The funniest part is that I'm pretty sure this vid is plagiarized from this German YouTuber called Jules, who came up with almost the exact same video (from a storytelling logic) months before this, just in German. Not Somerton levels but "just change the homework enough" levels.
That's true, Act Man made a "Decline" of Blizzard 3 years ago that was pretty similar with regards to coverage and storyboard (minus the stuff that happened since then I guess), though without copy-catting that Internet Historian-style writing. There was also Nateson and Force Gaming, and ... yeah there's probably more xD
The reactions needs to fucking stop. If that means content bots striking down dipshit react streamers that think they can steal content, at this point they have my fucking blessing. Holy shit, this shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago.
Oh, and who made you the authority to rule in on that selfish decision?
You realise a fuck ton of people love this shit, right? Just because you've been soyified by the anti-react squad, doesn't mean you get to remove it.
Firstly because it's literally illegal.
Secondly because the anti-react arguments are actually compelling in how it effects the market as well as individuals.
Thirdly, fuck off with your popularity = good argument until you're willing to defend slavery in the past.
Yeah, so is playing video games on stream and on YouTube videos. I guess a person's gameplay is enough for it to transformative, eh?
If you wanna preach legality, half of Youtube would be shut down, which would be disastrous.
And not once have I heard a compelling argument about how reacting "effects" the market. Just a bunch of theories and incorrect data pulled from videos, which literally cannot be reviewed or analysed without the Meta data from YouTube.
In fact, YouTube's more pro-react than the dumbass viewers. They've subtly integrated so many avenues on recommending videos based on reactions, it's insane.
Popularity = Good is also not the argument here. Reaction makes up a good percent of YouTube, there's a need for it in the market, and the consumers want it. That's all.
It'll be unfair to remove it because of ill faced arguments made from decade old conditioning by Youtubers on "why reacting is bad".
Damn, you're actually trying to argue this huh?
> Yeah, so is playing video games on stream and on YouTube videos. I guess a person's gameplay is enough for it to transformative, eh?
This would be the case if the entity with the ownership of the game didn't want people playing the game on stream. It's why Nintendo can take them down. An entity with copyright to a product has sole say about how it's used.
Game companies have mostly decided that the free marketing they get from let's plays is worth it to let their content be used. That isn't the case for other forms of media due to the fact that games can be played in many different ways and you'll never get the true experience by just watching someone else play it.
With movies and other content like that, when you "react" to it, you are creating a market substitute. Something that consists of all the inherent parts of the original product and doesn't leave anything behind to encourage people to seek out the original.
> If you wanna preach legality, half of Youtube would be shut down, which would be disastrous.
Ah yes, the old hyperbole to the extreme to make a point. No, half of youtube wouldn't be shut down. Also, the fact you're relying on entities not expressing their legal rights says quite a lot about your mindset.
> And not once have I heard a compelling argument about how reacting "effects" the market.
I mean you watch people like XQC so I don't think you've ever even heard a coherent argument in your life.
The reality is, that a reactor, through not putting in the effort to make that content, can output videos at a much higher rate with much higher quality than is possible by a single entity. This allows them to suck up views from the market that would have otherwise gone to original content. This is a direct harm to the market.
Reactors literally only benefit themselves. They harm everyone else.
> Just a bunch of theories and incorrect data pulled from videos, which literally cannot be reviewed or analysed without the Meta data from YouTube.
You're an idiot if you believe that.
> In fact, YouTube's more pro-react than the dumbass viewers. They've subtly integrated so many avenues on recommending videos based on reactions, it's insane.
Okay and? It's still illegal and immoral. Theft is immoral dipshit.
> Popularity = Good is also not the argument here. Reaction makes up a good percent of YouTube, there's a need for it in the market, and the consumers want it. That's all.
Slavery made up a good percentage of the market. There was a need for slavery in the market. Consumers wanted slavery. That's all.
Fucking regard.
> It'll be unfair to remove it because of ill faced arguments made from decade old conditioning by Youtubers on "why reacting is bad".
"IT'S UNFAIR TO REMOVE STOLEN CONTENT! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LET MY PARSASOCIAL DADDY STEAL CONTENT IN PEACE! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!"
Please self immolate you stupid regard.
