I'm not from the US, but I assume they have laws for this. I'm against vigilante justice against people who were already judged by the legal system. Do you also support not hiring any felon?
I don't think he should or shouldn't be allowed near anyone, I assume if there was a reason to be barred from it by the judge, he would be. Clearly he wasn't, so I'm not going to be an armchair legal expert and override the judge.
I don't know, I feel something that you did as a teenager, and that you have already went to court about, shouldn't haunt you for the rest of your life any more than it already does with the legally mandated registry.
Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don't want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?
You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.
After watching the videos, and the analysis from Legal Eagle, I find the criticism a little dubious.
"Rigged challenges" is how he introduces surprise things mid-video, like "I'll give you $10,000 if you quit now, but your team loses a team member!" It's obviously part of the show and participants agree to it happening before hand.
"Knowingly hired a sex offender". Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point? The person in question was convicted when he was 16, and was hired 7 years later with nothing indicating he would reoffend. Don't we have courts for justice? Instead they should never be hired as punishment? To me it sounds commendable he's not prejudiced against people's past.
"Attempted to silence anyone" Did he? There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist. Do we know that C&D was baseless?
That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?
Like many, I find the MrBeast videos a cancer of YouTube, which makes hearing any critique of him convenient. But I don't like assuming, and I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn't offering an objective view.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn't do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn't making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
As morally dubious as he is, I'm sure the people who have access to water after his "build 100 wells in Africa" stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.
So I don't know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I'm unsure what would be better.
It couldn't download while an app is installing. So while an already downloaded app was installing, you had nothing downloading until it finishes installing.
It's technically correct, the same way Wikipedia is encrypted, because you access it over an encrypted HTTPS connection. Doesn't make it any less public.
Telegram is also encrypted, but not end to end encrypted (in most cases), and of course Telegram can see your messages, and public group chats are public. But yes, it is all encrypted. Just not in a way useful to this conversation.
I agree, but he's far from the enemy here, he has no money compared to the billionaires we should be fighting.