• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 months ago

      I think the chocolate may actually be one of the few things he did that’s a net positive. It’s not bad.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        88 months ago

        Did you watch dogpack’s video? It stopped sucking once they made it as bad as regular chocolate.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          I didn’t, I did watch foodgeek test it, and he’s won a bunch of awards for his chocolate recipes.

          Maybe beast pay him off I don’t know. I have tried all this chocolate and I don’t find it disagreeable.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      28
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Everyone he “gave money to” was either a friend of his or an employee of his company. He never gave any to strangers. It’s all a show.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          108 months ago

          Nah, there were plenty of instances where it went to a decent charity.

          He’s basically running a game show on YouTube money.

          And yes a lot of the money went to people he knows.

          • NoIWontPickAName
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Well yeah, it was just him and his friends a lot of the time.

            I just thought people were saying the whole thing was

  • Roflmasterbigpimp
    link
    fedilink
    18
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I’m OOTL and the article is not really helping, what is going on with Mr. Beast? Why is he so hated atm?

    • sunglocto
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Watch DogPack404’s 3 videos on him on YouTube. Essentially, Jimmy is a massive loser who has rigged and faked challenges, caused sleep deprivation, knowingly hired and protected multiple sex offenders, commited illegal lotteries, having a degrading work culture: (from one of his documents)

      No doesn’t mean no

      And has attempted to silence anyone who speaks out about him with cease and desists, attempting to find any ways to discredit them using his employee’s own Xitter accounts, accusing them of being mentally ill or distrustworthy. He is a complete sociopath and nobody should watch him

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        43
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        After watching the videos, and the analysis from Legal Eagle, I find the criticism a little dubious.

        “Rigged challenges” is how he introduces surprise things mid-video, like “I’ll give you $10,000 if you quit now, but your team loses a team member!” It’s obviously part of the show and participants agree to it happening before hand.

        “Knowingly hired a sex offender”. Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point? The person in question was convicted when he was 16, and was hired 7 years later with nothing indicating he would reoffend. Don’t we have courts for justice? Instead they should never be hired as punishment? To me it sounds commendable he’s not prejudiced against people’s past.

        “Attempted to silence anyone” Did he? There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist. Do we know that C&D was baseless?

        That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?

        Like many, I find the MrBeast videos a cancer of YouTube, which makes hearing any critique of him convenient. But I don’t like assuming, and I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn’t offering an objective view.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          138 months ago

          Knowingly hired a sex offender". Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point?

          I generally agree with this point, except, Mr.Beast channel is specifically catered to and often involves minors. In that particular environment there should be an absolute zero tolerance for any kind of sex offender. That’s a no brainer. If you somehow find out after already hiring the individual the correct response is to publicly and candidly let that person go.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            68 months ago

            I understand what you’re saying and to a degree I agree but do we know why he was labeled a sex offender? I’m not here to necessarily defend him but I know of people who have had to register when their offense was whipping out their dick near a school to pee. Nothing sexual, they were just drunk and didn’t realize it was a small elementary the building over, the cop wasn’t having a good day and he got fucked by the law.

            Again, I’m not necessarily defending him but there’s at least a bit of wiggle room in my opinion depending on circumstances.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            48 months ago

            I don’t know, I feel something that you did as a teenager, and that you have already went to court about, shouldn’t haunt you for the rest of your life any more than it already does with the legally mandated registry.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              138 months ago

              The guy was accused of raping a child between the ages of 1-11. Do you think that person should ever have anything to do with children? Being 16 does not make this excusable.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I’m not from the US, but I assume they have laws for this. I’m against vigilante justice against people who were already judged by the legal system. Do you also support not hiring any felon?

                I don’t think he should or shouldn’t be allowed near anyone, I assume if there was a reason to be barred from it by the judge, he would be. Clearly he wasn’t, so I’m not going to be an armchair legal expert and override the judge.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  6
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  You have a very optimistic view of the American legal system and it does not include nuance such as this. It depends from state to start but generally a sex offender is not legally prohibited from holding just about any position beyond teacher/day care. Some states make it difficult for them to obtain professional licenses. I do not believe any of them actually prohibits “children’s entertainer”.

