Does anyone remember when this person who worked for Mr Beast outed their fraudulent tactics? You couldn’t bring it up in a comment on their videos at all. They had a team continuous censoring all honest discussion on their videos. I find the whole phenomenon around Beast to be gross.

https://youtu.be/k5xf40KrK3I

▲

andrewstuart2 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Interestingly, this HN post is now on page 3 with ~300 points in an hour. Which probably means it's been flagged a bunch of times if I understand the HN ranking algorithm. Either that or the mod team has demoted it but that doesn't seem likely in this case.

▲

jimt1234 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You might like this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/c4CEVtUx1fg

▲

hollerith 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree, but at least it was possible to tell he probably plays fast and loose with the truth and would probably do almost anything for more money or more applause simply by watching a few minutes of his videos, or at least that was my experience.

	▲	jimbo808 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As I get older and gain first-hand experience in the orbit of some extremely successful people, I'm starting to realize that what I believed about how to succeed appears to be quite the opposite of what I've believed for most of my life, at least anecdotally. I've been bummed to realize how manipulative and dishonest the most successful people I've known have tended to be. I think hard work, integrity, conscientiousness, etc will get you pretty far in life, but there seems to be a certain threshold level of success that starts to favor the Machiavellian types.

▲

paulcole 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I Worked For MrBeast, He's A Fraud

He learned from the master lol. Missing a wide-eyed surprised face thumbnail though.

I mean not a lot of people are out there making "I Worked for ________, They Were Awesome & I Was the One Who Sucked" videos, right?

▲

archerx 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean if you would have watched the videos you’d have seen that the points he makes are quite valid. Also you are “judging a book by its cover”.

	▲	paulcole 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> the points he makes are quite valid Do you know they're valid or do you like to believe they're valid?

▲

glenstein 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm finding these allegations of "fraud" to be extremely convoluted and all over the map, sharing more with internet conspiracy theorizing than sober allegations of specific harms. Some of the issues in the video and elsewhere, present longstanding staples of junk food marketing (e.g. cash prizes, vacations) as if they're in the category of crimes, which is nonsense and shows no sense of proportionality.

I also think the linked video got pretty ridiculous pointing to CGI explosions or edited in buildings evidence of "faked videos" when I think, again, not crime, and not even importantly misleading in the sense people usually are talking about when talking about faked videos: e.g. bigfoot being a guy in a costume. The kind of thing I would consider violating the contract with the viewer would be something more like integrity of outcomes in competitions.

Which is to say, the community of critics are some of the worst cases of deep friend internet brain imaginable, spinning narratives in a Trump-style "weave" [0] that can't decide what the issue is, and can't differentiate between importantly different categories of harm. Most of the time it's vague characterizations of "shady" without elaboration, which itself signals the kind of vagueness that people mistakenly think constitute a completely expressed idea.

That's why this article, at least, by contrast is able to coherently articulate a harm, but even that is fringey, pertaining to pinned comments did not comply with "CARU’s Ad Guidelines’." But at least, it models what it looks like to present a coherently stated harm.

0: The Weave: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/01/us/elections/trump-speech...