He says Mr Beast employs a registered sex offender, mentions some accusations, then interviews a dude who was let go, but came back as a contractor for another video that never got posted where...
He says Mr Beast employs a registered sex offender, mentions some accusations, then interviews a dude who was let go, but came back as a contractor for another video that never got posted where the dude would get 10k USD/per day of....solitary confinement.
The pedo is apparently banned from Delaware, and Mr. Beast "didn't know" he was a pedo, despite his nickname amongst all the Mr. Beast employees being "Delaware". The man is shown in multiple videos bearded and wearing a mask.
The ex-employee describes his torture as a contracted actor, key points being they wouldn't turn the lights off for him to sleep, and after some amount of time offered him more money if he would "run a marathon" on a tread mill. Which he did, and then couldn't walk from blisters and other pains for an extended period afterwards. He says he could leave whenever he wanted, but the money kept him there (beyond what the viewer would say was his breaking point).
The ex-employee is obviously fucked up because of the experience (or a very a good actor). It's painful to watch.
Edit: Things I wondered about:
Isn't sleep deprivation is a war crime (they mentioned this)? Bright lights and non-stop rock n roll were used in the middle east by US forces.
Don't prisons have a limit on solitary confinement? Is 30 days maybe way over that?
Could the guy really not leave because of the money? At some point it seems like greed. 4 days * 10k/day seems like more than enough money to me. Why try to go for 300k? Was there something else keeping him there that he didn't mention? Was he worried they'd fuck him over if he didn't stick it out long enough to generate enough footage?
WHO THE FUCK WATCHES THIS SHIT? I knew nothing about these weird YT people until this week.
Mr Beast’s audience is really young. I mean like 12 and below. So whenever you see someone go “Mr Beast helps people I’m not believing a y of this” just know it’s an actual child writing that.
WHO THE FUCK WATCHES THIS SHIT?
Mr Beast’s audience is really young. I mean like 12 and below. So whenever you see someone go “Mr Beast helps people I’m not believing a y of this” just know it’s an actual child writing that.
That's fair, but fwiw this person (MrBeast) is considered to be in the absolute upper eschelons of YouTube "celebrities". He is absolutely HUGE, with zillions of views - mostly children. I would...
That's fair, but fwiw this person (MrBeast) is considered to be in the absolute upper eschelons of YouTube "celebrities". He is absolutely HUGE, with zillions of views - mostly children. I would guess he is easily in the top 20 or 50 most viewed channels, even if you included massive corporate brands like Apple or whatever. (i might be wrong about this on the numbers - but "MrBeast" is definitely a global 'brand'). This person has MASSIVE influence over younger generations, and has already talked about running for president of the USA. He is currently too young to meet he criteria, but it's not unrealistic to imagine that position as part of his planned career trajectory in a decade or two.
We already had a disgraceful reality TV host as a president, and reality TV has been chugging along for over two decades. Awful YouTube (2005) and Instagram (I don't know when they became...
We already had a disgraceful reality TV host as a president, and reality TV has been chugging along for over two decades.
Awful YouTube (2005) and Instagram (I don't know when they became something other than a gimmicky camera app) celebrities running for president seems like it's realistically only a few years away, now that that can of worms has been opened.
If you haven't seen it, the Netflix show Squid Game tackles exactly this phenomenon. People will go so far beyond their own limits and morality if they think they have a shot at improving their...
Could the guy really not leave because of the money? At some point it seems like greed. 4 days * 10k/day seems like more than enough money to me.
If you haven't seen it, the Netflix show Squid Game tackles exactly this phenomenon. People will go so far beyond their own limits and morality if they think they have a shot at improving their station, and the show points out why that's not just a fallacy but also often a false dichotomy setup by the extremely wealthy for entertainment.
(Then Netflix went and made it an actual reality show which was just so insanely tone deaf to me and yet proved exactly the show's point).
Ok initial thought: Gross, I hadn't heard of the reality tv version .... I thought that was the whole point of the show: it's gross, don't do this to human beings. Second thought Then again...
Ok initial thought:
Gross, I hadn't heard of the reality tv version .... I thought that was the whole point of the show: it's gross, don't do this to human beings.
Second thought
Then again obviously they're not literally killing players, so if it's more Takeshi's Castle like then it could be really fun.
NPR review:
The original Squid Game indicts, above all, anyone who would find such a competition entertaining. The villains are the people who watch, who plan, and who enjoy this spectacle
Yup, I'm a terrible person and I definitely want to watch this. The contestants got a free trip and some food and had some excitement, and one of them did finally win $4m right?
Hang on. Third thought. They did have fun, right???
“Contestants thought they were taking part in something fun and those injured did not expect to suffer as they did. Now they have been left with injuries after spending time being stuck in painful stress positions in cold temperatures. (Hollywood reporter)
Oh dang nabbit Netflix!! Nope, my interest is totally gone. I haven't fully recovered from what they did to poor young people on Terrace House.
I did watch it. Enjoyed it. Saw the alert for the reality show and did not watch, but that is kinda hilarious. You are right, it's incredibly tone deaf.
I did watch it. Enjoyed it. Saw the alert for the reality show and did not watch, but that is kinda hilarious. You are right, it's incredibly tone deaf.
Re: why didn't he just leave? Peer pressure can be extremely powerful. He had a group of relative peers (the crew) as well as people with power over him (his employers essentially) all more or...
Re: why didn't he just leave?
Peer pressure can be extremely powerful. He had a group of relative peers (the crew) as well as people with power over him (his employers essentially) all more or less coercing him to stay. Even if "coercion" is too strong a word, they're likely still strongly suggesting that he stay. Add to that completion bias ("well I started this, might as well see it through") and a healthy dose of sleep depravation, and you have someone who's not making completely rational decisions. I'm glad he did get out when he did, before getting more hurt.
No one likes to imagine themself as a victim, so hearing stories like these we often think to ourselves "I would do it different and leave." But that's missing how malleable humans really are. I'm not saying that MrBeast is a cult or anything, but this is why people stay in cults, abusive relationships, etc. When you're in that highly-controlled environment, it can be really hard to imagine other options.
So long as the employee who’s a registered sex offender isn’t working directly with children or children’s personal information, what’s the problem? If we aren’t supposed to give registered sex...
