it. Its different if youre an adult that can think for themself
“If i cant record myself helping this person out then ill wait till i can find a camera.” Theres a good chance thats the type of thing your kids are gonna unconsciously think about.
I completely disagree. Mr beast genuinely does good. To say that you have to be completely selfless, and can’t want anything in return from helping people is a good way to keep people from helping. Philosophy tube has a great video about just this. She’ll be able to elaborate far better than I can.
I somehow agree with both of you. It’s okay to do good things to feel good, but it’s also not good to glamorize chasing clout.
I somehow agree with both of you. It’s okay to do good things to feel good, but it’s also not good to glamorize chasing clout.
Holy crap, two people with different opinions having a civilized discussion?!?!?!!
it’s nice to see more of these on Lemmy.
It really is like the old days of Reddit. We’ll really find out what Lemmy becomes if/when it hits its Eternal September.
I’d rather have a generation of clout chasers giving their money away for fame, than a generation of hoarding billionaires. I know it’s not a dichotomy, but it still serves to illustrate the point.
I’m pretty sure I accidentally double posted and tried to delete one of the comments. But now it looks like everyone replied to the deleted comment? Weird… Anyway, yeah that’s why I said I kind of agree with both. The problem with a “generation of clout chasers” are that most of them aren’t doing it by giving their money away. Clout is the reason things like the Kia Boyz challenge to steal Kias and Hyundais exist. That’s why I think it’s a teachable moment to point out that Mr Beast is good because of the good things he does and not because he’s doing it for the fame. Like just about everything in life there is pros and cons.
Yeah but his general point about kids thinking nothing is worthwhile unless it is recorded goes far beyond philanthropy. Many times they’re thinking so much about how something will be filmed that they are never actually present for that something. Or they do only things that will film well because that’s how they register value. You can say that Mr Beast does well AND it’s not good for kids to watch those videos, and both can be true.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure I stated at some point that this isn’t a dichotomy, and there are legitimate concerns with the system he’s playing into, but I think that those concerns exist without Mr beast. He may be feeding into a bad system, but at least the how of it is helping a significant number of people. Often, that’s the best an individual can do.
It’s an interesting dilemma. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said but, at the same time, Mr Beast is helping people, even if he’s also personally benefitting. And the only reason he’s in a position to help as many people as much as he does is because of his “clout” - without his platform and the sponsors he attracts, he wouldn’t be able to have nearly as much of an impact as he does. And I’d rather influencers like Mr Beast exist than the Andrew Tate of the world, or the nasty “prank” influencers.
But, at the same time, you’re right that it teaches people they’ll be rewarded more if they wait until they’re on camera before doing any acts of charity. If he can inspire people to do charitable things just for the the sake of helping make the world better then that’s great, but if people are only doing charitable things for “clout” then it’s definitely not ideal.
There’s definitely not a black and white answer or solution. I think Mr Beast has a positive impact on the world overall, but there are definitely both good and bad things people could take away from watching his videos if they don’t consider things correctly. It’s something that touches on a number of philosophical subjects: capitalism, materialism, individualism versus collectivism, the influence of social media, external validation versus internal satisfaction, to name but a few.
The best thing OP can do is to teach their sons the nuances of it all.
I wish there were some way to know the net impact of this. Once helping the poor becomes entertainment, do people actually get up and go do it themselves anymore? Very often these days people don’t actually do things but rather watch others do them online. You can say sure that one person did get money and help, but what is the larger impact of this phenomenon? Are more people inspired to go give? Or do more people “get that itch scratched” and walk away from the video feeling all warm inside just from watching it? And what is the impact to the poor person of their publicity? This stuff is hard to know but I point it out to say there is more to it than “well one person did get help so it must be good.”
One thing it reminds me of is prosthetics viral videos. People love videos where a kid with one arm sees their new robotic prosthetic for the first time. We get all misty watching their excitement. But many people actually go on to have a crappy experience with their prosthetic. There’s one woman I heard on the radio who said she tried many of them and they were heavy, painful, and hard to make work right. She just prefers to use her stump now. And she wishes people would watch a video celebrating that, instead of everyone telling her she should get a cool robot arm. People are icked out by her stump and they all ask her why she doesn’t get a cool robot arm like in the video they saw.
Feelgood porn is problematic.