                  Typically that would be considered the purview of the employer.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Hey, man… I like playing devil’s advocate as much as the next guy, but maybe Jimmy’s got enough money to hire his own, yeah? Not to mention that the stuff you come up with is pretty weak.

          Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point?

          Should I be hired as a mechanic if I’ve ever tampered with cars before? Should I be hired in finance if I ran a ponzi scheme? Should I be hired producing content for children if I raped an 11 year old? Yeah, some questions are absolute mysteries.

          There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist.

          The man literally has you sign an NDA to work for him. That’s attempt to silence.

          That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?

          I trust a labrador retriever to retrieve better than other dogs. Who would you like to have on Jimmy’s heels? The pope? Trump? There’s nobody that can’t be discredited or dismissed with a "that guy’s just a <random insult> trying to hurt MrBeast.“

          I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn’t offering an objective view.

          Oh, great. What an objective assessment to go on - your feeling. Listen, unless it’s a third party that is not involved in the situation, that is incorruptible and that is tamper proof, you won’t find objective reality. All you’ll find is a subjective view of past events. Consume both sides of the argument and make up your mind where exactly the truth is, cause it’s probably somewhere in-between everyone’s claims. Or don’t, there is no reason to get involved in the subject.

          That being said - I am willing to believe someone who films themselves giving money to homeless people and uses it to get more money and views is a total fucking asshole whose basic mechanism of shame has been overridden by whatever type of greed made him turn into this soulless husk in the first place.

      • dblsaiko
        link
        fedilink
        58 months ago

        having a degrading work culture: (from one of his documents)

        No doesn’t mean no

        Let’s not take stuff way out of context. There’s plenty to criticize here (including a toxic work culture, but not because of this) so there’s no need to misrepresent anything.

        This is the paragraph that comes from. I’d say it’s absolutely shitty to whoever they’re bothering though.

        NO DOES NOT MEAN NO

        When dealing with people outside MrBeast Productions never take a No at face value. If we need a store to buy everything inside of and you call the local Dollar tree and the person that answers says “No, you can’t film here”. That literally doesn’t mean shit. Talk to other employees and see if any are fans or if any have kids that are fans, try talking to their boss, their bosses boss, have me dm them on twitter and try their social team, etc. If after all avenues are exhausted you are left with a no, that doesn’t mean don’t try the other dollar trees because the manager of those could be huge fans and willing to bend the rules. Basically what I’m trying to convey is what we call “pushing thru no”. Don’t just stop because one person told you no, stop when all conceivable options are exhausted. This is one of many tools that when combined dramatically improve your probability of success when producing here.

        (source)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          38 months ago

          Ok. So he wants his sales guys to be pushy. Not good behavior but how is this different from anyone else?

          I don’t have a previous opinion because I don’t watch that kind of shit (“philanthropy porn” is a great term for it), but you guys aren’t really selling me on it. I see a bunch of online people jumping right to sociopath and slime, then describing behavior that is all too common, almost normal, and certainly better than most internet slime and sociopaths.

          Seriously? Someone who works for him might be a pedophile so he’s clearly a sociopath?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        88 months ago

        Watch DogPack404’s 3 videos

        Yeah no thanks I’ll just stay ignorant if that’s the only option.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        428 months ago

        I never watched any of his videos but to friends that did I always said he would eventually make headlines for some kind of problematic behavior or involvement, and when asked what it was based on I just said I could tell by his face. Unnatural and disingenuous in appearance and actions if questioned further but none of them could see it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          78 months ago

          I’m so glad to see my exact feelings of him shared by so many people. My gut feeling about people like him is never wrong.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        28 months ago

        He also has the most generic milquetoast white dude face ever. I know about 8 guys in my town alone who could be his twins, going by the face alone.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      98 months ago

      This is what I should of told my friend when I told him Mr Beast was full of shit and after he became utterly shocked at the words coming out of my mouth. How would I dare insult the man that gave poor kids in Africa money on video.

