71–80 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They changed the definition of 'literally' to fit the modern meaning. You can no longer call it abuse now as the misuse fits the new definition. See definition 2 here: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal...
Literally false: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally Use of literally in, well, the non-literal sense dates back hundreds of years.
At the top of the heap (Mr Beast, Nastya, Ryan, etc), this is true: > The ideal creator has no distance between themselves and their persona. They have been interpellated by audience metrics; their subjective experience already takes audience reactions into account. > Or more simply, YouTubers are not “Creators” but Creations. Audiences, rationalized by the platform, and the vloggers who upload the videos those audie…
There's a fine line between "content created for X people interested in Y topic in Z form" and "content that's relevant to my viewers."
The former is a channel that is avoiding the "creator" described by the author. The latter is on a path towards the author's "creator."
For a long time, the two can be very similar. The group you are tailoring your content for and your viewers won't necessarily diverge quickly, especially in niche areas or highly technical fields. But they will inevitably diverge.
Worth noting that the form this takes will depend on the topic.
It's rare to find a creator that can avoid this trap long-term. I see it even with small channels I follow.
> The ideal creator has no distance between themselves and their persona. They have been interpellated by audience metrics; their subjective experience already takes audience reactions into account. Isn't this sort of one of the themes from The Prestige(2006)? That certain magicians were so dedicated to their craft that they became inseparable from it. The performance never actually stopped
This isn't purely new, either. I'm perhaps dating myself a bit but I recall that over the years I have seen a few actors have this weird vibe where they're never "human", they always "on" and seem like their actor-thing has totally subsumed their humanity. David Cassidy and Shirley McClain come to mind for me on this.
Interesting experience to read an essay of such insight regarding a subject that is the opposite of insight. Best thing I’ve read this week. I am happy to say I have never seen a Mr. Beast video, and now I will be sure never to see one in the future.
The world has so much good film, music, novels, even video games and TV - in a choice between any of those and watching a YouTuber, why would anyone choose the latter?
> in cybernetic terms, a long lag time in production is deadly. Does "long lag time" or "deadly" mean something else in cybernetic terms than in regular terms? I found the "in cybernetics terms" insert quite puzzling.
I'm interested in how many people here on HN watch Mr Beast - I've never watched any of his videos ever, and I spend far too much time on YT.
A few years ago, if you opened up YouTube without being logged in, the algorithm would show you its default recommendations in the purest state, uninfluenced by your proclivities. MrBeast and similar dumpster clickbait videos were prominently featured. These days, I think you have to at least search for and watch some things before you are told what to watch.
If MrBeast has ever shown up on my YT front page in the past, I slapped YT's hand until it stopped. Haven't had a problem since.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly true, but I'm sure you'd agree that it can't really be called steadily since around 2010-2014
There is a straight line through 70s Falwell, 90s Limbaugh, tea party, to MAGA. All fueled by a self-reinforcing rage machine.
Leaf through the BoingBoing BBS sometime to get a sense for it.
It's interesting how this is happening in software engineering YouTube content as well. It seems like things like "go sucks rust is great! Now rust sucks and zig is great!!" get way more views since it is basically clickbait for nerds. It's too bad that nuanced discussion doesn't do too well on social media.