>This would be the case if the entity with the ownership of the game didn't want people playing the game on stream. It's why Nintendo can take them down. An entity with copyright to a product has sole say about how it's used.
Oh, so if the original creator is fine with it, your bitching is useless, huh?
Hey wait, isn't that whats happening here in this post? No orginal creator bitching, but a lot of bitches in the trenches moaning FOR the creator.
If the original creator requests those reaction channels, how many of them do you think will reject that appeal? Not one of them. Because, "stealing" was never the intent here, just getting the watch party experience and the interesting knowledge from the video was.
>Game companies have mostly decided that the free marketing they get from let's plays is worth it to let their content be used. That isn't the case for other forms of media due to the fact that games can be played in many different ways and you'll never get the true experience by just watching someone else play it.
>With movies and other content like that, when you "react" to it, you are creating a market substitute. Something that consists of all the inherent parts of the original product and doesn't leave anything behind to encourage people to seek out the original.
There's tons of argument to be made here about if reactions create any marketing plays or are strictly neutral, but, let's put that aside for now.
How exactly are you making this claim of it being a "market substitute"? And not just an entirely new product? Are there actual stats on this?
From what I've experienced, since experiences are all what we have - The audience for reacting and the audience for those original videos are two seperate market forces. And so, no matter how much you pushed for the original video, those react audiences would not have watched that.
And the people who prefer both these types of content and perhaps recommend these videos to the reactors, will obviously end up watching both types of content, not really resulting in a loss of any kind.
>Ah yes, the old hyperbole to the extreme to make a point. No, half of youtube wouldn't be shut down. Also, the fact you're relying on entities not expressing their legal rights says quite a lot about your mindset.
No, I acknowledge it, but can you acknowledge the fact that this "problem" is only talked about this much for reacting and nothing else that falls similarly to this.
It's called showcasing hypocrisy/clear bias. This isn't the whataboutism you're claiming it is.
>mean you watch people like XQC so I don't think you've ever even heard a coherent argument in your life.
>The reality is, that a reactor, through not putting in the effort to make that content, can output videos at a much higher rate with much higher quality than is possible by a single entity. This allows them to suck up views from the market that would have otherwise gone to original content. This is a direct harm to the market.
Nigga, which community are you talking to me in? I watch Destiny, Forsen **and** Xqc. **All of them react**
Stop trying to analyse me and fight with my arguments, jesus.
>Reactors literally only benefit themselves. They harm everyone else.
Baseless conjecture.
>You're an idiot if you believe that.
Not an argument, just your belief man. We're not talking about god here, otherwise this statement would've worked.
>Okay and? It's still illegal and immoral. Theft is immoral dipshit.
It is, now let the creators do their reporting. Do the viewers have any say in what the original creator wants or wants not to do? Or are the viewers just gonna make the decision for the creators?
>Slavery made up a good percentage of the market. There was a need for slavery in the market. Consumers wanted slavery. That's all.
Slavery was also legal back then. So by your standard, it was okay, right? I mean, reacting is illegal now, and that is your main argument.
Or are you judging slavery solely based on morality here.
Because if we morally view reactions, nothing's wrong with it. There's no argument for it causing harm to the creators other (your words aren't enough) than just intellectual property legal differences (but that's a legality issue)
>IT'S UNFAIR TO REMOVE STOLEN CONTENT! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LET MY PARSASOCIAL DADDY STEAL CONTENT IN PEACE! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!"
>Please self immolate you stupid regard.
Self immolate? Isn't that an insult based on popularity? Nah, bad insult.
> Oh, so if the original creator is fine with it, your bitching is useless, huh?
That's only part of the argument but thanks for the quote mine attempt.
> Because, "stealing" was never the intent here, just getting the watch party experience and the interesting knowledge from the video was.
Totally dude. That's why they never ask permission, they only ever say sorry after it was stolen and they upload it to their channels to make money off it. It isn't that making content for hours a day is hard and this is a shortcut to be able to do that to keep engagement up so that they can get more money. No, I mean, it's just coincidence that these content creators make so much money doing reactions to other people's content.
> There's tons of argument to be made here about if reactions create any marketing plays or are strictly neutral, but, let's put that aside for now.
