Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

polygon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–317 of 317 posts

Re: Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

#311

Post by jdmichal »

fixermark wrote: post #309
jdmichal wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s an apparent double standard, right? Comedians tell AIDS jokes, Holocaust jokes, 9/11 jokes and much more. When a popular YouTuber does it, it’s suddenly being reported by the media (and, cough, other YouTubers). Didn’t George Carlin once say no topic is off limits? > There really is a joke there somewhere at Fiverr’s expense, and I think that’s what he was going for. > The parts are there, loosely, if you c…

Who is the king in this analogy?

I think the point is that there is no king. Or rather, kings are manufactured at will based on outrage, and outrage is dependent on delivery. Land the joke, and no one calls treason on you. Whiff and there's an angry mob with pitchforks.

I think that's why you see a lot of people saying that none of this was surprising for people who knew his material before hand. And I think the comparison elsewhere to shock-jocks is very apt. Such material is often suddenly found lacking when it gains an audience wider than it was targeted for.

And this also plays into the wider idea of, how responsible should a speaker be for "triggering" [0] a listener? That's a very heavy burden when your audience suddenly -- and not necessarily intentionally -- becomes "everyone".

[0] Yes, this is a somewhat lax usage of that term. However, it is also a common usage, so I use it as such.

Re: Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

#312

Post by dragontamer »

drakonandor wrote: post #296
dragontamer wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh noes! Newspapers are talking about him! You know the WSJ has absolutely no power over advertisers, aside from the SAME freedom of speech powers that PDP has.

WSJ definitely has the power to ruin your reputation overnight, even if you don't deserve it. You could not do the same to them.

I'll believe it if pdp loses subscribers. For now, it just looks like he lost some sponsors.

Re: Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

#313

Post by cthulha »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #256
fixermark wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately, his freedom and originality haven't been impinged; if he wants to say whatever he wants, he can make and host his own videos. His freedom of speech doesn't override Disney's freedom of association or YouTube's freedom of the press; they're under no obligation to publish or promote anyone's content, and the counterweight to that is that people who don't like their policies can boycott them. But you're unli…

This is all correct -- but it underlines the awkward moral spot that Google (my employer) is in. Our incentive is to pay lip service to freedom of speech while taking the path of least resistance and censor to keep angry 3rd parties happy. You might think this shuts down only speech beyond the pale. But we are still rewarding those who act most offended, and our wisest course is to kowtow more and more. That stuff is…

Could you explain what you see as the 'moral spot' exactly?

Helping people say anti-semitic stuff doesn't seem like an inspirational position. Isn't the greater danger to society acceptance of intolerance?

Re: Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

#314

Post by braveo »

Ralfp wrote: post #308
braveo wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you disagree with 90% of his policies, but you vote for him anyway because of his LGBT activism, you're no better than racists could also disagree with 90% of a white man's policies, but still vote for them because their opponent was black. I know you'll argue against that point, but I mention it not for you, but to put what you said into context for other readers.

Actually, I fail to see the point you are making. I'm arguing that people should be active in shaping popular discourse of their societies while honing and validating their opinions as they clash those with other opinions. Is your argument "oh, but racists are also shaping discourse of their societes"?

like I said, I don't actually expect you to admit to such a horrible way of choosing who to vote for.

My post wasn't for you.

Re: Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

#315

Post by untoreh »

Houshalter wrote: post #148
jzymbaluk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely spend a lot of my entertainment time watching youtube. I really agree what you're saying as far as big content creators not offering much substance to their videos, but it's wrong to think that the "big youtubers" are the only ones making things on Youtube. I have my subscriptions filled with some pretty amazing smaller youtubers who are making great, cerebral content all the time. I'm more interested in…

I'll just dump my favorite youtube channels here too: I enjoy some math channels like Numberphile https://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile , computerphile https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9-y-6csu5WGm29I7JiwpnA , standupmaths https://www.youtube.com/user/standupmaths , 3blue1brown https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw , Vi Hart https://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart , Mathologer https://www.youtube.c…

replying to save list, thanks

Re: Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

#316

Post by raesene6 »

fixermark wrote: post #310
raesene6 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My defence of that point wasn't predictated on the idea that what he said was atypical of his content. It was predicated on the fact that WSJ took statements completely out of context to have the exact opposite of the in-context meaning.

I'm not sure there's a lot of "Taking out of context" involved with paying strangers to hold up a "Death to All Jews" sign.

which is not the point I was referring to , nice way to take my comment of out context. For avoidance of doubt I originally said

("The hit job was some of the other items they'd cut together to make the "anti-semetic" charge stick. One item where he was comparing youtube policies to those of the Nazi's (i.e. casting both in a negative light) the WSJ used as "proof" he was pro-Nazi. that's what prompted my thought of the quote.")

My point was the the part where they conflated PewdiePies comparison of Youtube and the Nazi's as being him supporting the Nazi's, this was entirely take out of context. I wasn't referring to the sign there at all.

Re: Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber

#317

Post by chiefalchemist »

fixermark wrote: post #306
chiefalchemist wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we stopped saying things that might "offend" someone somewhere there would be silence. What's interesting is, the more we try to silence certain voices, the louder their message gets. Does demonization (?) work? Does it back fire ? Take IS for instance. The stronger and more extreme the resistance (?) the stronger it gets. I'm certainly not defending hate, etc. Just wondering - out loud - if the old countermeasure…

There are things that are pretty unlikely to offend, things that are very likely to offend a lot of people, and things that are very likely to offend a few people (this kind of humor is often called "punching down" when the few are a low-power group and "punching up" when it's a high-power group). Nobody is calling for zero offense; that's a slippery-slope argument that doesn't really apply to the situation. And nobo…

Agreed. They are free to hire and fire whoever they want. But that's not my point. The question is this: Does marginalizing and demonizing - in the internet era - make fringe ideas weaker or stronger? Or is "there's no such thing as bad press" finally not true?
Post reply on HN