536
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
536 points (95.0% liked)
News
23675 readers
3707 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
https://sexoffender.dsp.delaware.gov/?/Detail/00004788
Rape of a child between the ages of 1-11. There is no ambiguity in this.
Hey fair enough, fuck that guy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The man literally has you sign an NDA to work for him. That's attempt to silence.
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 trying to hurt MrBeast.“
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.