[password54321]

This is not how you judge character. Character is what you do when you have nothing to gain or even something to lose. These are merely performances for YouTube videos that help his brand and generate millions of views. Adults at least should be aware of this, because this is how you get scammed.

[electroly]

OP never used the word "character." They asked about good deeds, which appears to be about the action, whereas character is about the intention of the person. If MrBeast cured your blindness and he did it solely to make money and doesn't care about you at all, you still got your blindness cured. If I volunteer at the soup kitchen just to meet women, I have failing character but I still did the good deed. This is the MrBeast dilemma: what are we to conclude when the two are in opposition? What does it mean when someone does a good deed in order to benefit from it themselves? Is that a win-win situation, or is it bad? Does it completely negate the good deed? These are generally unsettled questions in our culture.

[password54321]

Based on the context they were obviously judging their character based off their "good deeds". You are just circling around the obvious. As for this "dilemma", he has already shown he will exploit children.

This tells you who he is and what his incentives are. If you would like to believe otherwise go for it. My advice simply is to watch out in real life for people you think are good if this is how you judge people.

[wongarsu]

His philantrophy videos underperform compared to his other videos, typically getting 10-30% fewer views than the worst performing video right before or after.

Maybe you could argue that they aren't financially lucrative but at least help his brand. But he seems to get a lot of hate for making those videos. I suspect his brand would be much better if he stuck to making highly produced challenge and contest style videos

Now there are three worlds we could live in: In the first I am misjudging his videos and they are actually good for his brand or finances. That's the one you suspect. In the second they are bad for his brand but he perceives them as helping him. Quite possible, even if he seems to have reasonably good self reflection. In the third they are bad for his brand and finances but he wouldn't be able to finance projects of this scopes without the videos and sponsorships. That's what MrBeast claims to be true

I don't know which of those is true, all three of them seem likely to me

[password54321]

>His philantrophy videos underperform compared to his other videos, typically getting 10-30% fewer views than the worst performing video right before or after.

Doesn't matter. We are literally having this discussion because of the very fact that he has chosen to make these videos. This tells you how effective it is for his brand. More than likely it is a net-positive even if he does get criticism.

[mlinhares]

We wouldn't be in our current political situation if adults were aware of this. The average person is well below what we usually assume the average is.

[bongodongobob]

Ok so David Attenborough is no good then?