So long as the employee who’s a registered sex offender isn’t working directly with children or children’s personal information, what’s the problem?
If we aren’t supposed to give registered sex offenders jobs, why don’t we get it over with already and just automatically execute them?
I know that’s a bit hyperbolic, but from what I read, if they are supposed to be completely excluded from normal society, we might as well incarcerate them forever or just execute them.
But I thought this YouTube person regularly runs contests specifically for children? I guess it depends if they receive communication from children as a result of hosting content targeted towards...
But I thought this YouTube person regularly runs contests specifically for children? I guess it depends if they receive communication from children as a result of hosting content targeted towards children, eg, ask kids to respond to a video with comments. That could be seen as a way to harvest child-owned accounts which an offender could then use to initiate contact representing the Channel
The video addresses this. Their actions go beyond simple employment. their nickname for him was Delaware as a "joke" because that's where he was convicted his victim's age was 1 to 11 he was an...
The video addresses this. Their actions go beyond simple employment.
their nickname for him was Delaware as a "joke" because that's where he was convicted
his victim's age was 1 to 11
he was an early manager and likely had access to socials
he wore a mask while in videos
Mr. Beast's company has apparently been looking into expunging his record
In exceptional circumstances, there isn't really a limit. Look up ADX Florence. It's where people like terrorists, major crime bosses, and cartel leaders end up. There's a special section in there...
Don't prisons have a limit on solitary confinement? Is 30 days maybe way over that?
In exceptional circumstances, there isn't really a limit. Look up ADX Florence. It's where people like terrorists, major crime bosses, and cartel leaders end up. There's a special section in there just for the worst of the worst where they spend 23 hours a day in a concrete room, and one hour a day getting to pace back and forth ten steps each way.
One notable case was that of Thomas Silverstein, who was responsible for the murders of some prison guards as part of the Aryan Nation when he was only in maximum security. ADX Florence was specifically designed with him in mind and he was the first inmate of the special section. He spent 35 years in solitary before he passed away a few years ago.
War crimes are only war crimes if they're committed against legal combatants by combatants in an actual war. It's why cops are able to use tear gas against protestors, but soldiers would be guilty...
Isn't sleep deprivation is a war crime (they mentioned this)? Bright lights and non-stop rock n roll were used in the middle east by US forces.
War crimes are only war crimes if they're committed against legal combatants by combatants in an actual war. It's why cops are able to use tear gas against protestors, but soldiers would be guilty of a warcrime for doing the same in a warzone.
This is not to excuse it. It's to drive home how fucked up the legal system is. People routinely get away with actions so bad they literally constitute war crimes.
Re: War Crimes - plenty of things are war crimes in circumstances of war that fall into other categories - unethical for example but not necessarily illegal - when done outside of wartime...
Re: War Crimes - plenty of things are war crimes in circumstances of war that fall into other categories - unethical for example but not necessarily illegal - when done outside of wartime circumstances. Or possibly it's an OSHA or state employment law violation.
In California, at least, the law says "Anyone who with intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or sadistic purpose, inflicts great...
In California, at least, the law says "Anyone who with intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury on another person, is guilty of torture." (Emphasis mine) Doing it to make an entertaining video doesn't count.
In the abstract, sure, but this is a situation where there's documentation showing the person opting in and having the legal right to stop; there's plenty of evidence that this was planned for a...
In the abstract, sure, but this is a situation where there's documentation showing the person opting in and having the legal right to stop; there's plenty of evidence that this was planned for a video; not for someone's jollies.
They're saying none of those motives listed in the law are inclusive of "making a video" Whether that's accurate or not involves a lawyer and a level of knowledge of California criminal law I...
They're saying none of those motives listed in the law are inclusive of "making a video"
Whether that's accurate or not involves a lawyer and a level of knowledge of California criminal law I don't have
Yes, but that raises questions. Where was it set to free up a YouTube video to allow such things but still keep dangerous prank or snuff films illegal? It's important to see where such things were...
Yes, but that raises questions. Where was it set to free up a YouTube video to allow such things but still keep dangerous prank or snuff films illegal? It's important to see where such things were established.
You can't consent to being murdered. There's a lot of legal language in all of this. There's no specific YouTube video loophole but the fact that some things are crimes in certain circumstances...
You can't consent to being murdered. There's a lot of legal language in all of this. There's no specific YouTube video loophole but the fact that some things are crimes in certain circumstances but not others is just how law works. And we want it to or most sports are crimes for a start.
He didn't consent to being denied the ability to sleep either. And if we're talking consent, we can't ignore that the imbalanced power dynamics that compelled him to give initial consent are...
He didn't consent to being denied the ability to sleep either. And if we're talking consent, we can't ignore that the imbalanced power dynamics that compelled him to give initial consent are spoken about and referred to in the exact same way that sexual assault has been recognized as happening without true consent.
I'll say it plainly: the claim that torturing people for the purposes of making an entertaining video does not count as torture sounds ridiculous, and I would like proper citations to believe it.
And this isn't even the right state's law, Mr Beast operates in North Carolina. Everything described in this video takes place in NC.
Which sport is making use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation tactics in Iraq?
As I stated, I'm not saying it's ok nor am I saying it's clear cut legally. North Carolina laws might apply, or they might not because they might only apply to public officials or in conjunction...
He didn't consent to being denied the ability to sleep either. And if we're talking consent, we can't ignore that the imbalanced power dynamics that compelled him to give initial consent are spoken about and referred to in the exact same way that sexual assault has been recognized as happening without true consent.
As I stated, I'm not saying it's ok nor am I saying it's clear cut legally. North Carolina laws might apply, or they might not because they might only apply to public officials or in conjunction with another crime. They'd argue that by remaining he consented. I don't agree that this is a "enthusiastic consent" but it's not the same as sexual assault.
This isn't saying that the laws as they exist or the employment system is just, they're not. But I'm not saying "this should be a crime" I'm saying "I don't think it's likely legally a crime because those laws are specific and complicated"
I'll say it plainly: the claim that torturing people for the purposes of making an entertaining video does not count as torture sounds ridiculous, and I would like proper citations to believe it.
Cool I'm not a lawyer and you won't get them from me. I'm just saying it isn't clear cut and obvious. Laws are not usually written for these cases until something happens. Id be happy to read citations you can provide that indicate it is covered.