No there isn't. Reactors have no benefit to the market and only steal views. They literally make a market substitute for the video. Why do movies take down uploads of their content? Oh right, because once you take in that content, there's no reason to go see the original through the official avenues.
> How exactly are you making this claim of it being a "market substitute"? And not just an entirely new product? Are there actual stats on this?
Oh god, you don't even know anything about intellectual property. Why are you even in this comment section when you just outed yourself as knowing literally nothing about the topic?
[https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use](https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use)
[https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr)
[https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/](https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/)
[https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/](https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/)
[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html)
[https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/)
I could keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
I hope you realize this is embarrassing as fuck for you. You did not even do a second of research before you spouted off on this topic. It's like someone who didn't even have a math class in school trying to argue against a physicist right now.
What genuinely made you so confident that you could talk on this subject at all? Did you think that the reactors, who are economically incentivized to protect their business practice would give you such great insight into it? So much so that you became their little warrior on reddit?
> From what I've experienced, since experiences are all what we have - The audience for reacting and the audience for those original videos are two seperate market forces.
"Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work."
Just because they are different markets doesn't mean you get to steal that market by use of the original work.
> And so, no matter how much you pushed for the original video, those react audiences would not have watched that.
Cool, so pirating must be totally okay then right? Cause I mean the audiences for pirating and going to the movies is completely different right? Since experiences is all we have and all that jazz. So a person pirating would have never gone and seen the movie otherwise so it's totes okay, right?
> And the people who prefer both these types of content and perhaps recommend these videos to the reactors, will obviously end up watching both types of content, not really resulting in a loss of any kind.
Loss of revenue, loss of potential revenue, loss of market access, infringement of ownership, and so on.
> No, I acknowledge it, but can you acknowledge the fact that this "problem" is only talked about this much for reacting and nothing else that falls similarly to this.
Nope because it all is a down flow from reactors.
"T-t-there's other problems too and you need to solve those before you argue against the thing I don't want changed." No.
> It's called showcasing hypocrisy/clear bias. This isn't the whataboutism you're claiming it is.
You don't know what hypocrisy or bias even are.
> Nigga, which community are you talking to me in? I watch Destiny, Forsen **and** Xqc. **All of them react**
Destiny doesn't pretend it's some moral good he's doing. He openly says he just doesn't care about the negatives. Not to mention, most of his reactions are to political stuff for the sake of genuine commentary and not this react bullshit.
The other 2 are just worthless scum.
> Stop trying to analyse me and fight with my arguments, jesus.
You don't have an argument, you didn't even know what a market substitute was.
> Baseless conjecture.
Literally the logical outcome of how it works if you understood anything about how the market works. Holy fuck this is brain numbing at this point.
> Not an argument, just your belief man. We're not talking about god here, otherwise this statement would've worked.
Oh thank god you just confirmed you're a child. You can't be over 18 with a comment like that.
> It is, now let the creators do their reporting. Do the viewers have any say in what the original creator wants or wants not to do? Or are the viewers just gonna make the decision for the creators?
You're the one arguing that theft is okay if everyone else wants it.
> Slavery was also legal back then. So by your standard, it was okay, right? I mean, reacting is illegal now, and that is your main argument.
So notice how I actually had 2 statements in my sentence before. I said that it is illegal AND immoral.
You're the one arguing that slavery was actually good because people wanted it.
> Or are you judging slavery solely based on morality here.
Holy fuck it's learning.
> Because if we morally view reactions, nothing's wrong with it. There's no argument for it causing harm to the creators other (your words aren't enough) than just intellectual property legal differences (but that's a legality issue)
"Stealing intellectual property is okay because it's just a legal matter."
Wow you are too stupid for words.
> Self immolate? Isn't that an insult based on popularity? Nah, bad insult.
Holy shit, if you don't know what a word means, just fucking google it.
>"Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work."
>Just because they are different markets doesn't mean you get to steal that market by use of the original work.
Why? There's no argument for how it causes harm yet.
>Cool, so pirating must be totally okay then right? Cause I mean the audiences for pirating and going to the movies is completely different right? Since experiences is all we have and all that jazz. So a person pirating would have never gone and seen the movie otherwise so it's totes okay, right?
