Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
he married his wife when she was 16 and he was 19, they had known eachother growing up. they consummated the marriage one year later, per custom in their area. I think one wound up in pakistan and one wound up in turkmenistan for a few years, and they had to do some border shenanigans because different countries had different laws about this.
after about a decade he built the channel up enough to have some investment capital, which he began putting into flagship products to capitalize on the branding. stuff that met the minimum health requirements he was going for, having grown up poor and hungry and wondering why xanthum gum from bangladesh was somehow cheaper than wheat germ from pakistan despite the obscene travel costs and specialized industry of xanthum.
english food regulators, people who manage the UK's control over the global food market using key investments, became interested in the brand. because of what it was doing, and the threat they felt it represented to their trade schemas. so they approached him about buying the brand, but he didn't want to sell. so they approached his wife instead.
now after about a decade of marriage I guess things weren't going so great, and his wife had sort of grown used to the idea of luxury in her early teens before her family's economic downturn. so she decided she wanted to sell the brand, and in the ensuing legal battle she used their marriage ceremony to accuse mr beast of sexual assault on a minor (herself.) she sort-of agreed to this legal process, under the assumption that it could be reversed in the event of the sale, and also sort-of not wanting to be part of her husband's "growing crusade" about food justice.
the ruling became upheld in enough jurisdictions that mr beast basically had to sell the brand; he otherwise had no access to its invested assets. this is about the time that wells in africa were happening, as despite the fact that his research had discovered they were pointless the cost of actually drilling one as a publicity stunt was miniscule compared to the sunk cost of the research itself. plus england threw its weight behind the case; his request to have the details sealed was at their request, following his decision to sell the brand and try again somewhere else with something else so as to avoid a divorce.
the brand got sold to UK interests who turned the food into crud and made the channel into immature jokes for kids, using completely different actors and crew. mr beast no longer has anything to do with it, except as a fictional brand image.
Well, the people who wound up taking over the brand are known for using bots. And the reason they took it over is they wanted to publicize the backstory of England crushing the brand for global economic reasons.
But, England's control over media is much greater than theirs is. So the brand is associated with bot numbers, annoying algorithmic spam, and a general disinterest in anything involving the brand whatsoever. Let alone its backstory.
Maybe in 30 years people will historically recognize Mr Beast, and shrug their shoulders. Just like every other top-down attempt at reform by a handful of elites working in shadowy media positions.
I see it with him, the side guys or whatever, ksi, etc. Its like a specific group of influencers were sponsered and are pushing the young kids and never stay with an initial fanbase as they age.
There's a general media trend towards infantilization that's global in scope and difficult to pinpoint the origins of.
Seemingly everyone has simultaneously decided that treating their citizens like children will work out.
One way to look at it is that by pandering to children constantly you can promise them the world and fill them with hope and idealism, then once they get older and the media landscape no longer cares about them they'll essentially disenfranchise themselves. They'll become jaded and disinterested, because nobody cares about them or what they think, and any success they do achieve is almost instantaneously crushed and forgotten.
On top of that nobody will actually take care of them, so they tend to die off struggling for survival.
The current situation where certain types of people who know a lot, like intelligence agents, are taken care of is...new. And it isn't exactly working out, in the eyes of the people who resent that anyone knows anything at all.
There was a report that circulated in the 80s about targeting children with advertising specifically, with the idea of instilling brand loyalty into them.
It was basically Nationalism, already a discredited idea by that point, but wearing kid's clothes and wrapped in product branding.
People know this stuff doesn't work, but they keep doing it. Somehow the people that know it doesn't work and the people who believe it doesn't work always wind up in vastly different positions of power. As if someone wanted to create the appearance of efficacy to guide their childlike population towards.
By that logic nobody can criticize anybody, because none of them have been eachother.
Provided you are talking to someone who like, older that 14 years old