And this isn't even the right state's law, Mr Beast operates in North Carolina. Everything described in this video takes place in NC.
NC doesn't have easily google-able laws on the topic. Its possible theirs covers this sort of situation.
Which sport is making use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation tactics in Iraq?
That isn't what I said and I'm not doing "gotcha" bullshit. I've been engaging with you in good faith to this point, so do me the same courtesy.
Many sports include activities that would be assault/battery if context didn't matter. But because context, intent, and consent does matter.
Yes, but that's not what's in contention. I don't require this situation to be flattened out, I need it explained how exactly making "an entertaining video" does not count as "sadistic intent" in...
But I'm not saying "this should be a crime" I'm saying "I don't think it's likely legally a crime because those laws are specific and complicated"
Yes, but that's not what's in contention. I don't require this situation to be flattened out, I need it explained how exactly making "an entertaining video" does not count as "sadistic intent" in the Californian torture law.
Id be happy to read citations you can provide that indicate it is covered.
...Why am I suddenly being asked to prove this when you have spent multiple comments dancing around me asking a citation for a claim someone else made that I found hard to believe? I didn't make any claim about what "sadistic purposes" refers to in that Californian law, I'm the one asking where it was defined as suggested.
That isn't what I said and I'm not doing "gotcha" bullshit. I've been engaging with you in good faith to this point, so do me the same courtesy.
This reads more like I'm the one who got gotcha'd because now suddenly I'm the bad guy for asking where your sports reference came from.
I did not understand why you brought up sports because no sports involve any understood form of torture. Apparently you brought it up because of examples of other law having nuances and in this case it's assault and battery? But there have already been cases of charges of assault and battery brought up in sports contexts and those are very specific. If this exists to delineate assault and battery in sports from, well, just the sport itself, then there should be something similar to determine what does and doesn't count as legal or illegal torture for an entertaining video if someone made the claim as if it is fact. So, I ask again: according to what is making an entertaining video inherently not "sadistic intent"?
This court case deals with "what is sadistic intent" but is it binding precedent in CA or NC? No clue. Words in laws often have very specific legal definitions. Either NC or CA might define it, or...
This court case deals with "what is sadistic intent" but is it binding precedent in CA or NC? No clue.
Words in laws often have very specific legal definitions. Either NC or CA might define it, or they might be operating off a common definition.
My initial response to you was trying to answer what I thought was just a question of confusion about the previous poster's comment. I didn't realize you wanted a legal citation until your previous post. And I cannot provide one. Because the law is incredibly complicated. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not feeling like digging through a ton of legal precedent on my Thursday.
I specifically said that intent and context matters in laws and that we want it to or sports would all be crimes. And you're right there's a whole body of law about what is a crime vs what is "just" sport. So we're in agreement there.
But I'm not going to be able to provide what you want because that wasn't what I was trying to provide in the conversation and so you're going to have your best luck with some deeper legal searches or finding someone who's done a legal analysis of this situation.
Thanks for actually finding something, first of all. I doubt it's binding but I've heard of references to other jurisdiction's findings. This one doesn't seem to deal with video or camera footage...
Thanks for actually finding something, first of all. I doubt it's binding but I've heard of references to other jurisdiction's findings. This one doesn't seem to deal with video or camera footage unfortunately.
But yes, I was specifically asking established ruling because the law is so particular and such things only ever get hashed out in the justice system. I'm willing to hear how making a video for entertaining purposes got ruled as not torture but it has to actually be ruled at some point. I'd take anything really, but it seems like a legal case would be the only avenue such a thing would be proven and established. I am also not a lawyer but I have learned better than to accept what someone on the internet simply says is true when it comes to such matters.
It just seems to me that suggesting an "entertaining video" is precluded from "sadistic intent" is a bit of a leap (since it is not explicitly spelled out in that law), and since this is a law surely there is something that fills in that gap because that opens so many loopholes without a clear delineation. And California honestly seems likely to me to be the state with one, as the home of Hollywood and much TV production.
As a sidenote: Legal Eagle just released a video on this Mr Beast matter but it only covers the first video, not the allegations of this one. Maybe he'll be the one to inform us all on the nature of this as torture in his next one.
I'm focusing on the legal definitions of the words rather than the video aspect. I think it's perfectly possible to torture someone on video, but if "sadistic intent" has a specific legal meeting...
Thanks for actually finding something, first of all. I doubt it's binding but I've heard of references to other jurisdiction's findings. This one doesn't seem to deal with video or camera footage unfortunately.
I'm focusing on the legal definitions of the words rather than the video aspect. I think it's perfectly possible to torture someone on video, but if "sadistic intent" has a specific legal meeting then it doesn't matter that this feels "sadistic" to us, it matters if it's "sadistic intent" by the legal definition. It's not whether the video is an exception it's that lots of things probably don't fit into the categories listed.
I'm not stating it's definitely not covered but I'm doubtful that it fits the statue shared because those legal definitions are so particular.
You mean on top of source you already provided? I just said that torture is still a criminal act, and you provided a Californian law saying exactly that. But, sure, I suppose I can dig up a number...
You mean on top of source you already provided? I just said that torture is still a criminal act, and you provided a Californian law saying exactly that. But, sure, I suppose I can dig up a number of other jurisdictions that outlaw torture if you really want.
What I'm questioning is your statement that "Doing it to make an entertaining video doesn't count" because that's not covered in that the wording of that law, and I can't find anything suggesting that's the case.
I suppose I misread what of that list was specifically referred to but "Doing it to make an entertaining video doesn't count" is reading to me as if you're saying that the sleep deprivation...
I suppose I misread what of that list was specifically referred to but "Doing it to make an entertaining video doesn't count" is reading to me as if you're saying that the sleep deprivation described in the video doesn't count as torture according to anything on that list. The one item in the list that seems most relevant to me is "sadistic purpose".
My question is specifically how doing it for an entertaining video makes it not count as torture. I don't think this was clearcut criminal torture but I could see it argued as such. I just don't see how it can be waved away as not torture because it was for the purposes of an entertaining video.
I get that he original consented to the solitary confinement but he did not consent to sleep deprivation, which is a noted act of torture, and asked for mitigations to allow him to sleep that were then rejected. And the way he describes agreeing to the video do not make it sound like it was truly consensual in the end either.
