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.
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.
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.
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.