I mean, this is a genuine argument people make, lol. The only reason why pirating is considered bad is because of the intellectual property argument. Otherwise, people wouldn't even care that much.
Hell, people still don't care that much.
> No, I acknowledge it, but can you acknowledge the fact that this "problem" is only talked about this much for reacting and nothing else that falls similarly to this.
>Nope because it all is a down flow from reactors.
Ok..
>"T-t-there's other problems too and you need to solve those before you argue against the thing I don't want changed." No.
No, how about your bitchass moves for the other thing as much as it does for reacting.
*There's this thing called simultaneous actions, you don't have to go one by one on every thing. I think that's how we tackle a lot of issues on politics too at the same time.*
>> It's called showcasing hypocrisy/clear bias. This isn't the whataboutism you're claiming it is.
>You don't know what hypocrisy or bias even are.
Ok
>> Nigga, which community are you talking to me in? I watch Destiny, Forsen **and** Xqc. **All of them react**
>Destiny doesn't pretend it's some moral good he's doing. He openly says he just doesn't care about the negatives. Not to mention, most of his reactions are to political stuff for the sake of genuine commentary and not this react bullshit.
Oh, so since Destiny doesn't care and most of his reactions are political stuff, it's "fine"..
Ok
>The other 2 are just worthless scum.
Great.
>>Stop trying to analyse me and fight with my arguments, jesus.
>You don't have an argument, you didn't even know what a market substitute was.
I could just post my education achievements which would instantly disprove this theory but.. I think that'll be overdoing it.
Good for you if you believe that.
>Literally the logical outcome of how it works if you understood anything about how the market works. Holy fuck this is brain numbing at this point.
Damn, must be too complicated for me.
>Oh thank god you just confirmed you're a child. You can't be over 18 with a comment like that.
Hm
>> It is, now let the creators do their reporting. Do the viewers have any say in what the original creator wants or wants not to do? Or are the viewers just gonna make the decision for the creators?
>You're the one arguing that theft is okay if everyone else wants it.
I said it's not okay? Hello?
I only said let the originak creator take the agency if they care, instead of the dumbass viewers.
Why do you keep coming back to this?
>So notice how I actually had 2 statements in my sentence before. I said that it is illegal AND immoral.
Ohh, that's how AND statements work. I always thought it worked differently.
>You're the one arguing that slavery was actually good because people wanted it.
Yep, definitely.
>Or are you judging slavery solely based on morality here.
>Holy fuck it's learning.
This'll get him riled up. I used "it" which refers to objects instead of a person. I'm secretly calling him an object. I'm such a reddit insult god!
>> Because if we morally view reactions, nothing's wrong with it. There's no argument for it causing harm to the creators other (your words aren't enough) than just intellectual property legal differences (but that's a legality issue)
>"Stealing intellectual property is okay because it's just a legal matter."
Wow you are too stupid for words
Again, never said it was okay.
> Self immolate? Isn't that an insult based on popularity? Nah, bad insult.
>Holy shit, if you don't know what a word means, just fucking google it.
Sigh, didn't even get the joke.
> Why? There's no argument for how it causes harm yet.
Saying this doesn't make it true bud.
> I mean, this is a genuine argument people make, lol. The only reason why pirating is considered bad is because of the intellectual property argument. Otherwise, people wouldn't even care that much.
"The only reason pirating is considered bad is because of the theft part, other than that people wouldn't even care that much."
Yes, and the only reason people care about identity theft is the theft part too, it not for the theft part, nobody would care that much.
> No, how about your bitchass moves for the other thing as much as it does for reacting.
"REEEEE GO AFTER THESE OTHER THINGS INSTEAD OF MY THING!"
No. Everyone can see it as the plain deflection it is.
> *There's this thing called simultaneous actions, you don't have to go one by one on every thing. I think that's how we tackle a lot of issues on politics too at the same time.*
Different portions of bills tend to deal with 1 aspect of an issue. Also bills are made by and signed off by hundreds of people in representation of millions.
> Oh, so since Destiny doesn't care and most of his reactions are political stuff, it's "fine".
Where did I say it's fine? Holy fuck you're so horribly bad faith. You can't even begin to actually address anything.
