text
stringlengths 0
9.16k
|
|---|
Entirely misses the point entirely. It's not even in the domain of what I talked about in the script. The argument was not that React content never has benefited anyone ever, it's that absent react content, more people would benefit. That react content has a net loss in terms of exposure to other people because the reactor themselves has to sustain themselves. The reactor is the middleman in the exposure game. The reactor takes a bunch of exposure for themselves, builds up their career, makes millions of dollars, and they give a small fleck of that back to someone else, and that someone else may love that fleck, that may, that fleck may be the greatest fucking thing ever. But absent that reactor, all that exposure would still have gone to other people. Because that's how impressions work. |
Let's put it in simpler terms. Imagine that a reaction video had a million views. Let's say it took 10 million impressions to get those million views. What I'm saying is delete that video. Now, these 10 million impressions would still have to exist. They had to exist for the reactor to get them in the first place. So these 10 million impressions would go to other content creators. Billy making animations, Frankie talking about his grocery list, all these people and these 10 billion impressions for original content creators is more valuable than whatever tiny amount of exposure that the reactor is giving to the person they're reacting to. Because the reactor has already taken some of the exposure for themselves. Those 10 million impressions will 100% go to other content creators. But only a fraction of the amount of people from that reactors video will click other content creators because of it. |
What you're effectively doing is you're synthesizing a bunch of exposure specifically to yourself, and then taking a tiny chunk of that and then giving it to someone else. All the other creators that you've taken these 10 million impressions from are now worse off and you are now way better off, but you're giving a small fleck to someone else. Reaction content will always be a net negative in terms of exposure to other content creators 'cause the reactors have to sustain themselves in their career. Reactors are the middlemen for exposure, and the middlemen take a huge cut. Worse as Cr1TiKaL already admits, making react content is so fucking easy and takes so little time and so little effort that these reactors can release videos far faster than anyone else. So they can take all these impressions onto themselves far faster, releasing video after video after video. While normal content creators can even release a view every once in a while to try to do the same thing, the reactor will always be able to steal more impressions than a original content creator will be able to get for themselves. Because the reactor can make far more content. I use ‘make’ there very loosely. |
Charlie: |
The reactors don't watch tiny content creators who can't catch a break. They find videos that are already doing well in the algorithm and are already successful. Thus do not need their exposure. Reactors are not seeking out content to give it any sort of boost. Seeking out content to bring themselves the maximum amount of profit for the least effort. |
So I just think this immediately runs against that since the majority of content I watch and react to is small content like Ordinary Sausage, like SlapFight Championship. Of course, sprinkled throughout there are some bigger content creators as well as organizations that I just appreciate the work of and think that they're fun. But the majority of it has always been the smaller creators. And nah, of course I'm not always, is that like reacting, going to help them? In fact, I would argue that it's pretty rare for it to. |
DarkViperAU: |
How do you find them Cr1TiKaL? Through the algorithm! The only reason you know those videos exist is because someone had that video fed to them in the algorithm. And if that creator has the ability to succeed, if they're doing the right things and the algorithm is serving their content, then eventually they will succeed. All you are doing is keeping viewers for yourself as long as possible to prevent them finding other creators themselves. Because why go anywhere else if you are the one-stop shop for content? |
Every single viewer who's watching you watching YouTube videos would be doing something else. And I would argue the vast majority of them would be watching other content online, would potentially being shown impressions of other content videos and go, “Ah, isn't that a very interesting channel right here?”. But because you are using other people's content to keep them there, they will never find those creators. You have collectively denied thousands of people careers. 'cause an algorithm has a better chance of serving people content that they want to watch long term than you do watching videos at random. |
If you didn't exist making that content, your viewers would still watch other people, would still use social media websites, would still be fed impressions from content creators that they will now never know because of you. You are synthesizing exposure that would go to many. And channeling it to yourself and then giving a fleck to someone else, you are a net negative in terms of your viewers finding content creators. They enjoy, you have collected, denied them so much content they would love. |
Charlie: |
It is still against his point. I'm not reacting to things that are just gonna bring the maximum amount of profit. That's not what I care about. I've never been a money driven person. |