I feel like it might show them that doing nice things is a way to get attention. Maybe that’ll encourage them to do nice things. Is probably more favourable than influencers that teach doing mean things is ok because it’s on camera or it’s funny or just a joke, and that being mean is a way to get attention. Though its important for children to know that attention isnt everything.
I agree with you, although I prefer this to “it’s just a prank bro” kinda stuff that kids see and want to do for “fun” and clout.
I think deep down he is, although he has the moral compass of a 4 year old.
Edit - oh I thought you said Mr Bean
My personal take is that content creators and celebrities in general should never be judged as “people” in the sense that you might deem a teacher or a neighborhood kid as a “good” or “bad” influence. Rather, you should treat them as “media personalities”. Content creators are characters. They’re personas meant to drive engagement and clicks. Some achieve this by engaging in risky behavior or drama. Some just do wacky challenges. The motivation is the same in that the persona presented on the screen is a combo of the creator and the engagement from their community meant to drive up click rates and brand-building.
Mr Beast has kind of a “wacky semi-wholesome” image. Odd challenges and charities that hand out cash to random people for views. That’s a cynical take, but at the end of the day he’s a content creator, that’s it. If handing out free surgeries to correct childhood blindness didn’t drive engagement, he wouldn’t do it. If anything, the fact that his community is interested in seeing that project reflects more on them as people than on him.
So in my opinion the better questions for assessing his influence on your children are things like “why does his content appeal to you?” “What about his character do you find likable?” “What aspects would you want to emulate in your own life if you could?”
Again, just my personal view.
Tek Syndicate has a philosophical breakdown of Mr. Beast’s content that’s really interesting, but as far as being an example to your kids goes, it’s a tough one. I think his charitable acts are fundamentally good, but the fact that he does them all on camera is fundamentally icky. He’s a complicated figure. He’s not using hate speech or indoctrinating kids into cults or anything, so he’s clear of at least the bare minimum of alarming behavior. lol
Gonna preface by saying I’m not a Mr Beast fan and I’ve only watched about 2 of his videos…
But that said, the fact he films them and puts them online to millions of viewers is how he’s able to do all of this. He likely couldn’t keep doing this without the YT, sponsor, and merch income. While I agree that it’s icky, it is definitely necessary to continue doing it.
The camera portion is literally how he makes the money in the first place. The only way we’ll really know for certain how he is beyond that is to see what he does with his money after “retirement”.
I don’t expect much, but it’s pointless to guess about his actual character now.
He films them so he can earn money so he can do more good things
I find him annoying, doesn’t mean I think he is a bad person.
We can go into big depths on how he’s actually a corporate slave making his business on sponsorships instead of promoting big systemic changes, but that misses the case you make on how it affects kids.
On the kid side, he can be a somewhat good role model, a generous philanthropist sharing what he has to make people’s lives better. I’d say the effect his may have on kids is mostly positive.
There is at least one video (maybe an interview, not necessarily on his main channel) where he talks out of character about how he runs the channel etc.
His on screen persona is just that, a persona. This is something your kids should understand (and they can, if you find one of those out of character videos).
That said, I believe Jimmy Donaldson (the person behind the on-screen persona) does genuinely seem like a good guy, who is also smart and knows how to run a successful business while entertaining people. He also talks a bit about clickbait and how he tries to not make it too extreme but has to play the game.
Depending on how old your kids are, it may also be worth talking about the business aspect (sponsors, merch, the various brands he creates, how Beast Burgers actually works with ghost kitchens etc., Feastables) - no need to criticize or put it in a negative light, just explain that it’s also a business.
Wikipedia has some notes about controversies and criticism.
He seems pretty genuine, but I can’t watch his content because I personally find the cult of money… repelling?
I mean, obviously under capitalism money will have cult following, duh. But this stereotypical handing over tons of cash to someone and someone loosing all their shit makes me feel very uneasy.
Even if he is not the same person off camera, he’s still helping a lot of people in his videos. Sure it might be to “make money” but he turns around and uses a large portion of that money to do more good things on camera in other videos. He does far more for others than the vast majority of people in this world.
This comes down to the old debate over which philosophical framework is the basis for ethics and morality.
If you’re a deontologist, you might say that Mr. Beast is not a good person because he intentionally exploits people when he provides medical care for someone, by uploading their reactions for engagement.
However, a consequentialist would say that the outcome is more important; the means by which people receive medical care is irrelevant, and in this case, their treatment essentially necessitates compensation via engagement.
