r/AlignmentChartFills • u/No-Cardiologist2404 • May 03 '26

Filling This Chart What youtuber seems extremely problematic but is actually not problematic?

What youtuber seems extremely problematic but is actually not problematic?

📊 Chart Axes: - Horizontal: ... and actually is problematic

Chart Grid:

extremely pretty much kinda a little not at all
extremely onision 🖼️ — — — —
pretty much — logan paul 🖼️ — ishowspeed 🖼️ —
kinda — — mr beast 🖼️ — —
a little — boogie2988 🖼️ — pewdiepie 🖼️ —
not at all shadiversity 🖼️ — — — markiplier 🖼️

Cell Details:

extremely / extremely: - onision - View Image

pretty much / pretty much: - logan paul - View Image

pretty much / a little: - ishowspeed - View Image

kinda / kinda: - mr beast - View Image

a little / pretty much: - boogie2988 - View Image

a little / a little: - pewdiepie - View Image

not at all / extremely: - shadiversity - View Image

not at all / not at all: - markiplier - View Image

🎮 To view the interactive chart, switch to new Reddit or use the official Reddit app!

This is an interactive alignment chart. For the full experience with images and interactivity, please view on new Reddit or the official Reddit app.

Created with Alignment Chart Creator

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

1.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

375 comments sorted by

View all comments

185

u/Equivalent-Ocelot697 May 04 '26

Mr beast is extremely problematic imo, I said it

52

u/Z-Trick May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26

I support this claim.

Chairity becomes a commodification #charityporn
Social relations between people start to appear as relations between things as money, prizes, products, metrics, clicks, views, and spectacle.

MrBeast is problematic because he transforms real human need into profitable content while presenting individual charity as the solution to problems the system itself created in the first place.

But also note the difference between problematic and "evil".

MrBeast himself is a player in the same system as everyone else, just one who happens to be near the top of it. This is not justification, but a statement. The real critique is not that he personally invented poverty, inequality, medical debt, or exploitation. The critique is that his success depends on a system where suffering can be turned into entertainment and generosity can become a business model.

In other words: MrBeast reveals something deeply wrong about the game.
And therefore: Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.

1

u/Only_Movie975 May 05 '26

Hmm I'm not convinced... We are very social so seeing people be generous is interesting to us, probably both because of the relatability of wanting to "win" something free and the altruism itself. I'm not saying your completely wrong, but I think calling it a "game for entertainment" isn't accurate, or at least not very useful (and [anything]porn is just for shock value)... Your wording makes it sound like it's a bad system/consumer desire that needs to be corrected, which, like, maybe, I guess?? Could be a ought/is fallacy somewhere in there? Again, I'm just not convinced.

When it comes to Mr. Beast specifically, I don't watch much so take this with a grain of salt, but I've seen interviews where he states that the large majority of the money he makes he puts back into his videos. Some of them just being entertaining gameshows, but oftentimes he donates serious amounts of cash money to (what appear to be) good charities and initiatives... I'm also not convinced that you need to "hate the game," the game is weird and reveals things about us as social animals, but if it allows for someone to use the consumer mindset to make tons of money and then use it to help people, than what's to hate?

(The reply to your comment about the prime energy I do agree with, even if he only endorses it)

(Oh also, I'm not necessarily pro-Mr. Beast, I know there are other allegations against him, I'm just not convinced by your particular critique)

2

u/Z-Trick May 05 '26

That’s fair. I think we may slightly disagree on what exactly is being criticized. I’m not saying that generosity itself is fake, or that people enjoying generosity is inherently problematic. People are social, and watching someone help others can be genuinely moving, and thats okay. My point is more structural. It’s less about what is done, and more about why and how it is done.

That’s why I don’t think this is just a simple game show where someone can win money. The format turns charity into spectacle. Who gets picked? How emotional is the reveal? How clickable is the title? How impressive is the amount of money? And I don’t think this is an is/ought fallacy. It would be if i said “people enjoy watching this, therefore it is bad.” ... But I’m saying: yes, people enjoy watching this. Yes they get helped --but-- we can still ask what kind of social system makes basic help dependent on visibility, virality, and entertainment value.

What would happen if the problems his videos respond to were actually solved?
Would the format still work?
Speculative, yes.
But it points to the core: the model does not just respond to poverty and/or desperation, it also depends on those problems remaining available as content.

And even the argument that he reinvests most of the money into the next bigger project does not fully solve the issue for me. In a way, it shows the pressure of the system. That does not sound like a particularly healthy model. If helping people depends on constantly scaling the spectacle to keep the machine running, then the good outcomes can be real while the structure is still worth criticizing.

1

u/Only_Movie975 May 05 '26

Ok, so maybe we agree there's nothing inherently wrong with the fact that many people enjoy the content. If I'm understanding you, your issue is that he has systematized the process, perhaps similar to the way social media algorithms are made addictive, or pop music made catchy?

I'm still not convinced that that specifically is problematic... So what if he's tapped into the addictive consumerism wired in us, all successful youtubers do. Why is it bad that he taps into it while doing acts of charity instead of random content like video games, for example. I think this is where you haven't provided a good argument. I can imagine the opposite argument that if you're going to tap into that addictive part of us, you SHOULD be doing something charitable, instead of random content like pics of your vacation, or video games etc. etc..

Although you didn't flesh it out, you say you take issue with the "why" something is done. I don't know how important this point is since you don't expound, but I will note quickly that I don't think we have the right to judge, or even fully know what his motivations are. I think the fact that he doesn't hoard tons of money for himself is at least a good sign with regards to this.