"Sadistic purpose" is if they intend to inflict serious pain on another person to experience pleasure, but does not have to be sexual related. Does that help clarify why it doesn't count? There's...
"Sadistic purpose" is if they intend to inflict serious pain on another person to experience pleasure, but does not have to be sexual related. Does that help clarify why it doesn't count? There's a clear and documented reason for what happened, and it wasn't that.
Also, in that he had the legal right to leave at any time, and was being compensated, there may be questions of employment law, but you're going to have to be the one to cite law at me if you say it's torture, because I can't find anything to that effect.
I'm only claiming that torture is criminal even if it's not a war crime. Whether or not what happened here constitutes torture will need to established by lawyers but I think the argument can be...
I'm only claiming that torture is criminal even if it's not a war crime.
Whether or not what happened here constitutes torture will need to established by lawyers but I think the argument can be made given the testimony in this video. What I don't really know is established or not is the extent of what constitutes sadistic purpose. As you said, it's not purely sexual, but what about exploiting someone for content that you will personally profit from? I've just never heard of this being tested.
"Great bodily injury" is grievous harm that puts you at risk of death or disfigurement: think broken bones or lost limbs. What occurred here—while awful—isn't in that neighborhood of harm.
"Great bodily injury" is grievous harm that puts you at risk of death or disfigurement: think broken bones or lost limbs. What occurred here—while awful—isn't in that neighborhood of harm.
Right, but having the physical ability to leave may complicate that too. Not everything can be consented to, but I don't know where sleep deprivation falls. Since it's part of some employees...
Right, but having the physical ability to leave may complicate that too.
Not everything can be consented to, but I don't know where sleep deprivation falls. Since it's part of some employees regular work environment (on-call staff, firefighters, etc) it may be fully legal.
He specifically asked for changes to allow sleep and had them denied. That doesn't happen with those other jobs (there are dedicated sleep rooms for many of them, after all).
He specifically asked for changes to allow sleep and had them denied. That doesn't happen with those other jobs (there are dedicated sleep rooms for many of them, after all).
Sure but he didn't leave. I don't know how much of an impact that makes legally. And to be clear I'm not saying this is perfectly fine for a workplace to do, I'm saying it's probably not criminal,...
Sure but he didn't leave. I don't know how much of an impact that makes legally. And to be clear I'm not saying this is perfectly fine for a workplace to do, I'm saying it's probably not criminal, or if it is it probably falls under employment law.
Edit: to be more specific this is wrong and him not leaving does not make the behavior OK. This isn't me trying to victim blame. The ability to and failure to leave may impact the legal responsibility based on how laws are written
ChadCat made a 47-second ADHD version specifically highlighting the pedophile allegations. Gives a little more specific detail on who (some guy known as "Zoro" in the videos who wore a mask), and...
ChadCat made a 47-second ADHD version specifically highlighting the pedophile allegations. Gives a little more specific detail on who (some guy known as "Zoro" in the videos who wore a mask), and that the victim's age was allegedly between 1 and 11. The ChadCat video shows a sped-up clip with a glimpse of "Zoro" from a challenge video, and actually seeing him makes it feel a bit more real to me than just the text summary.
Yeah, this one REALLY can't be explained away as ignorance. Between the mask and Delaware nickname, seems like everyone involved knew this guy's history. It'd be one thing to hire him as a manager or some other behind-the-scenes role. Given the channel has children as its primary audience, having him appear on-screen at all feels like a risky and crazy decision.
The ages are mentioned in the original video too...I just didn't want to go into too much detail as the whole video is very disconcerting, and frankly I am not sure what is real or not on YT...
The ages are mentioned in the original video too...I just didn't want to go into too much detail as the whole video is very disconcerting, and frankly I am not sure what is real or not on YT anymore. In the back of my mind I am wondering if this is all some manufactured drama to increase views for both parties. I have no proof, I've just seen so many YT drama videos that were basically just made to gaslight people and increase views.
I’ve only watched half of it so far, but it’s largely an interview from a former employee. A lot of it is him describing the experience of being in a video that was never published where he was...
I’ve only watched half of it so far, but it’s largely an interview from a former employee. A lot of it is him describing the experience of being in a video that was never published where he was put in solitary confinement for a long period of time. It’s… not a positive thing, and you might not want to watch it because of it.
The opening being an homage to idubbbz’s Content Cop videos that were popular circa 2016 is pretty funny and wild considering how controversial idubbbz was/is.
The opening being an homage to idubbbz’s Content Cop videos that were popular circa 2016 is pretty funny and wild considering how controversial idubbbz was/is.
iDubbz has turned a page and removed a lot of his older content, including all Content Cop videos, and apologized to everyone for it as he felt it was all negative and promoting hateful content....
iDubbz has turned a page and removed a lot of his older content, including all Content Cop videos, and apologized to everyone for it as he felt it was all negative and promoting hateful content. So even he doesn't really like Content Cop anymore.
I've said this before and I mean, I know I am being cynic. I don't really think the man has changed. I never got into his content because I couldn't stand the profanity and the "edge". This whole...
I've said this before and I mean, I know I am being cynic. I don't really think the man has changed. I never got into his content because I couldn't stand the profanity and the "edge". This whole exercise of removing his old content just seems like an attempt to salvage his image after making it big and making loads of cash.
Or people grow. After he got a lot of flack for his partner starting an Onlyfans account, mostly getting called a cuck, I think he realized what kind of fan base he had accumulated. But what seems...
Or people grow. After he got a lot of flack for his partner starting an Onlyfans account, mostly getting called a cuck, I think he realized what kind of fan base he had accumulated. But what seems like a performance for one can seem genuine for another. Hearing him addressing this stuff I felt he was genuinely at least ashamed, if not sorry.
But onw can never really know, I'm not his friend nor did I ever really follow him that closely.
It’s just going along with the trend. Being edgy and anti-SJW was very in when he gained traction in 2016 and the opposite was in when he took the videos down.
It’s just going along with the trend. Being edgy and anti-SJW was very in when he gained traction in 2016 and the opposite was in when he took the videos down.
Does it really matter either way? I personally wouldn't have had an issue even if he left the videos up, as cringey as they can be, no one is being forced to watch decade old youtube videos. But...
