[edanm]

Shakespeare focuses on exploiting the human brain simply to get more people in to see his plays, by playing on people's emotions, giving them empty feelings not connected to the real world, writing stories whose sole purpose is to keep people engaged until the end to find out what happened, etc.

What's the principled difference except that you like one and don't like the other? Or that society considers one "valuable" and the other less so?

Do I think MrBeast is doing anything as deep and rich as Shakespeare? No, I don't. But I don't think I get to make that choice for other people. I love reading fantasy novels and think they are often every bit as deep as Shakespeare, sometimes more so. Many people in the world look down on that and think they're not as valuable as "real literature". Luckily, I get to decide what's good and what isn't, what's valuable and what isn't.

[Silverback_VII]

The problem is the relationship between what those people do and what they gain. Why should videos in which you throw eggs from a bridge wrapped in drinking straws give you millions each year?

this is just obvious wrong allocation of resources in the market.

[edanm]

I also don't think throwing a basketball really really well should earn you millions, nor do I think that creating new fashion styles should earn you millions. And lots of people don't think that Shakespeare's plays are any good and that he should've earned anything off of them.

Maybe the world would be better off if I (or you) were a dictator and could impose our views on everyone else. But I don't really trust anyone to do that, so a market mechanism is better than anything else. And whether we like it or not, more people find watching MrBeast or Michael Jordan "worthwhile" than other things that we care about more.

(If I were a dictator, I'd put most of our resources on advancing scientific discoveries, with an emphasis on figuring out how to make humans immortal, and a huge part of our resources would go to figuring out AI safety, then to AI. That is the correct way to allocate resources in this point in time, IMO. How many people would like to live in such a world?)

[lordnacho]

There's a big problem here. MrBeast does what drug dealers do, in a less obvious way: they change the apparent value of the thing they're selling. Essentially a trick: use this product and your desire to use this product increases.

That is not how the conventional free market is supposed to work. I'm happy to give that the market wants weird things, but the basic thing that's missing here is a feedback loop: you go and eat at a restaurant, you like the meal, you come back because your guess about the subjective value of the meal to you was correct.

The market for addictive experiences breaks this loop. You snort some drugs, and you feel you need to break into people's houses to get money to buy more. Ask any recovered drug addict whether they think it's actually worth it, and they will tell you of course not but the addiction is so compelling. People in this situation are robbed of their freedom, the essential ingredient in a free market.

Now I don't know a heck of a lot about Mr Beast, but a lot of internet influencers do the same thing as candy salesmen. It's bad for you to eat loads of candy, you don't want to be fat and get diabetes, but in the moment you make the wrong decision. Influencers do the same, it's a cheap thrill designed to make you forget you're in control of yourself.

Shakespeare is the opposite. You're supposed to be thinking about human nature, but you don't get your dose of satisfaction without quite the mental strain. You can't overdose on Shakespeare; you'll fall asleep first. People can and have overdosed on silly internet videos, staying up until 3am.

[Aerroon]

Because it's entertaining. It's more entertaining to me than reading most of Shakespeare.

I imagine that if you gave the choice to a person to watch what you described or to read Shakespeare then the vast majority would choose to watch the eggs.