Bad Optics
Three weeks ago, famed YouTuber MrBeast posted a video that went viral, drawing both praise and ire. The video features Jimmy Donaldson, AKA MrBeast, “curing” one-thousand patients of blindness (caused by cataracts) by paying for their operation.
“Half of all blindness in the world is people who need a ten-minute surgery,” explains a surgeon in the opening seconds of the video. The condition affects two-hundred million people in the world and costs mere thousands to treat.
This brand of entertainment-philanthropy, though on display at new heights, is a pillar of the YouTube star’s platform. In addition to funding the procedures, the eight-minute video spotlights certain recipients whom Donaldson gifts additional cash. And, of course, one lucky teen wins a brand new Tesla.
The video was destined to make a stir. Even before its release, I heard murmurings of something big coming. Though I don’t follow him closely—I’m not sure I’ve watched a full MrBeast video—it seemed like the entire internet united together to discuss Donaldson, his motives, and the ethics of it all.
Critics of MrBeast hold an aversion to the high-gloss, quick-cut, do-good form of entertainment. To me, the Tesla scene is a somewhat gimmicky climax. One perspective, published in a widely-spread TechCrunch article, accuses Donaldson of ableism. The most common critique is somewhere in the middle, complaining that the whole scenario is exploitative of the patients’ misfortune:
Let’s call MrBeast’s video what it is: bad optics. A well-off celebrity “saving” others for the camera is destined to draw as many opinions as people.
The video, no matter your interpretation, brings sensitive realities into view. It highlights, intentionally or unintentionally, human suffering and economic disparity that leaves millions blind for lack of a few grand. You can’t help but think that random celebrity run-ins aren’t the solution for millions in hardship.
For Donaldson’s harshest critics, he’s charged with the ultimate crime: doing something that appears good.
We tend to speak of social media and the internet as new phenomenons. Funnily enough, I’m old enough that the trends of my early-YouTube childhood went out of style and have now come back again: Daxflame posting, schmoyoho, and animated stories.
Another early fixture of YouTube was philanthropy. Hidden camera videos showed creators giving cash to the homeless (YOU WON’T BELIEVE THEIR REACTION). They purchased cars for parents fallen on hard times (EMOTIONAL). Viewers ate it up, and this style of content catapulted to the homepage.
Like air leaking from the tires, audiences steadily wised up; that video giving $100 to the homeless made the creator thousands in ad revenue. Channels built fame using the faceless. The collective moment was disorienting, and generosity for the camera became scandalized.
Society-wide, we have reasons to be cynical. I’m always skeptical of the uber-rich claiming they’re in it for the little guy. Plenty of philanthropy is PR. That said, there’s a difference between cynicism and skepticism. And the former has become our default lens.
Cynicism is a shorthand language: if something claims to be good, it’s not. If something claims to be generous, it’s nefarious. Nothing is what it appears to be.
This is our cultural conditioning, and it’s a logical fallacy.
The truth is that judging things on appearance—whether positive or negative—is an oversimplification. I can’t know that MrBeast’s motives are genuine. I’m no more reasonable in siding with his cynics than I am in assuming his innocence.
What I do know is that the individuals in the video don’t seem bothered with the optics. Their lives were changed in a way they deem better.
Beyond those in the video, many in his young audience have a new touchpoint to ask questions of their society.
MrBeast is an entertainer. To point his entertainment toward helping others seems to be the best we could ask. Besides, his critics weren’t shouting for joy when he teased a run for president. Ultimately, MrBeast’s problem isn’t that he does things the wrong way; it’s that tries to do them. No approach he could take would satisfy certain mindsets.
Yes, this old YouTube trend is back, but this time there’s an enormous difference—audience awareness.
The first time around, viewers saw videos as final products only. We weren’t intimately aware of the people and motives working behind the camera. We weren’t all filmmakers, schooled in creating viral content.
This time around, that’s different. Everyone knows how the internet works—including MrBeast. He knew this blindness video would draw just as much cynicism as praise, and he still wanted to make it. The greatest gullibility isn’t being duped into thinking MrBeast is a good person; it’s being duped to believe that in 2023, he thinks it would dupe you.
To evaluate by optics is to oversimplify. Sometimes looks good is bad. Sometimes looks good is good. Appearance is not the main factor.
Cynics refuse to be taken by politicians, marketers, or entertainers. They accept nothing as pure—except for their own doubt. The irony is that this very instinct unchecked becomes something to follow blindly.
One of many goals with As It Were is to hold ideas to the light. Bite-sized answers aren’t working. The biggest YouTuber in the world doesn’t need my defense, especially not three weeks late. And—to be fair—his harshest critics are likely in the minority. Nonetheless, if we claim to think critically, then we may as well apply it to the criticism.
You can’t know anyone’s intentions, be it the star or the cynic. If there’s one thing I know, it’s this: looking too darn good is not a crime.
New trophy word unlocked: nefarious. <3
If the teen who won that Tesla showed any expression, you know it was all an act. Teens these days don't show any emotion - certainly not excitement.