Does it really matter either way? I personally wouldn't have had an issue even if he left the videos up, as cringey as they can be, no one is being forced to watch decade old youtube videos. But anyway, he did the thing that people would want him to do to "make things better" regardless of if he really changed or not. Like should someone who made cringey videos in the past just never be able to move past it?
He had a reasonably good reputation. He may have been controversial in some circles but the ones that liked him, really liked him. His new change made him lose image with both. I think that he...
He had a reasonably good reputation. He may have been controversial in some circles but the ones that liked him, really liked him.
His new change made him lose image with both. I think that he genuinely changed his mind about a lot of stuff
The change was definitely controversial mong the super toxic portion of his fanbase (which tbf was a reason he explicitly cited for why he did it), but I don't think it was all that controversial...
The change was definitely controversial mong the super toxic portion of his fanbase (which tbf was a reason he explicitly cited for why he did it), but I don't think it was all that controversial among people who agreed that his older content was too edgy and disliked those really toxic fans. I didn't know much about idubbz but my wife was a fan back in her immature youth, so we watched his video addressing the matter. It honestly seemed very sincere and well thought-out from our perspective. It seemed like about as well as one could handle the situation he was in without time travel involved.
As far as I am concerned, agreed. I also watched that video and he seemed sincere, and I also think that it was a good thing for him to step away from that persona. For example, Filthy Frank, even...
As far as I am concerned, agreed. I also watched that video and he seemed sincere, and I also think that it was a good thing for him to step away from that persona.
For example, Filthy Frank, even though I liked his content back then and still have a soft spot for those videos, I knew even as a kid that what he did couldn’t be good for his mental health. And I was right, eventually he admitted it when he decided to switch careers.
But back to Idubbz, my comment was based on the general reaction of his video. His immature & (especially) toxic fans hated his shift, but I also saw general distaste from people that already hated him (they usually talked about on how terrible he was, not necessarily about the video itself). The latter also didn’t start watching his videos, so he basically pushed away his audience and didn’t get much newer audience back.
But that was my anecdotal experience when I read several reactions on Reddit, I may be missing more context
He was a very edgy youtuber, from that era of youtube which was trying to be edgy (think filthy frank). That's mostly the gist of it, I'm unaware of any serious controversy he garnered.
He was a very edgy youtuber, from that era of youtube which was trying to be edgy (think filthy frank). That's mostly the gist of it, I'm unaware of any serious controversy he garnered.
The most controversial thing was his insistence that the N word shouldn’t be special, he argued that either none of the derogatory words are ok, or all of them are ok. I may get flack for this,...
The most controversial thing was his insistence that the N word shouldn’t be special, he argued that either none of the derogatory words are ok, or all of them are ok.
I may get flack for this, but honestly I can see where he was coming from, I find myself censoring that word in this comment just because I don’t know how the mods would react, as if it was a Voldemort’s name kind of thing. But then again, a lot of his fans used this as an excuse to use that word, so these idiotic people didn’t get his point at all
If anything, I understand why this phenomenon happened, I still find it odd as there isn't a direct equivalence in my country/language. Like, for example, the obsession of some people to get the N...
If anything, I understand why this phenomenon happened, I still find it odd as there isn't a direct equivalence in my country/language. Like, for example, the obsession of some people to get the N word pass. It's weird. We have our own cultural sensitive spots but nothing like this one.
I vaguely remember something about that and I agree. Words only have power if we give power to them. If people didn't demonize words they couldn't be used abusively.
I vaguely remember something about that and I agree. Words only have power if we give power to them. If people didn't demonize words they couldn't be used abusively.
Words only have power if we give them power, but "we" consists of all speakers of the English language. Additionally, we don't give them power consciously, but through how we perceive them and the...
Words only have power if we give them power, but "we" consists of all speakers of the English language. Additionally, we don't give them power consciously, but through how we perceive them and the people that use them. The n-word is different than even other slurs (in really interesting and unique ways linguistically, fwiw) whether it makes sense or not. You insisting that it shouldn't be treated differently isn't going to change that, and your using it despite knowing how it's perceived and what you're signaling by using it is going to affect people's opinion of you.
50min video - tl;dw. Does anyone want to summarize it?
He says Mr Beast employs a registered sex offender, mentions some accusations, then interviews a dude who was let go, but came back as a contractor for another video that never got posted where the dude would get 10k USD/per day of....solitary confinement.
The pedo is apparently banned from Delaware, and Mr. Beast "didn't know" he was a pedo, despite his nickname amongst all the Mr. Beast employees being "Delaware". The man is shown in multiple videos bearded and wearing a mask.
The ex-employee describes his torture as a contracted actor, key points being they wouldn't turn the lights off for him to sleep, and after some amount of time offered him more money if he would "run a marathon" on a tread mill. Which he did, and then couldn't walk from blisters and other pains for an extended period afterwards. He says he could leave whenever he wanted, but the money kept him there (beyond what the viewer would say was his breaking point).
The ex-employee is obviously fucked up because of the experience (or a very a good actor). It's painful to watch.
Edit: Things I wondered about:
Isn't sleep deprivation is a war crime (they mentioned this)? Bright lights and non-stop rock n roll were used in the middle east by US forces.
Don't prisons have a limit on solitary confinement? Is 30 days maybe way over that?
Could the guy really not leave because of the money? At some point it seems like greed. 4 days * 10k/day seems like more than enough money to me. Why try to go for 300k? Was there something else keeping him there that he didn't mention? Was he worried they'd fuck him over if he didn't stick it out long enough to generate enough footage?
WHO THE FUCK WATCHES THIS SHIT? I knew nothing about these weird YT people until this week.
Mr Beast’s audience is really young. I mean like 12 and below. So whenever you see someone go “Mr Beast helps people I’m not believing a y of this” just know it’s an actual child writing that.
Ah ok. I never would have known who this YouTuber was, except for Tildes.
That's fair, but fwiw this person (MrBeast) is considered to be in the absolute upper eschelons of YouTube "celebrities". He is absolutely HUGE, with zillions of views - mostly children. I would guess he is easily in the top 20 or 50 most viewed channels, even if you included massive corporate brands like Apple or whatever. (i might be wrong about this on the numbers - but "MrBeast" is definitely a global 'brand'). This person has MASSIVE influence over younger generations, and has already talked about running for president of the USA. He is currently too young to meet he criteria, but it's not unrealistic to imagine that position as part of his planned career trajectory in a decade or two.
