YouTube stars heading for burnout • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube stars heading for burnout

#171

Post by reaperducer » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

bitreality wrote: post #141

reaperducer wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there would be a ton of pressure on him. His followers would constantly be asking him why he did it, when he's coming back. They'd speak rumors about him, comment publicly on his health (mental and physical). What pressure? Don’t want to feel pressure from thousands of anonymous people on Twitch? Don’t go on Twitch. Problem solved. Similarly, know how to avoid all the negative social aspects of Twitter that so many c…

This isn't some guy with a few thousand followers. He's literally a celebrity. He would need to delete all his publicly accessible social media, stop reading emails, and have the will-power not to go down the rabbit hole of reading the online discussion about him. You act as if just disappearing as a celebrity is some easy job. Especially one in this area (Twitch), where the audience is more pervasive. There's plenty…

Being a celebrity doesn't mean you have to use Twitter/Twitch/Network-du-jour. You just don't do it.

Just like if you're a celebrity, you don't have to do drugs. Or drive fast. Or engage in any other self-destructive behavior.

This guy has a choice. He chooses to remain engaged even though he knows it's bad for him. If he's not able to choose otherwise, then it sounds like an addiction, or a mental illness.

Re: YouTube stars heading for burnout

#172

Post by AndrewKemendo » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

elvinyung wrote: post #101

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a clarification, Foucault did not define the term Homo Economicus [1]. He used the concept from Economics to describe the atomization of the individual inside the capitalist state structure, in contest with the "State" as a push-pull with that power structure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus

This is true, but I mostly know of the concept from Foucault's lectures in The Birth of Biopolitics (in particular the "atomization" aspect you mentioned), which I think is slightly different from those other definitions (which is also why I said "Foucault's").

It's not so much different, as it's derivative and muddily so.

Foucault had a tendency to re-define terms as he saw fit, irrespective of their historical use - as his philosophy would encourage - which is partly why the majority of his writing is so obtuse to other philosophers.

Re: YouTube stars heading for burnout

#173

Post by sh87 » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #89

As stupid as this is going to sound, I think about this quite a bit in terms of writing a blog. I've wanted to do it for a long time and in the past people have been very kind and supportive of my writing. However, when I think about the reality of what it takes to make a successful blog, I get very nervous about it. I mean, it's dumb because the chances of writing a successful blog is next to nil. And the way to exi…

I can totally relate to this. I have a bunch of notes and potential blog posts in plain text and markdown waiting to be published. I like to write, its one of my most cherished skills. My fear of petty, shallow criticism and my fear of being stereotyped keeps me from publishing them but nothing will ever stop me from writing it. Writing has given me the clarity and stability of thought that nothing else has. Also converting them into posts that someone might need is pretty simple as long as the essence of the thoughts are captured. I'd say keep writing. Publish opinions anonymously and technical/unopinionated content attributed to your real name. That seems the sanest approach I can think of with least side effects.

Re: YouTube stars heading for burnout

#174

Post by sh87 » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #96

stone-monkey wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not write under a pseudonym? If you don't want people to associate you with every little detail of your writing, the easiest thing to do is to disassociate your writing identity with your offline identity.

That's a good idea :-). It never even occurred to me...

Yeah but what if I want, at some later date, to prove that I am indeed the original author of the said text instead of an imposter ?

Re: YouTube stars heading for burnout

#175

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #169

elvinyung wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really say that they're different sides of the same coin. I also wouldn't say that an entrepreneur necessarily has noticeably bigger payoff. It might be true in tech, but not necessarily for the majority of small businesses. I can't recall off the top of my head which one, but I remember seeing a study that showed that a significant amount of small business owners in the US did so just to get to do what they…

For a living probably means something else now than the past. Past: For a living - so I don't starve to death. Now: For a living - I want the perceived freedom in choice of work that fits my lifestyle.

Yeah, we're not happy to just have the fire, speak in languages, and live in caves either.

We don't compare ourselves with the early humans before they discovered those things and feel lucky.

And neither those that starved to death did.

What constitutes "a living" is always relative.

That said, you can very much still starve and get sick and homeless to death in modern rich societies...

Re: YouTube stars heading for burnout

#176

Post by pdimitar » Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 3:01 AM UTC

projektir wrote: post #148

pdimitar wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the last several years I gradually changed from being very salty and grumpy -- "FFS, these goofy kids get to squeal on air and get rich and buy a house I won't likely have at 50, WTF is that!!!" -- to basically accepting how most of our current world's economy works and I moved to the milder attitude of "hey, if you can make it work then more power to you, and good job!". I think the only bad thing in this pictu…

But what is reality, for whom? For what amount of people? What of those who never hit this "reality" at all? They exist, and a comment like yours is mysteriously never addressed to them, and it's not clear where this personal development would occur or why. I see this as a good thing. It makes people expect more, demand more, raise issues. Because the issue in the blog is worth raising. Otherwise, they'll just settle…

By "reality" I mostly meant "what is statistically often found almost everywhere" -- sorry for not clarifying. By saying "when reality sets in" I mean to say "when one day nobody can carry you through life anymore, including your luck from previous phases, and you actually have to work really hard for a fraction of what you barely worked for before".

And yes, reality is maleable. That's both very good and very bad.

As for me assuming the world is fair, definitely not! The world is anything but fair...

Re: YouTube stars heading for burnout

#177

Post by FabHK » Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 1:08 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #172

elvinyung wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but I mostly know of the concept from Foucault's lectures in The Birth of Biopolitics (in particular the "atomization" aspect you mentioned), which I think is slightly different from those other definitions (which is also why I said "Foucault's").

It's not so much different, as it's derivative and muddily so. Foucault had a tendency to re-define terms as he saw fit, irrespective of their historical use - as his philosophy would encourage - which is partly why the majority of his writing is so obtuse to other philosophers.

Obtuse, full stop.