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
Ignoring the ethics of Mr Beast, he is producing real videos at an incredibly high volume and they consistently do numbers.

None of those videos is easy to make.

Sure, it's maybe not great to be so impressed by logistics or supply chain of a tobacco company, but from a business and systems view some of it is interesting

>>wrsh07+QD
You lost me at "ignoring the ethics".

By de facto, you never ignore ethics. You may disregard them, but they're never ignored.

>>calmbo+jZ
I'm surprised you've never had a hypothetical conversation

>>wrsh07+UG1
You do not understand the process of cogent thought. Ethics are a consideration even during the context of hypotheticals.

>>calmbo+Ij3
Please indulge my hypothetical situation: there is a company that produces many very expensive videos every week and make a lot of money from each one.

Every single video they make is a hit.

In this hypothetical situation, I would be impressed that this organization is able to deliver such consistent product. I would be curious about what they do or say operationally that enables that.

At the end of the podcast the filmcast, they say "at the end of the day, it is really impressive that _ made a movie." (They name the director)

This is true if the director has made dozens of movies or one. It's always impressive. Doing things in the real world is hard.

Do you find anything in this hypothetical situation agreeable? Or is it only hard when someone you like does it?