We already had a disgraceful reality TV host as a president, and reality TV has been chugging along for over two decades.
Awful YouTube (2005) and Instagram (I don't know when they became something other than a gimmicky camera app) celebrities running for president seems like it's realistically only a few years away, now that that can of worms has been opened.
If you haven't seen it, the Netflix show Squid Game tackles exactly this phenomenon. People will go so far beyond their own limits and morality if they think they have a shot at improving their station, and the show points out why that's not just a fallacy but also often a false dichotomy setup by the extremely wealthy for entertainment.
(Then Netflix went and made it an actual reality show which was just so insanely tone deaf to me and yet proved exactly the show's point).
Ok initial thought:
Gross, I hadn't heard of the reality tv version .... I thought that was the whole point of the show: it's gross, don't do this to human beings.
Second thought
Then again obviously they're not literally killing players, so if it's more Takeshi's Castle like then it could be really fun.
NPR review:
Yup, I'm a terrible person and I definitely want to watch this. The contestants got a free trip and some food and had some excitement, and one of them did finally win $4m right?
Hang on. Third thought. They did have fun, right???
Oh dang nabbit Netflix!! Nope, my interest is totally gone. I haven't fully recovered from what they did to poor young people on Terrace House.
I did watch it. Enjoyed it. Saw the alert for the reality show and did not watch, but that is kinda hilarious. You are right, it's incredibly tone deaf.
Mr Beast recreated Squid Game on his YouTube channel too, seemed redundant.
Re: why didn't he just leave?
Peer pressure can be extremely powerful. He had a group of relative peers (the crew) as well as people with power over him (his employers essentially) all more or less coercing him to stay. Even if "coercion" is too strong a word, they're likely still strongly suggesting that he stay. Add to that completion bias ("well I started this, might as well see it through") and a healthy dose of sleep depravation, and you have someone who's not making completely rational decisions. I'm glad he did get out when he did, before getting more hurt.
No one likes to imagine themself as a victim, so hearing stories like these we often think to ourselves "I would do it different and leave." But that's missing how malleable humans really are. I'm not saying that MrBeast is a cult or anything, but this is why people stay in cults, abusive relationships, etc. When you're in that highly-controlled environment, it can be really hard to imagine other options.
So long as the employee who’s a registered sex offender isn’t working directly with children or children’s personal information, what’s the problem?
If we aren’t supposed to give registered sex offenders jobs, why don’t we get it over with already and just automatically execute them?
I know that’s a bit hyperbolic, but from what I read, if they are supposed to be completely excluded from normal society, we might as well incarcerate them forever or just execute them.
But I thought this YouTube person regularly runs contests specifically for children? I guess it depends if they receive communication from children as a result of hosting content targeted towards children, eg, ask kids to respond to a video with comments. That could be seen as a way to harvest child-owned accounts which an offender could then use to initiate contact representing the Channel
The video addresses this. Their actions go beyond simple employment.
He was working with children I guess? Like they do shows with younger fans.
In exceptional circumstances, there isn't really a limit. Look up ADX Florence. It's where people like terrorists, major crime bosses, and cartel leaders end up. There's a special section in there just for the worst of the worst where they spend 23 hours a day in a concrete room, and one hour a day getting to pace back and forth ten steps each way.
One notable case was that of Thomas Silverstein, who was responsible for the murders of some prison guards as part of the Aryan Nation when he was only in maximum security. ADX Florence was specifically designed with him in mind and he was the first inmate of the special section. He spent 35 years in solitary before he passed away a few years ago.
They can be rather sensationalist, but Infographics Show did have an interesting bit on ADX Florence and Silverstein - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_kx78rAlAk
War crimes are only war crimes if they're committed against legal combatants by combatants in an actual war. It's why cops are able to use tear gas against protestors, but soldiers would be guilty of a warcrime for doing the same in a warzone.
This is not to excuse it. It's to drive home how fucked up the legal system is. People routinely get away with actions so bad they literally constitute war crimes.
Re: War Crimes - plenty of things are war crimes in circumstances of war that fall into other categories - unethical for example but not necessarily illegal - when done outside of wartime circumstances. Or possibly it's an OSHA or state employment law violation.
It may not be a true war crime since this wasn't during a war but torture is still very much illegal through criminal law.
In California, at least, the law says "Anyone who with intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury on another person, is guilty of torture." (Emphasis mine) Doing it to make an entertaining video doesn't count.
One persons "entertaining video" could be anothers "sadistic purpose", couldn't it?
In the abstract, sure, but this is a situation where there's documentation showing the person opting in and having the legal right to stop; there's plenty of evidence that this was planned for a video; not for someone's jollies.
It doesn't count according to what?
They're saying none of those motives listed in the law are inclusive of "making a video"
Whether that's accurate or not involves a lawyer and a level of knowledge of California criminal law I don't have
Yes, but that raises questions. Where was it set to free up a YouTube video to allow such things but still keep dangerous prank or snuff films illegal? It's important to see where such things were established.
You can't consent to being murdered. There's a lot of legal language in all of this. There's no specific YouTube video loophole but the fact that some things are crimes in certain circumstances but not others is just how law works. And we want it to or most sports are crimes for a start.
He didn't consent to being denied the ability to sleep either. And if we're talking consent, we can't ignore that the imbalanced power dynamics that compelled him to give initial consent are spoken about and referred to in the exact same way that sexual assault has been recognized as happening without true consent.
I'll say it plainly: the claim that torturing people for the purposes of making an entertaining video does not count as torture sounds ridiculous, and I would like proper citations to believe it.
And this isn't even the right state's law, Mr Beast operates in North Carolina. Everything described in this video takes place in NC.
Which sport is making use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation tactics in Iraq?
As I stated, I'm not saying it's ok nor am I saying it's clear cut legally. North Carolina laws might apply, or they might not because they might only apply to public officials or in conjunction with another crime. They'd argue that by remaining he consented. I don't agree that this is a "enthusiastic consent" but it's not the same as sexual assault.