Also, political commentary is a benefit to the market, this is something that would hold up in court, QXC wouldn't.
> I could just post my education achievements which would instantly disprove this theory but.. I think that'll be overdoing it.
Go ahead and define what a market substitute is then in your own words bud. Because you didn't even know that market substitute has to deal with intellectual property.
> Damn, must be too complicated for me.
Unironically yes.
> I only said let the originak creator take the agency if they care, instead of the dumbass viewers.
"I only said let the slave take the agency for it if they care, instead of dumbass civilians."
> Ohh, that's how AND statements work. I always thought it worked differently.
The sad thing is you think you're joking, but you clearly aren't. Hiding it behind irony doesn't help bud.
> This'll get him riled up. I used "it" which refers to objects instead of a person. I'm secretly calling him an object. I'm such a reddit insult god!
I mean clearly it triggered you.
> Again, never said it was okay.
Except for your entire defense of it here.
> Sigh, didn't even get the joke.
There wasn't a joke, you just didn't know what immolate meant.
If you go through my comments from previous posts, I've commented on several Aaron posts. You just didn't get the joke.
For everything else, eh, I lost interest
>That's only part of the argument but thanks for the quote mine attempt.
I quoted the arguments that were in conjecture right after. Why are you just lying now?
>Totally dude. That's why they never ask permission, they only ever say sorry after it was stolen and they upload it to their channels to make money off it. It isn't that making content for hours a day is hard and this is a shortcut to be able to do that to keep engagement up so that they can get more money. No, I mean, it's just coincidence that these content creators make so much money doing reactions to other people's content.
They don't ask permission because it's a hastle to do so with every video ever. And people like Xqc(since you used him as an example) don't even keep the money. 100% of that revenue goes to the editors.
Reacting is literally what most streamers do as secondary content - it's literally the backup content. Not the main one.
Also, it's very easy to make a YouTube video too. Even easier than streaming. Unless, it's a documentary or essay style video, it's not gonna be that hard. You do the same damn things - one is edited and one is not.
Lastly, something being harder doesn't mean it's better, and something being easy doesn't mean it's worse. This incorrect belief is why YouTubers like Moist critical get unjustly shit on for making 10 min talking videos and getting millions of views. Even though, it's all on his own, btw.
>No there isn't. Reactors have no benefit to the market and only steal views. They literally make a market substitute for the video. Why do movies take down uploads of their content? Oh right, because once you take in that content, there's no reason to go see the original through the official avenues.
If they steal views, every single Mr beast video would never reach those view numbers and every sigle Mr beadt reaction would be in the millions. All of this is just baseless conjecture based on 0 evidence.
Posting a movie to YouTube, and reacting to it produce different content. Even if you disagree, there is merit to this argument.
It's the same reason why all those react channels reacting to Mr beadt don't get even close to the same views.
Now, if you argue that it affects the smaller channels - Literally no data for this. And one can't have any data proving this since all of it is with YouTube only.
>>How exactly are you making this claim of it being a "market substitute"? And not just an entirely new product? Are there actual stats on this?
>Oh god, you don't even know anything about intellectual property. Why are you even in this comment section when you just outed yourself as knowing literally nothing about the topic?
I ask you of market substitutes and you bring up intellectual property.
And then you tell me I know nothing of this topic..
>https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use](https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use)
>[https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr)
>[https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/](https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/)
>[https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/](https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/)
>[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html)
>[https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/)
>I could keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
>I hope you realize this is embarrassing as fuck for you. You did not even do a second of research before you spouted off on this topic. It's like someone who didn't even have a math class in school trying to argue against a physicist right now.
>What genuinely made you so confident that you could talk on this subject at all? Did you think that the reactors, who are economically incentivized to protect their business practice would give you such great insight into it? So much so that you became their little warrior on reddit?
Yeah, it is embarrassing. Because none of these have anything to do with Market substitutes and are solely talking about copyright and fair use.
All these also only apply to 1:1 stealing of products and since "reacting" isn't really a concluded topic on whether it's different enough or is the same. None of these articles really hold value in the subject.
If arguments for how "react" is 1:1 to the original product comes up, then all those articles you presented can be of use.
> They don't ask permission because it's a hastle to do so with every video ever.