  • Flying Squid
    link
    fedilink
    1198 months ago

    Philanthropy porn is just disgusting to begin with. That alone should have ended him. But people think it’s a “feel-good story” so they keep watching. A lot of times, the follow-ups to such stories feel less good since the people getting that philanthropy often can’t afford to pay to maintain whatever they’ve been given.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        178 months ago

        I was going to say I got it from somewhere, but apparently the term is usually “charity porn.” I think “philanthropy porn” works better though because it’s just as much about the philanthropist themselves as it is about what they’re offering.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      I think you coined the term “philanthropy porn”.

      But instead of just the best images of the subject matter like /cableporn or /earthporn, this has the negative connotation of voyeuristic performative prostitution. He’s the pimp, and he’s whoring out his recipients to make his money.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        38 months ago

        This would be simple, just have a room filled with more guitars I don’t play and buy a few more pairs of cargo pants.

        🤘Dad life

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Basically the plot of a Richard Pryor movie.

        Edited to add: yeah, and a play, and like a dozen film adaptations, but as a GenXer it’s Richard Pryor or bust for me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      178 months ago

      I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?

      As morally dubious as he is, I’m sure the people who have access to water after his “build 100 wells in Africa” stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.

      So I don’t know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I’m unsure what would be better.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        358 months ago

        I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that.

        This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don’t know if they would be worse off if they weren’t helped.

        He “built 100 houses and gave them away” earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they’re tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don’t like their job and there isn’t another job available? They’re stuck.

        Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don’t want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?

          You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            58 months ago

            Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.

            You also don’t know that they weren’t required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren’t such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren’t necessarily.

            They’re also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  28 months ago

                  Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, “yeah, they still own the house” doesn’t get views or make money?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          138 months ago

          Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.

          That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he’s a massive piece of shit.

          I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            58 months ago

            I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.

            And that’s pretty much my argument.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            188 months ago

            Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money?

            Possibly. If they didn’t sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there’s just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can’t actually afford to own a free house.

            Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc?

            That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That’s why corporations tend to do it.

            Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.

            I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren’t, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won’t tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              78 months ago

              Fair enough, I see how it could all fall apart if not done properly. And based on what people are saying… it’s unlikely that he did things properly.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              58 months ago

              Maybe if it’s just me, but if you’re unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free… I’m not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library’s are free.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                58 months ago

                Most of those “houses” were three room shacks in third world countries. No way they were worth 200k. They were roofs over peoples’ heads yes, but not investment vehicles.

                And please, explain to a war ravaged town in sub-saharan africa financial literacy. See how that goes.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                fedilink
                108 months ago

                Lots of people “do the research” on such things and end up becoming things like sovereign citizens.

                That’s the problem with doing your own research with no one to guide you. That’s especially dangerous in areas like financial literacy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting.

          If you’re given a house, paying property taxes and insurance is almost certainly better and cheaper than renting.

          I agree with your other points and overall with your perspective, but not this one.

          Typical property taxes run about 1-2% of the home’s overall value. Unless they were all given multi-million dollar mansions they’ll be paying like 2-4k a year in property taxes. That’s far less than the cost of renting a place of equivalent size basically anywhere. You can probably afford basic homeowner expenses on a job at McDonald’s if you own your place outright.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            28 months ago

            And in a lot of states you don’t need full home owners insurance if you own the place. Would be even easier to live in a home on a McD’s job.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        24
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?

        Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it’s always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it’s worse than if it weren’t allowed to accumulate in the first place.

        Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren’t so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        68 months ago

        So his curing 1000 blind people video? Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster

        In exchange for being on video. Which is kinda gross. It’s making entertainment out of someone who needs help. If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping. He makes more money off each video than he spent. That’s exploitation

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster

          Well, that’s good isn’t it?

          In exchange for being on video.

          I didn’t watch the video, but skimmed through it now. In the wide shot it shows around 200 people. Meaning 800 people got it without having to appear on video. It’s likely they just got the money and a question if they want to appear on a video. 20% said yes, 80% said no, still got the money. What’s wrong with that? Looks completely voluntary.

          If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping.

          In that video, it doesn’t look to me like he did. Clearly people got the money no strings attached, and an option to appear in a video in they want to, which most of them didn’t take.

          He makes more money off each video than he spent.

          Which gets spent on the next stunt. If not for the 1000 blind people video, he would have no money for the 100 free houses video, without which he would have no money for the 100 wells in Africa video, ad infinitum. If you say what he does cannot be packaged into profitable media, then that’s fine, but that means it can’t be done at all. Filming people getting helped is how more people get helped next time. As long as it’s voluntary for the people getting help, as it seems to be, I don’t see anything wrong with it.

          I agree with many of his criticisms, but to me he seems far from actual problems with this world caused by politicians and corporations. A YouTuber making a show of helping people seems like the last thing wrong with this world today. And people wouldn’t need the help if we solved the actual issues.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            58 months ago

            Just because they were cut out of the video doesn’t mean it wasn’t filmed. I want to see what contract they signed before he payed for their surgery.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              28 months ago

              I want to see what contract they signed before he payed for their surgery.

              Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          88 months ago

          My guy, I’m willing to believe thus but you just can’t spew massive claims like this without proof. I’ve seen the accusation videos too and at best a handful of people there were plants but definitely not most. Just give me some links and I’ll easily believe it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            108 months ago

            Just pay attention. There have been several articles about how the winners of a lot of his contests are family members of his cronies. They don’t get traction but I have no reason to doubt them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          108 months ago

          The random people in Africa that got wells drilled are part of the scam? His employees, sure, but I’m not arguing with that.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            They are part of the ancient tribe of Mr Beast. Little did we know he is like Mumra and just keep resurrecting over and over.

      • lilpatchy2eyes
        link
        fedilink
        228 months ago

        That’s just not how sustainable charity or development works, especially when it comes to things like building wells. There are existing charities that can do more than he does with the money he spends and have sustainable methods of doing so. Maybe some of them aren’t great, but if he actually wanted to address those issues he could set up a foundation with people who know how to do that work.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          48 months ago

          But that’s what he did, he gave the money to existing charities who build wells (probably in exchange for being able to film them being built).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      First of all I don’t like this guy and I find him as something wrong with him. Secondly I’m a lawyer with over 20 years so, if I call you “fisco” a pedophile and you file a lawsuit against my claim by your own statement it’s an admission of guilt and you should be legally registered as a pedophile.

    • subignition
      link
      fedilink
      1108 months ago

      It’s real dangerous to look at someone seeking legal representation and take that as an implication of guilt.

      Not defending Mr Beast at all, I’m sure there is no shortage of actual evidence of wrongdoing

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        168 months ago

        The allegations are that he is a dickhead, and him resorting to hiring a flashy lawyer to fight it pretty much confirms that.

        He is not a defendant here he will be a plaintiff in those suits.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        This isn’t even a reaction to known allegations—apparently he’s just anticipating potential future trouble:

        the reason that Donaldson hired the flashy lawyer is to conduct an internal audit of his company, the likes of which has recently come under fire as the result of various scandals.

