261–270 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we’re now capable of producing enough food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities for every human on Earth This should come with a footnote that it's only possible due to slave labor in third world countries. A much smaller subset of people would be buying iPhones if they were $5000.
iPhones are not food, clothing, or shelter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also pay for Premium. Nevertheless Youtube ignores the likes/dislike/"not interested in this content"/"do not recommend this channel" signals. Sure, it stops recommending that Minecraft channel. So that it can recommend 3 other Minecraft channels.
its weird. i dont pay a cent but never see anything from blocked channels. Likes/dislikes has no effect though
I block a Minecraft channel and YouTube shows me another and another and another.
I block a K-pop channel and YouTube shows me more and more K-Pop.
Someone is going to die in one of his stunts. It’s inevitable.
80s shlock like Running Man used to be portrayals of a ridiculous dystopia, but at this point they should be considered a warning. We already increasingly undervalue human life and have culturally accepted avoidable deaths as long as they can be justified with "personal responsibility" or follow from a perceived moral failing.
We're not there yet, but we're inching ever closer.
The first article of the post-WW2 constitution of Germany does not establish freedom of speech but the sanctity of human dignity. Of course in practice only lip service is paid to this, but it feels like "entertaintment" like Mr Beast's videos are the exact antithesis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The author wants to live in a world where everyone gets everything at no cost: that isn't even admiribale, it's childish. Why is it childish to want a life in which you don’t need to labor to have everything you need to be happy? It’s childish to think that human beings are born worthy of a happy peaceful safe life? Why do we need to earn those things? Are they not inherent within us?
People aren't born worthy of anything. Thinking otherwise is childish. We need to earn things because they're not unlimited. Living a happy peaceful life means consuming things, if you don't provide things back no one is going to give you anything to consume.
>Their strict standards resulted in content that was homogeneous and boring, but safe. It’s terrifying that a man spent one hundred days in a small circle in an empty field. This isn't terrifying. People do much worse for 100x less. Prostitution and porn, for example, many times drive people to suicide. People stay on ships for months at a time without seeing their family, not too long ago, sailors would go years on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MrBeast is pushing the boundaries on the ethics and morals of how easily people with money can coerce poor people who are in dire need to perform extremely questionable things for the sake of his own amusement. Personally I don’t think this is good in any meaningful way. You could only rationalise such behaviour with the same arguments that other forms of exploitation are explained.
How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true. I'd agree it's unethical only if their cognition was compromised (meaning he wasn't capable of analyzing the costs and benefi…
It's unethical to ask people to perform an action which you know they would never agree to if it wasn't for an imbalance of power or financial pressure/incentives.
Otherwise you could say why did Harvey Weinstein get prosecuted. When he asked women to suck him off and they did it voluntarily then it's not wrong is it? I mean they could have just walked away and not get hired for his next film.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wouldn't consider it either unkind or unethical to arrange for a needy family member to fight for money, you just wouldn't do it becuase it would make you sad? It doesn't seem an unkind thing to do, really? But, yes, I think intentionally subjecting strangers to something that you wouldn't subject your loved ones to because it would make you sad, is at least a signal that something is likely to be unethical. In g…
> No matter how degrading, how awful their experience is Correct, as long as my above assumptions are not violated. That is, no surprises post-contract signing, and so on[1]. Your actions are a net benefit to them. It can't be unethical to benefit someone, unless we're operating under a non-utilitarian moral framework. I'd argue it's unethical to not provide them that terrible job, if the only alternative is for you…
Then why would it make you sad to provide a family member or loved one with that terrible job, say fighting homeless people for the entertainment of those who find their pathos entertaining? Why wouldn't you feel great, providing them with that job that is a net benefit to them? I mean, maybe not as good as if you were able to just give them a gift, but there's no reason to feel sad, right, you've given them a net gain, setting them up to fight homeless people on youtube?
I think if everyone acted according to your principles, there would be a net gain in human misery. Speaking of utilitarian frameworks. Human dignity benefits from, well, valuing human dignity and feeling a responsibility for it.
But ok, this conversation is going as far as it's going to.
If I had realized you thought it was literally impossible for any employer to behave unethically toward an employee, I wouldn't have gone this far with it. Now I'm curious if you are the same Ayn Randian I had a similar conversation with a few weeks ago, looking through my history... nope, that was someone else! It is very convenient for those who profit from taking advantage of desperate people to believe it is literally impossible for this to be unethical; less convenient for the desperate people being taken advantage of.
I never watched his videos. Do yourself a flavour by blocking his and similar channels they all produce nothing but crap.
I really try to block them but somehow Youtube keeps finding new ones to put in my feed every single day. How can I tell Youtube: * I will never watch a Mr. Beast video * I will never watch a music video * I will never watch a sports video * I will never watch a video about cars * I will never watch a video about Minecraft, or any video game at all
Also: have an account, and remove garbage from your history if you watched it - and watch out, those auto playing shorts are going into your history. Hide the shelf, in app, or with uBlock origin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is another great exemple of the YT algorithm making the experience of watching videos inferior in the name of profit and attention grabbing by the way. The reason YT doesn’t want show to wind down is because it provides people with a nice and natural place to stop watching which is nice. The race towards shorter, easier, more catchy and relentless content is a race to the bottom making everyone dumber. Watching…
It's not the algorithm here, it's viewer behavior
It's a little muddy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The folks working on farms, few though they are in the modern world, deserve compensation. What will the people not working on the farm do to deserve the fruits of their labor? Whatever it will be, will be work. Same for the folks building houses, and all the rest of modern infrastructure that we depend upon to live.
> do to deserve the fruits of their labor This is the issue. No one needs to do anything to deserve access to food, shelter, clothing, etc. I think you're framing it something like lazy people vs. people who work hard, which I don't think we need to do. If we ever lived in world where we could all access unlimited food, shelter, etc. then do you think people would still have to do stuff to actually "earn" access to i…
We do not live in a world with unlimited food and shelter.