MrBeast Is A Crooked “Faux-lanthropist.” Here’s Why.

Everybody knows MrBeast. The largest YouTuber in the world boasts 317 million subscribers on his main channel alone. Each of his highly produced, nauseatingly edited videos get hundreds of millions of views; how could they not? Watching MrBeast pit people struggling financially against one another in increasingly absurd situations is electrifying. One by one, you can watch the dreams of contestants die as MrBeast offers a shallow “That sucks,” quickly editing them off screen. You can laugh as MrBeast taunts and reminds contestants about how much money they could lose if they fail. You can nod your head in agreement when MrBeast makes cheeky quips at contestants as they struggle to win a competition they think is real, unbeknownst to them that there may already be a predetermined winner.

It is easy to believe that you would have stayed locked in the grocery store or kept your hand on the Lamborghini for just that tiny bit longer. You could be the person frantically running around the department store with only a few minutes to spend a million dollars. Just subscribe.

MrBeast’s real name is James Stephen “Jimmy” Donaldson, and his real personality is a far cry away from the bland, highly-edited persona presented by his brand. MrBeast, the persona, only wants to make the world a better place but Donaldson cares about one thing: YouTube. Donaldson follows  in the footsteps of the great American capitalists, willing to sacrifice anything – especially ethics – to get there. 

On Aug. 2, 2024, the New York Times published  “Willing to Die for Mr. Beast,” an article that detailed various complaints contestants on MrBeast’s new game show, “Beast Games,” airing on Amazon, had against the company. Those complaints detailed physical injuries, lack of proper food, denial of feminine hygiene products and medication among other horrendous things. With many eyewitness testimonies and documented evidence, the blatant disregard for participants’ health and wellbeing becomes evident.

As of Sept. 16, 2024, a lawsuit was filed by five contestants, alleging that while on the set of “Beast Games,” they were subjected to sexual harassment, dealt with severe emotional distress, were exposed to dangerous circumstances and were tricked into entering illegal employment contracts.

Only a week prior to the initial New York Times article, YouTuber and former MrBeast employee known only as Dawson, username DogPack404, released a video making numerous allegations against the company from illegal lotteries to predatory advertising to workplace harassment among other things. This video triggered another wave of backlash against Donaldson and his company, prompting Dawson to continue and publish his second video, “I Worked for MrBeast, He’s a Sociopath,” which premiered Aug. 7.

Dawson interviewed former MrBeast employee and comedian Jake Weddle, who appeared as a character in a MrBeast video. Weddle detailed his own experiences working behind-the-scenes and on-camera for Beast, along with  the trauma he endured as a result. The most egregious element of his testimony was his detailing of an unreleased video in which he participated in a 100-day solitary confinement challenge. Weddle spent days in a single room with constant bright shining lights that never turned off. Weddle became deprived of sleep and social interaction. As his physical and mental health deteriorated, Donaldson encouraged him to engage in progressively more difficult challenges, such as running the length of a marathon on a treadmill. This forced Weddle to quit the challenge, receiving only a portion of the money promised and leaving him traumatized and emotionally and physically exhausted. Weddle worked for MrBeast until he was fired in 2020 for asking the company to give a raise to a fellow employee. However, he returned to participate in this challenge in the hopes to pay his student loans.

When it comes to the exploitation of MrBeast’s participants, a common counterargument that’s presented is that if consent is given, typically through a waiver, then there should be no issue. In Jake Weddle’s case, some have argued that there should be no reason for him to complain about his mistreatment if he agreed to participate in this challenge. He should understand the extreme nature of these MrBeast videos, being a former employee, afterall. Weddle even acknowledged it himself, saying in an interview with The Oracle that, “As far as consent goes, technically yes, I consented, and technically yes, I pushed myself to the brink of some very, very, very unhealthy predicaments.”

 Yet, even with this acknowledgement, we can identify a power imbalance between the parties. Weddle, in his interview with Dawson, claimed that Donaldson asked him to “Say to the camera how thankful you are that now you can pay your student loans.” Consent in this situation needs the context of its power dynamics, where any imbalances can assuage the consensual nature of an agreement. It is harder to say no to someone when they hold more power over you, whether that be in social status, financial status or physical fitness. When you manage to push through the disgusting nature of his statement, it identifies the financial advantage that Donaldson held over Weddle. “It’s a financial transaction, but a financial transaction can only be appropriate if there’s no power imbalance. And in a situation where money equals power, by definition, there is a power imbalance,” said Weddle. Consent for Weddle, for “Beast Games” contestants and for video participants in general becomes nullified, due to the power imbalance, exploited beyond written terms. But what about those who don’t have to participate, who are simply given things out of the goodness of Donaldson’s heart?

A large portion of Donaldson’s content is focused on philanthropic work, helping those in need and giving away large sums of money. It is the work he receives the most praise for; work that is not criticized, and work that shields Donaldson from criticism. However, this work is much more predatory than it seems, and that is largely due to issues of consent. 

By simply watching Donaldson’s older videos, one can see that individuals are often approached without warning, being handed cash and filmed for their reactions without much care, consideration or dignity being given to the person who receives the money. For Donaldson, it is an easy, feel-good way to create viral content that requires little effort from him. However, the recipient of the money is never consulted on their experience or willingness to participate. They are never asked, while not under threat of having the money revoked, if they wish to appear on film. The issue exists, not with charity, or even the filming of charity, but that individuals within the charity can not revoke their consent nor can consent without the threat of losing money they desperately need. 

 Donaldson has since moved on from these small scale videos, expanding his efforts into starting “Beast Philanthropy,” a channel dedicated entirely to philanthropic work, all of which is filmed. Donaldson’s presence is one that brings money and much needed attention to areas or issues that require it. Eventually however, these frequent, mass productions of charity content that Donaldson is lauded for blend together and the individual issues that he is supposedly bringing attention to are lost. It is what essentially equates to “poverty porn.”

The idea of “poverty porn” can be traced back to a New Internationalist article from 1981 called “Merchants of Misery,” in which Jorgen Lissner calls out advertisers for using starving children as a means to advertise for volunteer organizations. Lissner says, “The public display of [the impoverished child] in advertisements is pornographic, because it exposes something in human life that is as delicate and deeply personal as sexuality, that is, suffering.” From advertising, this trend has only evolved and is now deeply rooted in our content consumption today. This term is now used to refer to any types of media content surrounding impoverished and marginalized groups to garner attention towards a certain cause or more often towards a specific content creator. When Donaldson is curing people’s blindness and filming their tearful, overjoyed reactions, even if it is heart-warming and charitable, there is still something insincere beneath the surface.

Contrary to popular belief, the ends can never justify the means. Actions do not exist in a vacuum, and one’s motivation for why they acted is equally important to the action itself. Acting altruistically for the sake of profit or reputation is not charity but a business strategy. Recipients of Donaldsons ‘charity’ are used, not as humans in need of help, but as advertisements in a multi-billion dollar marketing scheme for his various companies. 

When Donaldson gives money, he does so to farm a reaction that he can market. Recipients of that money must provide this reaction, even if they are uncomfortable in doing so, because they often are in a position of needing that money and cannot afford to do otherwise. Donaldson knows this and can leverage this to force recipients into giving him the reaction he wants. Weddle calls this out, “are you being altruistic, or are you making media?”

There is no dignity in this transaction; it is sheer exploitation of people who are in need. This was proven through Donaldson’s own actions time and time again. This content is meant to generate engagement, to boost revenue streams and to expand the MrBeast brand. When we consider consent, the power imbalance and unequal term-agreements between people like Donaldson and impoverished people desperately trying to survive make this agreement less equitable and more exploitative. Impoverished, marginalized people are exploited for exponentially more than they receive, instead becoming just another face on a thumbnail.

In Marxist theory, it is stated that late-stage capitalism will reach a point where people become commodified, losing their value as individuals and seen only as numbers, statistics and quite possibly subscribers. In the case of the MrBeast company, people who are experiencing poverty cease to be people, rather, they exist solely for their story. Poverty becomes not an institutional issue facing millions of people, but rather a condition to be exploited for a good storyline and some views. Struggling friends or sick family members exist not as tragedies but as boxes to check in order to up the view count. The real struggles of humans are products to market. And all of them, every single one, can be solved by a new car or a handful of cash. In reality, these issues are complex and deserve to be treated with respect and care, which Donaldson is simply not qualified or likely able to do. In his eyes, people are products to market for emotional reactions.

 We can theorize about MrBeast’s true intentions based on his actions behind the scenes. His treatment of contestants in BeastGames, the testimonies of employees such as Weddle and Dawson and leaked internal documents from the company all lend themselves to this view. Companies Donaldson has launched, such as BeastBurger and Feastables, along with major charitable projects such as Team Seas have been ripe with controversy over ethics. 

Donaldson perpetuates the myth that he is a good capitalist, yet all of this lends itself to the belief that he is not. Under capitalism, someone is always exploited, and someone is always making money off of the labor of others. Donaldson profits, both from the labor of his employees, who allegedly work long hours with no consideration for a life outside of working, and the poor, whose emotional labor is used to create content. When we praise figures like Jimmy Donaldson for his philanthropy, “It echoes the narrative that the people who will fix poverty are the good capitalists,” as Weddle puts it. 

This poverty porn glosses over the complicated, often institutional, nature of these issues and removes responsibility for them away from the people that hold power within society. As viewers, we can feel as if we are part of some larger quest to solve these world issues, and the capitalist, in this case Donaldson, can reap the rewards of being a pioneer for good, while not actually making any difference nor real sacrifice in their wealth. As viewers, we are allowed to recognize the work that Donaldson does, while also criticizing his intentions behind it. Charity, nor charity for content is wrong, but Donaldson has neither the desire nor motivation to treat people experiencing poverty with respect.  People should not be exploited for content, period. We cannot rely on the benevolence of “faux-lanthropists” to save the world through a system in which they directly benefit from. Real change is made through the day-to-day works of people in their communities, not sweeping poorly thought out gestures for views by a man who does not care.