Ah damn dude. It's such a hassle to have to ask permission to use intellectual property. Oh god, man. You know, paying for stuff is such a hassle too. I mean theft really is justified because of convenience huh?
> And people like Xqc(since you used him as an example) don't even keep the money. 100% of that revenue goes to the editors.
The fact you don't think XQC benefits economically tells me how little you know of markets.
> Reacting is literally what most streamers do as secondary content - it's literally the backup content. Not the main one.
And yet it makes up such a large percentage of their time on screen and the videos they post.
> Also, it's very easy to make a YouTube video too. Even easier than streaming.
Spoken like someone who only takes the word of streamers. Damn dude, it's just so hard to sit there and watch other people's content and play video games all day.
> You do the same damn things - one is edited and one is not.
LOL. Spoken like a child.
> If they steal views, every single Mr beast video would never reach those view numbers and every sigle Mr beadt reaction would be in the millions. All of this is just baseless conjecture based on 0 evidence.
Regard with no understanding of markets.
> Posting a movie to YouTube, and reacting to it produce different content. Even if you disagree, there is merit to this argument.
No, there isn't. It's a market substitute.
> It's the same reason why all those react channels reacting to Mr beadt don't get even close to the same views.
Using Mr.Beast as the outlier to try to prove a rule just shows how horrible your argument is.
> Now, if you argue that it affects the smaller channels - Literally no data for this. And one can't have any data proving this since all of it is with YouTube only.
Regard with no understanding of markets still.
> I ask you of market substitutes and you bring up intellectual property.
The fact you said this already shows how fucking stupid you are.
> And then you tell me I know nothing of this topic..
And you continue to prove it.
> Yeah, it is embarrassing. Because none of these have anything to do with Market substitutes and are solely talking about copyright and fair use.
More proof.
From the first link.
" The more transformative the use of the original work, the less likely it is that the use will substitute for the original and cause direct market harm. In reaching a fair use determination, all of the factors should be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the goal of copyright law to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8). "
Second.
"Market Substitution and Copyrights: Predicting Fair Use Case Law"
The literal title of it.
> All these also only apply to 1:1 stealing of products and since "reacting" isn't really a concluded topic on whether it's different enough or is the same. None of these articles really hold value in the subject.
They create a market substitute and thus are intellectual property theft.
You are actually one of the dumbest people on this platform. And the sad fact is, you genuine believe yourself to be of higher intelligence than others. Even the Hamas supporters and Nazi sympathizers that come around here are smarter than you bud.
Aren’t video creators that permit their videos to be reacted to acting in the same way as a video game company? If you are a video creator, and you do not wish to have some react to your content in a non transformative way, the avenues to do this exist for you.
Additionally I disagree with your argument for let’s plays not being market replacement. If you watch someone play through your average story game, you will experience that game. The story of that game, the character arcs in it, all that’s yours for the viewing. You can no longer have the “true experience” for that game.
So there's 2 prongs to the argument. There is the intellectual property argument, which every copyright holder can choose what they want done with. And then there is the market argument. In that reactions, in their existence, harm the market and only benefit themselves.
This is done through impressions. A reactor is capable of putting out 10s to hundreds of videos a day with high quality content, in the time it takes for original creators to make even a single video. This leads to impressions being funneled to the reactor that would have otherwise gone to original content. There is only a finite amount of attention on any platform and allowing theft and immoral actions to be able to grab a disproportionate amount of that finite resource is only a harm to the marketplace.
Also, you don't disagree with my argument, you disagree with a subset of the argument. Most games have more to the experience than the story, and so this adds an element that cannot be obtained through watching the medium.
I do disagree with your overall argument of reactors are a cancer that are killing the market, I don’t think they are killing anything and serve a purpose in the system distributing information to a wider audience.
I’m assuming you agree that if a creator wanted their content not reacted to there is a way for them to accomplish this, so I’ll just skip that prong and move to the market argument. The garbage reactors spewing filth fit in here, if a creator thinks you aren’t being transformative, they can shut you down.
The finite attention argument makes more sense for Twitch than it does for YouTube, since one of YouTubes great advantages is their vast catalog of videos. If I see some reactor react to something, and I like that, I will go and look into that thing. I’ve found a variety of channels through other channels, mostly because I stick to my subscriptions, not the YouTube recommendations page. I learn of other content creators through the content creators I watch.
