Is there a war brewing with youtubers?

Woman eats tons of food on YT... gets fat, makes millions.

You're saying this is a good thing, and only likes + money is important? She's now a top 0.1% "entertainer" for this?

Again it is you that is making this about money and that wasn't my example but yours too. You are aware that there are other youtubers out there no?

Do you like all TV shows? Have you ever watched the critically acclaimed show "Love Island"? :D

(I doubt she`s made "millions" btw...)
 
Again it is you that is making this about money and that wasn't my example but yours too. You are aware that there are other youtubers out there no?

Do you like all TV shows? Have you ever watched the critically acclaimed show "Love Island"? :D

(I doubt she`s made "millions" btw...)
She makes "6 figures" and is part of a movement of other similar people who make money on YT for eating a stupid amount (lots) of food and recording it.

OK let's ignore the money.

Has she "made something of herself" because lots of people now apparently want to watch her eating an obscene amount of foot at the cost of her own health?

If she dies of this misadventure will she have "made something of herself"?

What are the criteria here?

And yes I'm aware there are lots of YT'ers. But you seem to equate hits/views with "making something of yourself" as thus far no other criteria has been given.
 
She makes "6 figures" and is part of a movement of other similar people who make money on YT for eating a stupid amount (lots) of food and recording it.

You do realise a million is 7 figures, journalists tend to like to exaggerate earnings and she's been going for just under a year. I think your claim that she's made "millions" is rather misplaced.

OK let's ignore the money.

Has she "made something of herself" because lots of people now apparently want to watch her eating an obscene amount of foot at the cost of her own health?

If she dies of this misadventure will she have "made something of herself"?

What are the criteria here?

And yes I'm aware there are lots of YT'ers. But you seem to equate hits/views with "making something of yourself" as thus far no other criteria has been given.

Why are you focused on her? I didn't bring her up, you did. I mentioned people with viewing figures to rival prime time TV shows, you've brought up a woman with some peculiar niche who has, on her previous videos for the past few days 120k views, 50k views, 120k views etc... She's a few leagues below.

I mean people do make money outside of youtube from both competitive eating and reviewing food. I suspect most don't have the sort of audience size that she has, so yes she's done well. I didn't mention her or bring her up though so demanding I defend her is a bit odd, especially when you're seemingly ignoring the sorts of you tubers I've referred to. Regardless attracting the audience she has has taken some skill and some luck - it isn't like anyone can just set up a channel tomorrow and eat stuff then expect to make six figures.

You've not answered my question about TV - do you like all TV shows?
 
Anyone who reads my post - except you, apparently - will not interpret it as an attack on all YT content creators. Because it obviously wasn't.

You have a bee in your bonnet about me, that's clear. Read it again. I'm not going to quote my own post. You can just scroll back and actually read it properly.

Then stop being a **** and spinning it to mean something it doesn't.

Fine, I'll break your post down myself. With each paragraph so even you can't randomly decide you can't understand english. Please read carefully:

"Content creators" can be people doing useful stuff like product testing, or it can just be people recording themselves doing stuff.

You start off dismissive already, and you wonder why I think your post isn't a slight against the genuine hardworking 'content creators'? Implying it's not even a legitimate job/career choice? Oh let's be vague with them 'doing stuff' which could range from provide insights into a particular topic/industry. But no the only succesful people on the platform are a bunch of 20 year olds mugging off the camera. Sure, those people exist but only a dozen have actually made any money from it. Unless you stand out, you won't be successful - and doing the same thing as them won't let you stand out.

If you're just recording yourself eating, or playing a game, or... I've never defined that as creating anything.

I don't watch walkthroughs these days but again, you have no idea what you're going on about. Even if a youtuber has a small following (small compared to pewdiepie, 500-2million subs) that is a lot of eyes and potential sales, plus basically free marketing compared to what they would traditionally pay on a shotgun blast approach campaign. Whilst eating absurd amount of foods is a talent in of itself, not those mukbangs but the likes of Matt Stonie, BeardMeatsFood etc.

Half of these people think they're important and useful to society. Looks like they're getting a dose of reality.

If you genuinely think you've been misunderstood then that's your own fault for curating such a toxic mentality through your own posts.
 
If there was a penalty for making false claims then it would reduce a lot of what was going on, but there isn't.
Also, fair use seems to be taking a kicking...
 
You start off dismissive already, and you wonder why I think your post isn't a slight against the genuine hardworking 'content creators'? Implying it's not even a legitimate job/career choice? Oh let's be vague with them 'doing stuff' which could range from provide insights into a particular topic/industry.
Those people would be the people who I refereed to as "doing useful stuff". Second paragraph, first sentence.

I mentioned "product reviews" as an example. Others could be providing tutorials, hosting debates, interviews, all manner of things.

But no the only succesful people on the platform are a bunch of 20 year olds mugging off the camera. Sure, those people exist but only a dozen have actually made any money from it. Unless you stand out, you won't be successful - and doing the same thing as them won't let you stand out.

If you genuinely think you've been misunderstood then that's your own fault for curating such a toxic mentality through your own posts.
"I've ignored the parts of your post that don't agree with my preconceptions about you and that's entirely your fault."

It's OK, reading is hard, I understand that.

You're just another one of those people who wants an argument at all times. I seem to attract your ilk like flies to ****. Which is a shame, I don't actually enjoy all these arguments. But I don't particularly like people twisting my words, or disregarding parts of my posts to make them appear to say things they don't.

