So you understand that a MrBeast burger isn't made by, or from, the person known as MrBeast, but when one pays to join the MrBeast YouTube channel you are certain the comments from user MrBeast are made by the person known as MrBeast? What's the difference?
Feels like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The elements of fraud are quite simple:
1. a false statement of material fact
2. knowledge that the statement is false
3. intent to induce reliance
4. justifiable reliance by the victim
5. resulting damages
The "buying a burger from a MrBeast cafe" fails to meet element 1, because nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself.
On the other hand, falsely passing oneself as a model in order to earn revenue for them meets elements 1, 2, and 3. Elements 4 and 5 will depend on whether the victim fell for the scheme.
> nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself.
Nobody said that they were. You must have forgotten to read the thread. When 'MrBeast' comments on YouTube to those who pay for a subscription to his channel, it is claiming to be MrBeast, however. But is it him? You completely understand he doesn't have time to flip burgers, and thus would never expect him to, so why do you think he has time to chat to random internet customers?
The issue here comes down to money and therefore reliance and damages. Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. So there's no material reliance and no damages; the 4th and 5th elements above aren't satisfied.
On the other hand, people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. Thus the 4th and 5th elements are satisfied, in addition to the other three.
There's no need to interpret words through the arbitrary lens of silly feelings, yet here we are.
> Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments.
According to what? Is this something you made up?
If someone is willing to pay to talk to an internet figure, as you asserted they are, why not MrBeast? We can probably find agreement in MrBeast not being "herself". Is that the difference you find? The white knights only consider it fraud if the figure identifies as "her"?
> people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself.
I'll have to accept your personal experience for what it is, but what in the marketing suggests the model is anything more than a brand? You even literally call it a model, not a person. That is quite telling that you understand the business at play, even if you want to pretend you don't for the sake of the fake argument.
We all know full well that MrBeast is a brand. Why are you treating MrsBeast differently?
> but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying.
MrBeast is allegedly the highest paid YouTuber and yet, I guess, you think he works for free? While not exactly public information, industry analysts estimate that $5MM per year revenue is generated from direct fan funding to support his channel, so that, you know, "he" can do things write comments to the patrons.
> That's the name of the job.
Exactly. "Model" is used in recognition of the dehumanized object. In art, a human model is considered to be no different than a clay model. In fashion, the human model is considered to be no different than a clothes rack. The point of using the word is to separate the person from what the person is displaying. Otherwise you could simply say "person". "Model" is also used in this context because the concept is the same — the product isn't the person.
I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for.
In the model-customer dynamic, a customer is giving money to a model on a quid pro quo basis: the model -- or so the customer believes -- is promising the customer personal attention and customized content in exchange for money. No money, no attention.
In the MrBeast example, nobody is paying MrBeast specifically in exchange for his YouTube comments, which are public. Paying MrBeast is not a precondition for his engagement; he (or his agents) are responding spontaneously. His fans may be inspired to contribute to funds, although MrBeast gets a lot of money from ad revenue. But there's no quid pro quo arrangement here.
> I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for.
Exactly. I asked for details on exactly how the models are being marketed for that very reason. It was fully recognized be me that we cannot meaningfully discuss this without understanding the communication taking place. What I'm missing is the answer.
No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it?
> No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it?
Well my disappearance is because you're a pain to talk to, not because you're crumbling any worldviews.
And the main person you're talking to didn't disappear at all.
I could go into how referring to a nonspecific person by their job title is not dehumanizing them the way you claim, but based on earlier comments you'd just say nuh-uh and it's just not worth it. And your unrelated comment saying nobody upvoted you, "that goes without saying", and acting like nobody uses the upvote button... that goes so far beyond wrong that if it's good faith your faith is very mistaken. Yes someone upvoted that comment. Yes people upvote. (For the record, the joke was that the reverse of "man exploits man" is also "man exploits man".)
> Well my disappearance is because you're a pain to talk to
Hey, honestly I'd love to refine my comments with an LLM to make them easier to read and follow, but that isn't allowed. I'd ask you to do it but you've already indicated that would be a pain, and I haven't asked as I already assumed the same. So, the best I can offer is my best-effort to contend with the language. I can empathize with you having to deal with my poor fluency, but English can't be everyone's native tongue, and you did understand that going into this. If it was that bothersome to you, why would you have replied at all? Actions speak louder than words.
> I could go into how referring to a nonspecific person by their job title is not dehumanizing them the way you claim
If you could, you would have already. Trying to tantalize us with the prospect of engaging conversation that will never happen is the epitome of bad faith participation. What are you trying to accomplish with that?
> and acting like nobody uses the upvote button...
I'm sure in the history of HN someone has pressed it accidentally, if that's what you mean? Nobody had pressed it on the specific comment you are referring to at the time of writing. And I am not sure why they would have. Was there something about that comment that would make you think someone would purposefully go out of their way press a button that does nothing for? I thought that would go without saying, but I will point out that it wasn't stated as an absolute. I did pose it as a question to open the opportunity for someone acting in good faith to provide an alternative perspective.
That said, we now have proof it was read and an alternative perspective never came, so, unless I was being trolled again, my assumption held up.
I don't have infinite time. It's such a basic concept and it's so hard to argue with someone so stubborn. I can't stop you from thinking you're right anyway, but someone walking away from an argument doesn't mean you out-logiced them.
And the problem isn't fluency.
> Was there something about that comment that would make you think someone would purposefully go out of their way press a button that does nothing for?
It's really simple. I downvoted it, and it still had a positive score. So someone had upvoted it.
> in the history of HN someone has pressed it accidentally
> it wasn't stated as an absolute
Even as a non-absolute, it's really off. A big fraction of comments on this site get upvotes. I'd bet money it's more than 25%.
If it requires infinite time to get into it, you can't get into it. Trying to tantalize us with the prospect of engaging conversation that will never happen is the epitome of bad faith participation. What are you trying to accomplish with that?
> I downvoted it, and it still had a positive score. So someone had upvoted it.
Again, why would someone upvote it? Where did you even get this idea that your vote counts? It is well documented across a number of moderator posts and elsewhere that HN's voting system isn't a simple 1:1 algorithm. Even one of the first few entires in the FAQ explains that not all votes count.
It remains that there is no logical explanation for as to why someone would read the comment you refer to and then press a button that does absolutely nothing. You claim to have pressed a button that does nothing and you still have been unable to explain why you would take time out of your day to do it. If true, presumably it was accidental. It goes without saying that nobody would read the comment and then (purposefully) press a button that does nothing, no?
Honestly, I think this was just a case of other folks already understanding the nature of the issue discussed in the article (pay for DMs), while you did not. This isn't an insult or anything, just an observation.
A little humility is, I think, helpful for everyone here. Let's be kind to one another.
Most certainly. I wouldn't be here if I understood the nature of it. Nobody talks about the things they know about. The mind loses interest in what it already understands. If it didn't we'd all be sitting here discussing 1+1=2. The whole point of having a discussion is to work together to build mental models around the things not understood.
Kindness is irrelevant, but lack of information did leave us without having learned anything. I suppose that's the game of trolling: To suck someone in thinking there is mutual desire to learn something and then leave them hanging in the end. But to want to control others is illogical, so that's life. On to the next learning chapter!