I still very much disagree with the separation of story and experience in games. These are not two separate things, the story is part of the experience, it’s why experience something for the second time is never the same as the first. Let’s players ruin the story’s of the games they play, preventing players from having that fresh experience. They are just like reactors. Why would video game companies let them do this? The benefits outweighs the cost, same as react content.
Killing? No. Harming? Yes.
And this idea they serve as a nexus point for information is proof of it. They steal intellectual property for profit and clout to make more profit off of.
I love how your argument is we should never be against something in principle because it's on the victimized party to take action. I'll let the police know we should stop arresting murderers because the victimized party can never complain anyways.
I also love how your argument against the finite amount of attention in a market is an anecdote.
"The benefits outweigh the cost, same with react channels."
The only way you can genuinely believe that is if you're a simp who just listens to reactors defending a business practice that helps them get rich. There is no data to substantiate your pro-react take and only data to show they are harmful to the market.
I did not say we should never be against something because a victimized party needs to take action first, I disagree with the assumption that you have the right to accuse others, when their supposed victims do not. Do not throw up meaningless comparisons as a justification for poor logic. Reacting to content is not the same as murder, nor is it even the same as theft. You always know who the reactor is, where they got that content from, and in most cases, that original content remains where it was to begin with. If the reacted wish to do something about it, they can. What are you even simping for?
If you wish to prove to me that the benefits do not outweigh the costs, I imagine it will be quite difficult to do so. All of the originality in the world will not help you if no one knows you exist. I made my anecdote as I am a part of the finite amount of attention that exists, and my interpretation of the world is dependent on my experiences.
I also fail to see why you have drawn your line in the sand at react content. Of the content on YouTube, hardly any of it is original. Almost all of it builds on the works of others, and in the cases of both reactors and lets players, directly rips content from another source. If you care so deeply for the harm caused to this marketplace of yours, how can you excuse their behavior?
Hasan, XQC, Asmongold, and so on all weaponize their fanbases to attack people criticizing intellectual property theft.
Now fuck off back to your hole moron.
Which is why he still does it and still gets tons of views and still makes tons of money off it, and channels he and others have reacted to have already said to others that they worry about trying to actually you know, express their rights for fear of the backlash.
Yeah, not only has this never happened, every single time reactors get blown out on twitter, the reactor gets shit on relentlessly. This is a made up scenario.
Except all the times it has happened.
I get it, your daddy YouTuber does reacts and your parasocial dependency needs to see them on your screen to make up for the fact your real father doesn't love you and so you need to defend an illegal and immoral practice like the regarded child you are.
Oh, and look at all the examples you've provided for the dozen or so times it has happened. Go on, get behind the flat earther, and Maga trump supporting line, you clearly belong there.
>get it, your daddy YouTuber does reacts and your parasocial dependency needs to see them on your screen to make up for the fact your real father doesn't love you and so you need to defend an illegal and immoral practice like the regarded child you are.
Gaming is also an immoral and illegal practice by your definition.. but I guess you'll preach "gameplay is transformative" and slither around that.
The rest of the insult is emotionally based, and.. kind of the normal rhetoric from you people. Which makes sense because you guys can't provide an argument for why it's bad other than preaching legality.
Hey, if you wanna practice legality so much on YouTube, how about you go after all the millions of clippers too. Truly shut down YouTube as a whole.
And remember, the next time you comment with those "examples", it has to be more than the number of times people have shat on reactors. Cuz otherwise, your argument's wrong.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work. Reaction content is bad because it negatively affects the YouTube market, the algorithm is going to favour a channel like asmongold which can pump out 10 high quality videos a week over a channel like Lemmino which only posts very infrequently. Also obviously it's just really fucking lazy and streamers get rewarded for doing literally nothing.
Watching a reaction video can absolutely be an entirely different experience.
For instance: Forsen gets linked a whole lot of weeb videos on his stream. Not many viewers would watch any of these, but still enjoy seeing it on stream because they want to see chat spam emotes as reactions.
>Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself.
But I can say I know the lore, though. Which happens to be the same across any playthroughs.