        So I think it’s fair to say it’s an admission that his conduct might be legally questionable, without taking it as a confession of guilt

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          I don’t like Mr. Beast. But I’m a lawyer and it’s not strange that someone taking legal action to determine if there is something wrong either it’s as a person or a corporation. Considering he is using his persona for his business audits of his business is nothing out of the norm. On the other hand calling it an admission of legally questionable behavior because someone went to a court of law so that it can be decided legally is same as calling someone guilty because others felt like it. Law doesn’t work like that. You can say it’s ethically problematic but than you can’t single him out because many people joined him in such bullshit.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            28 months ago

            Of course law doesn’t work that way. Law is inherently complicated because it needs to be abused only by those with the proper resources. Also - literally nobody fucking cares how the law works unless it’s a step between where you are and where you need to go. At which point rich people will hire others to get over the step, and poor people will just jump over the step. Rich people will get away with it and get a slap on the wrist, and poor people will suffer the full wrath of the system, to make sure everyone else knows it’s for real and doesn’t question the authority of those in charge. Rich people are free, poor people are held hostage within the system and cannot break out. Law doesn’t establish morality of actions or justice, it doesn’t prevent or punish what society deems evil, it just separates those who can get away with their actions from those who can’t.

            Kill your masters.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              18 months ago

              What a childish and ignorant opinion. Do you know how many people executed in history without even hearing about what they were accused of? Or do you know how many people didn’t even have the chance to defend themselves because ignorant people like you felt like that they know they are guilty? Or how many people are lynched in the streets because someone said they are guilty? History is full of such examples. Blaming the law and asking for anarchy is not a solution. Who’s going to stop the powerful in your utopia from taking everything from you? How it’s different than your rich gets to do all claim? Law is complicated because law deals with human relations, action and their results when you come up with a simple human civilization you can make simple laws. This modern society that you despise that gave you all these amenities came as a result of laws that you despise. You wanna go back be my guest go establish your own state let’s see how long you and your like minded people will stay alive.

        • Melody Fwygon
          link
          fedilink
          English
          48 months ago

          You don’t hire a well known “PR Superstar”-level lawyer without being super worried that your conduct might be viewed as wrong in a court of public opinion, regardless of whether or not you broke the law. The Lawyer ensures public opinion doesn’t affect the possible legal case mess that’s likely going on.

          Until those legal tangles are resolved, we really won’t know more; and oftentimes details left for public record will be minimal if no wrongdoing was found.

          Personally; I think it’s possible that the allegations might not be 100% legitimate, I do believe people would love to smear him if it meant potential financial gains and social notoriety. But I also think it’s equally as possible that he is in fact as bad of a person as is alleged; and I believe he’s likely to be very much a self-serving person who hides that dark side with his very public persona. There are a number of people in creator circles who whisper stories of negative interactions with him.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          And yet, auditing for scandals in your inner circle is also something you might do if you’re trying to do the right thing. I’m not saying he is, nor that I support him, just that y’all are following other lemmings off this cliff for insufficient reasons

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          Companies hire outside auditors all the time. If you grew super fast and don’t retain legal counsel, that’s a great reason to give a full shakedown when you finally do hire lawyers to help with compliance.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          IIRC there was significant backlash over the Squid Games clone, or what was supposed to be. This is probably a wise decision.

          If you wait until you need a lawyer, you waited too long.

  • JaggedRobotPubes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    98 months ago

    I had no information or opinion or interest in this but now I know he’s guilty.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    318 months ago

    That whole underground bunker series is starting to get a little too reality TV like for me. I don’t watch him often but when it shows make it outside of his channel I end up catching glimpses.

    Jaden animation recently won a million dollars to give to her subscribers.

    But he pit a bunch of the YouTubers in a squid game competition which makes the ratings but isn’t a great look.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      I’d watch that! A bunch of “influencers” get “killed off”, hopefully humiliated? Let them be exploited for money instead of just their victims? Let’s go!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    68 months ago

    Upper echelon on YouTube has been covering this.

    Not sure about him outside of this story, but he seems to be doing a decent job if you are looking for something to watch with all details. He’s got 4 or 5 videos in the series in the past month or 2

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    238 months ago

    I don’t think being a sociopath is illegal?

    I get the feeling that lawyers do a lot more for rich people than they do for us…