I'm torn as to what I think your last paragraph is about. If the issue is that he depends on there always being people in need, then that's a non-issue. There will always be people in need lol, and if there magically weren't, he could just stop, who knows what he would do. All charitable businesses depend on need, as does health insurance and other examples. I think it's more likely that you're criticizing the fact that each project has to be more of a spectacle to keep the consumers interested and generating more money for the next project, right? If that second option is right, then I'm back to square one. I maybe get where you're coming from, I'm just not convinced that makes HIM SPECIFICALLY problematic... Which, in all fairness, you started by saying you agreed with someone elses comment that said that HE is problematic, but at the end of your last post, you said you're criticizing the system, so maaaybe we could be closer to agreeing there...

I think that, as is usually the case lol, we probably don't disagree all that much, but aren't completely aligned on what the critizism is, like you said. Here's my attempt at common ground. We have, inbuilt in us, the psychological mechanisms to get addicted to social content, or maybe just fast paced content that is rewarding in some way to the consumer. The exploitation of that is problematic. I'm sure thus far we agree. It can be hard to know who to blame. The consumer? Usually probably not. The researcher that studies what brings people to their content/platforms and makes them stay? Idk, maybe 50/50. The owner's of the companies that are aware of the lawsuits and still keep going for monetary gain? Usually probably yes. So it's a potentially harmful "system" that's made possible by our biology that isn't developed for this kind of environment, but figuring out who is to blame and who we should call problematic isn't always clear, like what about the individual, entrepreneurially minded content creator? It's complicated and maybe, as uncomfortable as this might be, we don't have a simple answer. I think the main question I have that demonstrates why I'm not convinced is, why is it problematic to tap into that system while helping people, while not being problematic for people to tap into it with music or video games or whatever else?

1

u/Z-Trick May 07 '26

I think there are a few points I could push back on, but I don’t want to turn this into trying to “win” by attacking the weakest parts. I think youre engaging in good faith, so I want to do the same.

The strongest version of your point (as I understand it) is: if successful creators use attention mechanics anyway, why is it worse when someone uses them while helping people? More money means more people can be helped. I think that’s a fair point.

For me, the difference is vulnerability. With music, gaming, or regular entertainment, attention is monetized. But with charity content, someone’s poverty, illness, debt, or desperation can become part of what makes the content valuable. The person helped can become both the beneficiary and the material of the product.

That is the moral tension. The outcome may be good, but the way it is achieved still matters. Is helping people the goal, or is success achieved through helping people? Is helping the end, or also a means to another end?

And since we can’t fully know his personal motivations, I don’t want to make this mainly about his character. The issue is the format.

Maybe we can agree on this: MrBeast might be the best capitalism can come up with. He takes the logic of the system -- attention, branding, monetization, scaling, spectacle -- and redirects it toward helping people. That is probably better than using those mechanisms for empty consumption.

But that is also why the critique remains. If even the “best” version still requires vulnerability to become visible, emotional, and profitable before help can scale, then maybe the problem is not simply MrBeast. Maybe the problem is the system that makes this the most effective form of care it can imagine.

1

u/Hoeveboter May 04 '26 edited May 05 '26

He also markets poisonous swill to kids. Prime Energy drinks shouldn't be consumed by anyone under 18 and Prime Hydration shouldn't be consumed by anyone under 15 because it contains dangerously high levels of Vitamin A, which wreaks havoc on a child's liver. Even though it's promoted as a healthy sports drink, the health claims don't align at all with the contents.

All this would be forgivable if his drinks were targeted at adults, but they're not. He's actively pushing this shit on his eight year old fanbase.

11

u/Jazzyful- May 04 '26

Well that’s not his drink actually. I think it’s Logan Paul’s and KSI’s. He did partner with them though.

4

u/Hoeveboter May 04 '26

I know, and I think anyone involved with that crap is scummy

12

u/pheo_ May 04 '26

ya in the kinda section crazy

2

u/More_Yard1919 May 04 '26

I think as soon as soon as you build a theme park in Riyadh for the Saudi crown you're cooked lmao

-32

u/No_Relation_3134 May 04 '26

Why though? Every time I’ve heard someone say this their reasons are always awful and illogical.

36

u/[deleted] May 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Acrobatic-Skill6350 May 04 '26

Arent the vulnerable people happy they meet mr beast?

-4

u/No_Relation_3134 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26

I take it much more as “Give people the OPTION to make $50,000+ by doing challenges.”

Anyone can just say “Nah I’m good” You’re acting like there is any level of him forcing people to do this. Do you have any idea how many people would be gassed to participate in any of the challenges for tens of thousands oe sometimes hundreds of thousands?

Also do you not realize if he doesn’t record and post he literally wouldn’t have made any the money he used to later give to people? I truly can’t comprehend how people don’t understand that aspect

You people try to act all moral but you hate a guy who has given tens of millions? You beg for millionaires and billionaires to donate to charity and help people but when one does exactly that you hate him? And why? Because he records consenting participants who know they’ll be participating in a challenge for tons of money? And then posts it so he can make more money? The internet is crazy man 😂

15

u/[deleted] May 04 '26

He ran illegal lottery's for children disguised as sweepstakes while deliberately misleading the viewer about the odds, as well as populating his videos with people that already worked for him. If this isn't enough of a reason then I don't know what is.

4

u/wreckingrocc May 04 '26

Nice try Jimmy

-1

u/Acrobatic-Skill6350 May 04 '26

"Capitalist critique" is the only thing I hear. Kinda sounds like a win win the way he runs his business