zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
> Lot of people critiquing this, but you can't deny the success.

You could say that about literally any shady business. Imagine seeing a PDF proving tobacco leaders knew for decades that it caused cancer and saying what you did.

Being monetarily successful does not mean you’re good or shouldn’t be criticised.

>>latexr+im
Can you point to the parts of the document, or other resources about Mr. Beast, that warrant a comparison with tobacco companies?

>>t_mann+nn1
They make money in ways that others would find morally reprehensible. The tobacco industry makes its money off of addictive substances that kill millions per year, and Donaldson makes content for entertainment that literally tortures people in the sense of being a violation of the geneva convention. In both cases they're highly efficient operations that make a lot of money, but whether or not you would call it a success story depends on your definition of success. If your definition of successful is "makes money", then the tobacco industry, Donaldson, fentanyl dealers, etc are indeed successful. If your definition is "the world is a better place for its existence", then not so much.

Regarding sources: if you're genuinely interested and not just being argumentative for argument's sake, you're capable of googling "MrBeast geneva convention" and following the sources from there.

>>wessel+Yo1
>and Donaldson makes content for entertainment that literally tortures people in the sense of being a violation of the geneva convention

What specific acts are we talking about? "violation of the geneva convention" could mean literally anything between "putting red cross symbols on soldiers" and "summarily executing civilians", so it doesn't really narrow things down. If they're being put in uncomfortable positions, but they're not risking long term harm and it's voluntary, I don't see what the issue is.