This isn't saying that the laws as they exist or the employment system is just, they're not. But I'm not saying "this should be a crime" I'm saying "I don't think it's likely legally a crime because those laws are specific and complicated"
Cool I'm not a lawyer and you won't get them from me. I'm just saying it isn't clear cut and obvious. Laws are not usually written for these cases until something happens. Id be happy to read citations you can provide that indicate it is covered.
That isn't what I said and I'm not doing "gotcha" bullshit. I've been engaging with you in good faith to this point, so do me the same courtesy.
Many sports include activities that would be assault/battery if context didn't matter. But because context, intent, and consent does matter.
Yes, but that's not what's in contention. I don't require this situation to be flattened out, I need it explained how exactly making "an entertaining video" does not count as "sadistic intent" in the Californian torture law.
...Why am I suddenly being asked to prove this when you have spent multiple comments dancing around me asking a citation for a claim someone else made that I found hard to believe? I didn't make any claim about what "sadistic purposes" refers to in that Californian law, I'm the one asking where it was defined as suggested.
This reads more like I'm the one who got gotcha'd because now suddenly I'm the bad guy for asking where your sports reference came from.
I did not understand why you brought up sports because no sports involve any understood form of torture. Apparently you brought it up because of examples of other law having nuances and in this case it's assault and battery? But there have already been cases of charges of assault and battery brought up in sports contexts and those are very specific. If this exists to delineate assault and battery in sports from, well, just the sport itself, then there should be something similar to determine what does and doesn't count as legal or illegal torture for an entertaining video if someone made the claim as if it is fact. So, I ask again: according to what is making an entertaining video inherently not "sadistic intent"?
This court case deals with "what is sadistic intent" but is it binding precedent in CA or NC? No clue.
Words in laws often have very specific legal definitions. Either NC or CA might define it, or they might be operating off a common definition.
My initial response to you was trying to answer what I thought was just a question of confusion about the previous poster's comment. I didn't realize you wanted a legal citation until your previous post. And I cannot provide one. Because the law is incredibly complicated. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not feeling like digging through a ton of legal precedent on my Thursday.
I specifically said that intent and context matters in laws and that we want it to or sports would all be crimes. And you're right there's a whole body of law about what is a crime vs what is "just" sport. So we're in agreement there.
But I'm not going to be able to provide what you want because that wasn't what I was trying to provide in the conversation and so you're going to have your best luck with some deeper legal searches or finding someone who's done a legal analysis of this situation.
Thanks for actually finding something, first of all. I doubt it's binding but I've heard of references to other jurisdiction's findings. This one doesn't seem to deal with video or camera footage unfortunately.
But yes, I was specifically asking established ruling because the law is so particular and such things only ever get hashed out in the justice system. I'm willing to hear how making a video for entertaining purposes got ruled as not torture but it has to actually be ruled at some point. I'd take anything really, but it seems like a legal case would be the only avenue such a thing would be proven and established. I am also not a lawyer but I have learned better than to accept what someone on the internet simply says is true when it comes to such matters.
It just seems to me that suggesting an "entertaining video" is precluded from "sadistic intent" is a bit of a leap (since it is not explicitly spelled out in that law), and since this is a law surely there is something that fills in that gap because that opens so many loopholes without a clear delineation. And California honestly seems likely to me to be the state with one, as the home of Hollywood and much TV production.
As a sidenote: Legal Eagle just released a video on this Mr Beast matter but it only covers the first video, not the allegations of this one. Maybe he'll be the one to inform us all on the nature of this as torture in his next one.
I'm focusing on the legal definitions of the words rather than the video aspect. I think it's perfectly possible to torture someone on video, but if "sadistic intent" has a specific legal meeting then it doesn't matter that this feels "sadistic" to us, it matters if it's "sadistic intent" by the legal definition. It's not whether the video is an exception it's that lots of things probably don't fit into the categories listed.
I'm not stating it's definitely not covered but I'm doubtful that it fits the statue shared because those legal definitions are so particular.
What I mean is: if you want to claim that it's illegal, and torture, please cite your sources.
You mean on top of source you already provided? I just said that torture is still a criminal act, and you provided a Californian law saying exactly that. But, sure, I suppose I can dig up a number of other jurisdictions that outlaw torture if you really want.
What I'm questioning is your statement that "Doing it to make an entertaining video doesn't count" because that's not covered in that the wording of that law, and I can't find anything suggesting that's the case.
Perhaps you misread? What said was that the acts didn't qualify as torture.
I suppose I misread what of that list was specifically referred to but "Doing it to make an entertaining video doesn't count" is reading to me as if you're saying that the sleep deprivation described in the video doesn't count as torture according to anything on that list. The one item in the list that seems most relevant to me is "sadistic purpose".
My question is specifically how doing it for an entertaining video makes it not count as torture. I don't think this was clearcut criminal torture but I could see it argued as such. I just don't see how it can be waved away as not torture because it was for the purposes of an entertaining video.
I get that he original consented to the solitary confinement but he did not consent to sleep deprivation, which is a noted act of torture, and asked for mitigations to allow him to sleep that were then rejected. And the way he describes agreeing to the video do not make it sound like it was truly consensual in the end either.
"Sadistic purpose" is if they intend to inflict serious pain on another person to experience pleasure, but does not have to be sexual related. Does that help clarify why it doesn't count? There's a clear and documented reason for what happened, and it wasn't that.
Also, in that he had the legal right to leave at any time, and was being compensated, there may be questions of employment law, but you're going to have to be the one to cite law at me if you say it's torture, because I can't find anything to that effect.
I'm only claiming that torture is criminal even if it's not a war crime.
Whether or not what happened here constitutes torture will need to established by lawyers but I think the argument can be made given the testimony in this video. What I don't really know is established or not is the extent of what constitutes sadistic purpose. As you said, it's not purely sexual, but what about exploiting someone for content that you will personally profit from? I've just never heard of this being tested.
"Great bodily injury" is grievous harm that puts you at risk of death or disfigurement: think broken bones or lost limbs. What occurred here—while awful—isn't in that neighborhood of harm.
Right, but having the physical ability to leave may complicate that too.
Not everything can be consented to, but I don't know where sleep deprivation falls. Since it's part of some employees regular work environment (on-call staff, firefighters, etc) it may be fully legal.
He specifically asked for changes to allow sleep and had them denied. That doesn't happen with those other jobs (there are dedicated sleep rooms for many of them, after all).