Where I suspect we genuinely disagree is the people who just video themselves playing games, and actually think that the "content" is theirs, and not the game creators'.

If you record yourself playing a game and being a wise ass, no you don't deserve to make 100% of the money from that without the game publisher's approval. And if they choose to take their cut, too bad. Add some value. Or get a proper job.
 
Irrelevant. Also there's no prize for asking stupid questions.

Asking about a TV show is irrelevant when the post of mine you originally quoted and seems to take issue with was making a direct comparison between prime time TV figures and successful youtubers?

How is your fat woman eating food relevant? You demanded I answer questions about her when you're the one bringing her up.
 
Reaction videos are the dumbest thing I've seen in ages, who the hell watches this claptrap? If you're over 12 years old and watch reaction videos then you need to have a rest and take stock of where it all went wrong in your life.

Agree. Right up there with unboxing videos get a life people. Proper reviews on the other hand are worth while.
 
A lot of youtube content is now made by production companies, there has been a marked change with a lot of content now filmed in rented studio homes or just an advert made by a company. Businesses are paying to advertise, they are not paying for some crud or videos that are not watched by their target demographic. I guess a lot of youtubes are over valuating the worth of their content, having a million, 10 to 14 year old viewers is not worth much if they don't buy anything from adverts. Could you imagine the damage to a business, that would be cause if their ads where on gun videos and one of them videos was made by a shooter on a killing rampage?
 
it's an issue, the thing i dislike is their decisions about for example firearms related content.

thing is i'm under no illusion such content isn't for everyone, and there are legitimate reasons many advertisers would not wish to associate their products with that content (not helped by it being blanketed under a generic term meaning legitimate, well researched and mainly politic free content like forgotten weapons or c&rsenal gets lumped into the same category as "ermagerd gervment gon' take mah ar's" rants).

however there are companies, and by companies i mean an entire bloody industry, that not only wouldn't mind being associated with this content but indeed would very much want to target that demographic, and yet instead of offering targeted advertising to these companies google instead decides to blanket demonetise.

thing is they could tier it- acceptable for everyone gets maximum money, more marginal content only gets a share based on the advertisers happy to support that kind of content. google just needs to have the balls to turn around and say to the advertisers "yes you dont like x content, fine, we won't put your ads on that content, but we will still put other ads on that content and it will still be on our platform"

the same thing applies to the likes of consipracy videos, now don't get me wrong there are good reasons to consider these things worth demonitising and marginalising, like anti vaxxers, because it's actually dangerous. but the issue here is whilst google are within their rights (their platform after all) to suppress these things, it gives them a dangerous amount of power if they chose to weild it incorrectly. slippery slope from pushing out niche creators and pseudo-scientific snake oil peddlers to something more influential.

not to mention it's a good platform, i like that it enables people to create interesting content, there's something refreshing about the passionate hour and a half of pure nerdery put out by a typical c&rsenal video that isn't watered down by needing to cater to a mass market as so often seen in conventional media. and it's sad to think that it could end up killing itself by strangling the very people that made it great in the first place.
 
In answer to the OP thread title.

Yes, I certainly hope so?

Posting informative video for the interest and edification of others is a laudable achievement. Generally (but not always) monetising it appears shabby and is usually annoying to boot.
 
there are legitimate reasons many advertisers would not wish to associate their products with that content (not helped by it being blanketed under a generic term meaning legitimate, well researched and mainly politic free content like forgotten weapons or c&rsenal gets lumped into the same category as "ermagerd gervment gon' take mah ar's" rants).

Thats one of my biggest bug-bears with YouTube, the lack of "context" regarding how the lump videos into a single category. So for example "historical firearms" channels like Forgotten Weapons, C&Rsenal or BlokeOnTheRange etc shouldn't really be lumped together with more general shooting videos like DemoRanch, IraqVetern8888 or Hickok45 etc and they should absolutely 100% NEVER be lumped into the same category as the type of "ERMAGARD, THEYS COMMIN FER MA GUNS!!!" videos like you described. Yet somehow to the mighty Google there is absolutely no difference between all three of those type of videos purely because they all feature firearms of some type.

It's an absolutely ridiculous situation and is costing Google money for the exact reason you mentioned - Some advertisers will be happy to advertise on Forgotten Weapons or DemoRanch etc but would run a mile from the loony creators yet, as Google can't/won't separate those creators apart (because they're all about guns) the advertisers are avoiding all the gun channels, losing Google money.
 
Google are awful when it comes to their treatment of creators and their wilful ignorance towards copyright holders flagrant disregard to actual fair use and let's not get started on their shady growth they are now employing along with their dodgy algorithms


I hope some valid competition to youtube appears soon, because then maybe google will realise their current practices cannot continue
 
Remember the YouTube headquarters shooting last year?

When that left wing extremist/activist shot 3 people then herself because YouTube was censoring her hate-filled rant videos and demonetized her? I'm amazed it hasn't happened more often TBH considering how YT is treating creators after years of helping them become dependant on YT for a wage!
 
When that left wing extremist/activist shot 3 people then herself because YouTube was censoring her hate-filled rant videos and demonetized her? I'm amazed it hasn't happened more often TBH considering how YT is treating creators after years of helping them become dependant on YT for a wage!

I don't really care if she was left or right or whatever really, I think that is all a load of modern ballsacks that is just being used to divide people tbh! Anyway, her motivation was because of demonetisation and filtering of youtube and as it hasn't been mentioned in the thread, I thought it would be relevant to the thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom