> There's no need to be rude.

There's no need to interpret words through the arbitrary lens of silly feelings, yet here we are.

> Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments.

According to what? Is this something you made up?

If someone is willing to pay to talk to an internet figure, as you asserted they are, why not MrBeast? We can probably find agreement in MrBeast not being "herself". Is that the difference you find? The white knights only consider it fraud if the figure identifies as "her"?

> people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself.

I'll have to accept your personal experience for what it is, but what in the marketing suggests the model is anything more than a brand? You even literally call it a model, not a person. That is quite telling that you understand the business at play, even if you want to pretend you don't for the sake of the fake argument.

We all know full well that MrBeast is a brand. Why are you treating MrsBeast differently?