Sure but he didn't leave. I don't know how much of an impact that makes legally. And to be clear I'm not saying this is perfectly fine for a workplace to do, I'm saying it's probably not criminal, or if it is it probably falls under employment law.
Edit: to be more specific this is wrong and him not leaving does not make the behavior OK. This isn't me trying to victim blame. The ability to and failure to leave may impact the legal responsibility based on how laws are written
ChadCat made a 47-second ADHD version specifically highlighting the pedophile allegations. Gives a little more specific detail on who (some guy known as "Zoro" in the videos who wore a mask), and that the victim's age was allegedly between 1 and 11. The ChadCat video shows a sped-up clip with a glimpse of "Zoro" from a challenge video, and actually seeing him makes it feel a bit more real to me than just the text summary.
Yeah, this one REALLY can't be explained away as ignorance. Between the mask and Delaware nickname, seems like everyone involved knew this guy's history. It'd be one thing to hire him as a manager or some other behind-the-scenes role. Given the channel has children as its primary audience, having him appear on-screen at all feels like a risky and crazy decision.
The ages are mentioned in the original video too...I just didn't want to go into too much detail as the whole video is very disconcerting, and frankly I am not sure what is real or not on YT anymore. In the back of my mind I am wondering if this is all some manufactured drama to increase views for both parties. I have no proof, I've just seen so many YT drama videos that were basically just made to gaslight people and increase views.
I’ve only watched half of it so far, but it’s largely an interview from a former employee. A lot of it is him describing the experience of being in a video that was never published where he was put in solitary confinement for a long period of time. It’s… not a positive thing, and you might not want to watch it because of it.
The opening being an homage to idubbbz’s Content Cop videos that were popular circa 2016 is pretty funny and wild considering how controversial idubbbz was/is.
iDubbz has turned a page and removed a lot of his older content, including all Content Cop videos, and apologized to everyone for it as he felt it was all negative and promoting hateful content. So even he doesn't really like Content Cop anymore.
I've said this before and I mean, I know I am being cynic. I don't really think the man has changed. I never got into his content because I couldn't stand the profanity and the "edge". This whole exercise of removing his old content just seems like an attempt to salvage his image after making it big and making loads of cash.
Or people grow. After he got a lot of flack for his partner starting an Onlyfans account, mostly getting called a cuck, I think he realized what kind of fan base he had accumulated. But what seems like a performance for one can seem genuine for another. Hearing him addressing this stuff I felt he was genuinely at least ashamed, if not sorry.
But onw can never really know, I'm not his friend nor did I ever really follow him that closely.
It’s just going along with the trend. Being edgy and anti-SJW was very in when he gained traction in 2016 and the opposite was in when he took the videos down.
Does it really matter either way? I personally wouldn't have had an issue even if he left the videos up, as cringey as they can be, no one is being forced to watch decade old youtube videos. But anyway, he did the thing that people would want him to do to "make things better" regardless of if he really changed or not. Like should someone who made cringey videos in the past just never be able to move past it?
He had a reasonably good reputation. He may have been controversial in some circles but the ones that liked him, really liked him.
His new change made him lose image with both. I think that he genuinely changed his mind about a lot of stuff
The change was definitely controversial mong the super toxic portion of his fanbase (which tbf was a reason he explicitly cited for why he did it), but I don't think it was all that controversial among people who agreed that his older content was too edgy and disliked those really toxic fans. I didn't know much about idubbz but my wife was a fan back in her immature youth, so we watched his video addressing the matter. It honestly seemed very sincere and well thought-out from our perspective. It seemed like about as well as one could handle the situation he was in without time travel involved.
As far as I am concerned, agreed. I also watched that video and he seemed sincere, and I also think that it was a good thing for him to step away from that persona.
For example, Filthy Frank, even though I liked his content back then and still have a soft spot for those videos, I knew even as a kid that what he did couldn’t be good for his mental health. And I was right, eventually he admitted it when he decided to switch careers.
But back to Idubbz, my comment was based on the general reaction of his video. His immature & (especially) toxic fans hated his shift, but I also saw general distaste from people that already hated him (they usually talked about on how terrible he was, not necessarily about the video itself). The latter also didn’t start watching his videos, so he basically pushed away his audience and didn’t get much newer audience back.
But that was my anecdotal experience when I read several reactions on Reddit, I may be missing more context
What was wrong with idubbbz?
He was a very edgy youtuber, from that era of youtube which was trying to be edgy (think filthy frank). That's mostly the gist of it, I'm unaware of any serious controversy he garnered.
Ah ok, there's nothing wrong with being edgy. I didn't really watch his content but I loved the memes that came from him.
The most controversial thing was his insistence that the N word shouldn’t be special, he argued that either none of the derogatory words are ok, or all of them are ok.
I may get flack for this, but honestly I can see where he was coming from, I find myself censoring that word in this comment just because I don’t know how the mods would react, as if it was a Voldemort’s name kind of thing. But then again, a lot of his fans used this as an excuse to use that word, so these idiotic people didn’t get his point at all
White people still not understanding why black people can say it but they can't.
Tale as old as time.
If anything, I understand why this phenomenon happened, I still find it odd as there isn't a direct equivalence in my country/language. Like, for example, the obsession of some people to get the N word pass. It's weird. We have our own cultural sensitive spots but nothing like this one.
It really is unique in weird ways, even compared to its closest equivalents in other languages.
I vaguely remember something about that and I agree. Words only have power if we give power to them. If people didn't demonize words they couldn't be used abusively.
This is up there with "And racism will go away if we just ignore it!" line of reasoning.
It's not up there with it; it's literally the same thing.
Words only have power if we give them power, but "we" consists of all speakers of the English language. Additionally, we don't give them power consciously, but through how we perceive them and the people that use them. The n-word is different than even other slurs (in really interesting and unique ways linguistically, fwiw) whether it makes sense or not. You insisting that it shouldn't be treated differently isn't going to change that, and your using it despite knowing how it's perceived and what you're signaling by using it is going to affect people's opinion of you.
He was known for saying the n word a lot. There was some controversy with his current partner as well. Just kind of a mess all around.
In the last video the guy made he did a whole "content cop" section and made several references. Its obvious the guy is a fan
Follow-up to the July 24th video about MrBeast by DogPack404