Is Mr Beast a good person?

https://lemmy.world/post/1027332

Is Mr Beast a good person? - Lemmy.world

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.

Definitely better than Andrew Tate from what I've seen. While he's clearly a very savvy clout chaser, and he's overtaken Pewdie Pie as the most popular YouTuber, he has made a serious effort towards philanthropic acts. The fact that he's using these acts as a marketing tool to further increase his influence is clearly intentional, but he's doing real good with his clout. He's also shown considerable evolution throughout his career, including:

In an April 2022 interview with The Daily Beast, Donaldson announced that he was no longer an evangelical Christian and identified himself as an agnostic. He also stated that he had long disagreed with his church's position on homosexuality. He states that during the time he grew up in "the heart of the Bible Belt", he had religion "beat into [his] head every day", and was taught that "gay people are the reason God's going to come and burn this Earth". Although he considered anti-LGBT rhetoric to be normal growing up, he has disavowed it since then, stating: "I realized, 'Oh, this isn't normal. This is just a weird place I grew up in.' So, that type of thing, I [wish I could] go back in time and be like, 'Hey, stop'."

Donaldson considers himself strictly apolitical, saying that "I don't want to alienate Republicans and Democrats. ... I like having it where everyone can support [my] charity. My goal is to feed hundreds of millions of people ... it would be very silly of me to alienate basically half of America."

...and...

In April 2023, Chris Tyson came out publicly as gender non-conforming and revealed their struggles with gender dysphoria. In response to claims that they would become a "nightmare" and distraction for the channel, Donaldson defended Tyson and said, "Chris isn't my 'nightmare' he's my fucken [sic] friend and things are fine. All this transphobia is starting to piss me off."

This isn't to say he's perfect, but he's a helluva lot better than some other personalities your kids could be listening too.

MrBeast - Wikipedia

he has made a serious effort towards philanthropic acts

Ehhhh. He engages in a mix of pity porn and charity-as-self-promotion/criticism shield. Never trust a wealthy person's donations when they have their name attached to them; there's always a reasonable chance that they came with strings. Doubly so when those donations are to charities they actively control.

I can appreciate that he's funnelled his money into things people actually need, instead of into grants so charities can buy supplies from tech companies he's invested in, but it's still PR, not philanthropy.

it's still PR, not philanthropy

This is it right here.

Thats narrow minded, it can be both
Exploiting others for self promotion is always going to cause more overall harm than good.
By that thinking Bill Gates has done nothing but harm, yet he has done leaps and bounds for health research. They're one of the few reasons malaria is even getting research money. He's probably a narcissistic ass, and I'm sure he's partially supporting the foundation for taxes/clout, but he's actually saved the lives of people. If they want to spend their millions and billions on helping people for clout, then go for it. It's better than whatever the fuck Musk is doing.

Exactly, it's like Jeff Bezos thinking the best he can do with his money is go to space.

Regardless of the motivation, surely if that money is going to a better cause that will help others that's a good thing

That's naive. Leaving the rich in a position to "save" the poor is nothing more than enabling a power fantasy for them. It leaves them with all of the power and control.
Do you think the people who get the help see it the same way, or is just us privileged folk who feel uneasy?

You cant force someone to save anyone, its their choice

You seem to truly believe theres no rich person who would give out of the kindness of their heart

The last sentence feels a little “perfect being the enemy of the good.” Outside of wanting purity of intention, what is the issue here, if the result is people being helped?

It reinforces the system that leave people needing help, and draws attention away from the need for changing that system.

People are getting helped, but none more so than the one getting good PR. And that's not charity, or philanthropy. That's just business.

None of this is ever going to change until regular people start voting for their own betterment, at least in America. There are more of us than them, but half of us are trapped in the idea that we're going to be millionaires someday. Or apathy.
If you publicise your philanthropy to gain my support for your philanthropy, does that magically make you non-philanthropic?

Yes. Yes it does.

It's not charity then. It's paid advertising.

Charities do a lot of paid advertising.

Yes, indeed. I'd heavily recommend Thoreau's critique of philantrophy: https://thecuriouspeople.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/thoreau-philanthropy-is-overrated-walden-44/ . While it's written 200 years ago and on a religious foundation, he has a point.

“Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it.” — Henry David Thoreau, “Economy,” Walden

Thoreau: philanthropy is overrated (Walden 44)

“Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind.  Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it.” — Henry David Thoreau, “Eco…

The Curious People