Featured Image Credit: Bryan Steffy/Getty Images Reply
MrBeast has been slammed as ‘evil’ for his latest video as users are now calling for YouTube to intervene.
This comes after the content creator released his latest YouTube video titled ‘Would you risk dying for $500,000?’.
In the clip, the video saw a contestant left tied up in a house that was going up in flames where they would need to escape from in order to win the cash.
Needless to say, this has sparked controversy on social media, with many questioning why the content is allowed to be displayed on YouTube.
Advert
Reacting to the clip, one user took to X, formerly Twitter, to write: “He's a f***ing psychopath. The smoke would've killed that guy before the flames got to him. Youtube cannot be allowed to show this on their platform this is reckless engagement???????”
Another said: “MrBeast is f***ing evil, shit like this is literally the plot of dystopian series like Squid Game and The Hunger Games. He preys on ppl's financial struggles because he knows they're desperate for money, so they're more likely to participate. That's not consent, it's exploitation.”
A third person commented: “It’s actually going to take MrBeast killing someone for people to really understand how f***ing dangerous he is.”
And a fourth added: “MrBeast is a cartoonishly evil “philanthropist”. Putting somebody tied to a chair in a burning room with 500k and tell them grab them as much as money they can before it or THEM burns up. He belong in Gotham Asylum.”
This isn’t the first time MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, has come under fire for his content.
Earlier this year, Donaldson was called out by Mexican officials for apparently faking parts in a video inside Maya Temples.
The clip saw him supposedly spending 100 hours in ancient temples.
In a press release, the the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) said: “The visit and recording of the archaeological sites of Calakmul, Campeche, and Chichén Itzá and Balamcanché, Yucatán, were carried out in accordance with formal requests made by the federal Ministry of Tourism and the governments of the two aforementioned states.
“The permits were processed through the National Coordination of Legal Affairs of the INAH, which determined the applicable rights in accordance with the law.
“The tours were conducted in publicly accessible areas without disrupting visitor access. In the case of Calakmul, the substructure of Building II was also visited. Although not permanently open to the public, it does provide access by arranging a scheduled visit with advance justification, as is the case with tours conducted with the communities surrounding the archaeological site.”