DarkViperAU: |
So Charlie has 2 million followers on Twitter, 2 million followers that he could direct at any time to any YouTube video that he desires. You could tweet out, “Hey guys, this amazing video, check it out.”. He get nothing outta that of course. The exposure would directly go to that content creator and translate to some amount of views. Let's see how many times he's done it. Uhhuh, uh, we're still at zero. Still at zero. Here is, uh, we got a lot of pictures of Charlie, of course. Um, oh, uh, no, no, no video there. I'm sorry. Um, oh's. A video. Oh, it's a video. It's, it's someone, it's getting exposure to someone who, who gonna be, it's Charlie. Nevermind. Whoops. Um, still no one. Still no one. So we have a platform that Charlie could use to give exposure to whoever the fuck he wants for no benefit to himself, and he doesn't do it at all. |
There must be exceptions in here somewhere, but he spends dozens of hours re-uploading other people's content to his Twitch stream and his YouTube. He doesn't give people shout outs on his Twitter where he can't benefit from such shout outs. Ain't that weird that the only time Charlie will even give a veneer of shouting out YouTube videos is when he personally can benefit from it? Odd! |
Charlie: |
Calls me an exploiter class is outright disgusting. |
DarkViperAU: |
Charlie, you make millions of dollars a year in any other industry. All these people that you're talking about paying an exposure, you'd be paying with hard cash, some of that money in your bank account, in any other industry, you'd be like, “Okay, uh, you put a lot of work into this video. Here's, uh, 10 grand. Uh, you, oh, that's a very nice video. Here's five grand.”. But instead you're like, “Hey man, that's a nice video. I'll pay you in some exposure. Right? Uh, yeah. 90, nah, no, no. I gotta keep that for myself. But exposure. You, you might get some.”. |
Maybe a guy sitting there six months putting everything meticulously perfectly, doing all this research calculations and, and MoistCr1TiKaL walks up and goes, “Oh, that's a nice little bit of labor, you got there friend. Spend a lot of time on that. Well, this is mine now. Um, so I'm gonna put this on my live stream. Uh, thank you guys for the donations, the bits, the views. Uh, don't worry about that guys. Uh, my name's MoistCr1TiKaL. By the way. Be sure to check out my YouTube channel. Yeah. Uh, I would be going offline right now 'cause I'm kind of tired, but I got this guy's video to entertain you guys and, oh, this, uh, yeah, I did, I did say, uh, I like that thing at six minutes so I'm gonna put that entire video on my YouTube channel and generate maybe 10 grand. Uh, what? The original creator wants money? No. He is, he is probably getting something outta it, right? Somewhere… Like, I mean, think about it. I got 10 million impressions using his content and he, some of those people probably clicked through to his channel, some of them surely, right? Truly!”. |
You're using other people's diligent hard work to make fat stacks of money, that you have no desire to give back to anyone else. And due to the nature of what you do, everyone is losing out. As I again establish so heavily in that 14 page document. |
Charlie: |
He says that people only react to content that's doing well in the algorithm and that they were gonna be successful on their own. |
DarkViperAU: |
This is not what I said, and you can repeat it ad nauseum, but it won't make it true. |
Charlie: |
DarkViper has a point that he can't possibly prove. There is no way he could accurately with real evidence. Show me that these channels were going to do extremely well without react content. |
DarkViperAU: |
Not what I said. I said somebody would get those impressions, which is true by how the platform works. It could be technically possible that maybe react content is the only reason why people use TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, and just because there's no react content that some portion of the viewership of these platforms would disappear. They would go place soccer? Just watch Netflix. Fair enough. We'll say 5% gone, the other 95% would still go to other content creators instead of you. Every person who spends time watching your react content would spend time watching something else. Any person who has ever been shown a react video or has clicked that react video and watched it would have been somewhere else in reality doing something else. And my argument is that wherever they're doing is more deserving than the people who spend their time re-uploading other people's videos. They would support other content creators with their views and money, and these people would be more deserving of that support 'cause they make original content rather than re-up uploads of other people's videos. 14 pages I spent on this. Charlie has looked at maybe half a paragraph of what I actually said. And misrepresented everything else in the document. I'm not surprised Charlie does not feel shame for what he does 'cause he doesn't understand what he's doing. |
Charlie: |
However, I can show you examples, and this is only two of them, where react content wasn't dog shit and didn't hurt the channel that was being reacted to. |
DarkViperAU: |
To use money as an example, it's like if I stole $1 from a million people and then I gave one guy $100. and MoistCr1TiKaL was like, “See, this guy that I gave a hundred dollars to wasn't screwed by me.”, But everyone else was! Remember Charlie isn't alone in his theft. There are tons of people doing the same sort of thing. Stealing $1 from everyone and giving $100 to someone else and say, “I'm a good guy. I'm giving that guy $100.”. But as reactors keep doing this, even the guy you gave $100 to will occasionally lose a dollar over enough time. The more people who do that bargain, taking a dollar from everyone, that guy as well will lose his $100. Again, I can't even say Charlie disagrees with me 'cause he doesn't understand the point I'm making. |
Charlie: |
The creator saw my reaction to it and was really disappointed. They didn't appreciate it. And I totally understood where they're coming from because I didn't really add anything to it, I didn't really react to it. So to them it felt like I was just re-uploading their content on my stream. |
DarkViperAU: |
Because that's what you are doing. Even when you pause and speak, the amount of efforts you are putting in is a tiny, tiny fraction of what the original content creator put in place. Person spends 500 hours making a YouTube video, you spend 15 minutes watching it and you believe you deserve to profit off that $500 worth of labor as a multi multimillionaire, you don't believe you owe that guy one single fucking dollar. On what basis? Without his labor you'd have to turn off your stream 'cause you'd have nothing else to watch. You'd have less uploads on your channel. Those people who aren't on your stream would go to other content creators. The people who can no longer watch your react content would watch other content creators wherever they would be found. |
You are taking that guy's 500 hours of labor in order to take all these impressions and therefore viewers from every other content creator. If you were to disappear, everyone would be better off, and that is the case actually for any content creator. There'd be less competition in the marketplace. If all content creators disappeared except me, you can better fucking believe my viewership would go up. However, all original content creators have just as much right to be in this space as anyone else. Reactors don't. |
All reactors do is sit and steal from the original content creators. They siphon exposure via impressions to themselves, key people on their channels instead of other peoples, and they flick a few every once in a while to someone else. |
Charlie: |
It's never supposed to be piggybacking off of someone else's hard work in order to do nothing for it and make money off it. |
DarkViperAU: |
Guys, that thing that I do repeatedly, it isn't my goal. Sure, I feel guilty about it quite frequently, apparently, but I still do it. But it's not my goal to do that thing. Cr1TiKaL, if you're so concerned about not reacting well enough to videos, how about you watch them off stream and just make videos about them and don't watch them live. Make your own creative take on another person's work. Why the live component? If you admit, even in your view, you sometimes end up abusing other content creators, why keep doing it? “Hmm. It seems by my own definitions, I abused content creators seven times today. Well, I'm gonna do it tomorrow as well.”. |
Charlie: |
It's just so disingenuous and DarkViper, I know you watched my content for a long time. |
DarkViperAU: |
And I remember the day I stopped, I was watching it and I was like “Wait a second, this is just react content.”. And that last video I watched was just him repeating stuff he'd seen on Twitter and with a few dick jokes. Why am I watching this? There has to be better content out there than this. If you read some of the comments under my visional community posts, many people had the same view. You are once upon a time, a decent content creator, but you've become rich and lazy. Like, I'll grant you, you are not as bad as the other three people listed, but oh my god… how you have fallen? Or maybe I just grew up… one of the two. |
Charlie: |
There's still so many things I could point out in this document that are just blatantly wrong, such as this claim at the bottom: ‘''They will, of course, then upload the stolen content to the YouTube channels as well as further maximize profits that would otherwise again, go to actual content creators.''’ Hey, can I get a source on that? Can I get a, uh, prove on that buddy, please? |
DarkViperAU: |
Again, assuming people who watch entertainment still want to be entertained, they would have to find entertainment somewhere else. Entertainment costs money, and therefore that money would go to other people. Unless people who watch react content would suddenly just explode if it didn't exist, they would necessarily have to give money to other people. With it in the form of ad watchers or whatever, other people would get more money. |
Charlie: |
Each of these creators earns on average $20 million a year on the back of unpaid writers and content creators. Hey, can I get a source on that one as well? Where the fuck is my 20 mil a year? What an outrageous number to pull right from your fucking dick hole there. |
DarkViperAU: |
What is Charlie trying to insinuate here? Like, “Ah, I'm not making $20 million! Okay, maybe 7… 8… 10… maybe. I'm not making 20! Come on now people!”. Was the exact number the point there? What a strange thing to quibble over. “I'm not making 20 million, I'm only making 10 million. Come on now.”. Like I said, on average for those four people, xQc is making 3 million just off his subs. That including donations, ads, bits, sponsor deals. His YouTube's making at least three times this. I have yet to find a content creator who isn't making at least this, if not twice that. “I have not made more than $10 million a year in the entirety of my life.”, what's your problem? Why do you want to act poor for your audience? The point there was on average, Pokimane has so many revenue sources that I can't even count as high. I have yet to find a content creator where this number isn't leased in the ballpark of what they own. Usually it's two or three times this. My cpm is shit, but I talk to a lot of other content creators. I know what other people get in terms of their cpm. I have yet to find someone who isn't making this. You are getting 200 million views a month, and of all the things in the document that you made sure to question, it was how much money you make. |
Remember the video from MoistCr1TiKaL that I responded to before? Isn't it funny that he didn't talk about all the content that makes him money? He only wanted to make a video about the content that doesn't make him any money. So important was it to MoistCr1TiKaL to present himself as a person, not making a lot of money. He made that video. “Look, guys, look at all these videos I making that aren't making any money, haha the crazy world of YouTube.”. To the point where I was so disgusted that I had to make a response video, and even Ludwig had to make a video responding to it. Because that's disgusting. You are making an insane amount of money a year, an insane amount. I don't care if it's 10 million or 20. |
The point wasn't the amount. It was the contention that you don't deserve all that money. If you used it on stream reacting to a video that a guy spent 500 hours working on and you've watched it for 10 minutes, the guy who made that video probably deserves that money a little bit more than you wouldn't you agree? The amount of effort that went into that content was mainly made by that other dude, but you keep all the money. And you pay in exposure. |
Charlie: |
Another thing I'd like to point out is every time this whole React content debate comes up. The people that take the most offense to it and make the biggest stink about it are the people that aren't having a problem with people reacting to their content. |
DarkViperAU: |
I went into such intricate detail to explain that everyone suffers from react content, but those who are reacted to suffer the least. It’s an idea called a negative externality. To go back to my analogy from before, I'm a guy who's looked around and said, “Hey Charlie, you probably shouldn't be stealing a dollar from like a million people.”. Like “Charlie, you're keeping 999,900 of those dollars. Like I, I know you've given that guy a hundred, that's great, but how about you just don't steal the dollar from all those millions of people?” And Charlie's like, “No, fuck you. This is mine.”. And he was once, “Well, you are just complaining 'cause you aren't the guy I'm giving a hundred dollars to.”. Just again. These are analogies to explain ideas. They do not represent numbers that actually exist in real life. MoistCr1TiKaL isn't actually using magic to steal a dollar from everyone. Just to be clear. |
Charlie: |
It's always a weird dichotomy where the people that are the Mads are the ones that aren't even directly involved in the problem that they're talking about. |
DarkViperAU: |
Sure. We could use pollution as an example. You've got the people at the top, the polluters who make fuck tons of money polluting the planet. Then you have the people who work for them who make some of that money as well. Then you have literally everyone else who's like, “Can you guys like stop? Including the planet. Like we, we don't work for you, but we do suffer because of what you're doing.”. And the second tier is like, “What the fuck are you complaining, man? I'm getting a great paycheck here.”, the people at the top like “Look, all these fucking people, they don't, they don't even work for us. They don't work for us, they're not out of responsibility.”. Every class except the top, is ultimately worse off. The people in the second class, who get some benefit, are less worse off. But everyone else is the worst off. |
Charlie: |
The majority of it's always been a really positive relationship between the creator that was reacted to and the person that was reacting to it. |
DarkViperAU: |
Of course, because in any system you are much better off in grating yourself with the elites than trying to challenge them. This video doesn't benefit me. If I became friends with you despite your exploitation, I would be in a better position. People who are in positions to exploit the most amount of people are the people you wanna be friends with. You do not gain from challenging the powerful. You gain by ingratiating yourself with them. Sure it will take a fuck ton of unpaid labor that that person will then use to enrich themselves, but you'll benefit. You'll get that association. Think of it as an unpaid internship for a very powerful exploitive company. Are you better off having that unpaid internship? Or challenging that company? The little guy doesn't win there. But I care more about being a good person than being an unpaid intern in Charlie's fucking enterprise. |
Charlie: |
Even if it's like, Hey, that's 70,000 people watching your content on xQc’s stream instead of yours. Well, those 70,000 people may never have found that small channel in the first place, and now maybe some of them do go over there, and he mentions that as like trickle down, react, genomics, or some shit like that. But for a lot of people, that isn't a net positive thing, where there could have been no one that ever found it in the first place. |