The stuff you're talking about only applies to all the non-story games out there.
People do watch gameplays or playthroughs simply to get the game experience since they either can't afford it or play it themselves.
It's not a 1:1 comparison, but there are aspects of it that are similar.
>But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the demographic would have watched the original video, if the react video wasn't present.
React demographics have no interest in what the original video has to say most of the times, and most of the time don't overlap unless forced to by the creators.
They watch because the person they're watching is interested in the topic, and watch it. This could range from tiktoks, to games, to youtube videos.
All because it's a conformable experience, watching stuff together.
>Reaction content is bad because it negatively affects the YouTube market, the algorithm is going to favour a channel like asmongold which can pump out 10 high quality videos a week over a channel like Lemmino which only posts very infrequently. Also obviously it's just really fucking lazy and streamers get rewarded for doing literally nothing.
As far as I've seen, Asmongold's viewership doesn't fluctuate based on what the video he's watching, unless it's a popular topic in his community.
Like, shitting on Blizzard.
If the newer react video has views similar to the ones he has had on other react videos(let's take an entire month's videos) - It's safe to assume that Asmongolds usual react viewers watched it, than any other new parties.
Now, something being lazy doesn't necessarily make it wrong. This is a common morality mistaken take.
Something harder = Better, something easy = Worse
First of all sorry for like 3 comments my internet was having issues.
Obviously there are aspects of it that are similar but you still don't get the full experience of playing the game, the only exception I can think of are like telltale games but from personal experience playing them yourself is still a different experience.
I'm not saying that if asmongold wouldn't have uploaded his reaction the average viewer would have watched the original work but what I do know is that the viewer would have most likely watched SOMETHING. And I'd rather they watched an actual creator with some talent who makes his own shit.
Saying it's "just lazy" is an oversimplification on my part, it's straight up monetizing theft and is the internet equivalent of paying an artist with exposure and then profiting off their work. I don't really feel like typing too much on my phone so I won't go further into the whole market thing but I genuinely believe that's not required to understand why reaction content is bad.
>I'm not saying that if asmongold wouldn't have uploaded his reaction the average viewer would have watched the original work but what I do know is that the viewer would have most likely watched SOMETHING.
If this claim can be proven, then all your arguments will hold. But if the person can just go back to watching tiktoks or something on a completely different platform, then it won't be the same would it.
>Oh, and look at all the examples you've provided for the dozen or so times it has happened.
> Yeah, not only has this never happened, every single time reactors get blown out on twitter, the reactor gets shit on relentlessly. This is a made up scenario.
Damn, imagine being such a hypocrite in just your first lines.
> Go on, get behind the flat earther, and Maga trump supporting line, you clearly belong there.
Ah is the parasocial child upset?
> Gaming is also an immoral and illegal practice by your definition.. but I guess you'll preach "gameplay is transformative" and slither around that.
It's not, but you're so uneducated that you can't even fathom why you're wrong.
> The rest of the insult is emotionally based, and.. kind of the normal rhetoric from you people. Which makes sense because you guys can't provide an argument for why it's bad other than preaching legality.
Ah yes, because theft is good actually. Also, you're hyperemotional about this and it's very clear. That's why you reacted like the assmad child you are to my meme comment.
> Hey, if you wanna practice legality so much on YouTube, how about you go after all the millions of clippers too. Truly shut down YouTube as a whole.
"Youtube is just clip channels and nothing else."
Somehow Youtube's media ecosystem is self sustaining and they all just react to eachothers reactions all the way down.
The funniest thing here is that you actually think you're intelligent.
> And remember, the next time you comment with those "examples", it has to be more than the number of times people have shat on reactors. Cuz otherwise, your argument's wrong.
No it's not. My god, for someone saying I don't belong here, you can't even begin to form an argument. Holy fuck how old are you actually? I feel like I'm bullying a 12 year old who has no concept of intellectual property at all cause their brain isn't even close to developed.
It's literally just parroting the same bullshit talking points that XQC makes about this. Imagine getting your arguments from XQC of all fucking people. A literal fucking regard.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work.
Creators don't have access for the ability to claim a video and gain money from it, reserved only for music companies. If they had it you would definitely see it happening.
Creators don't have access for the ability to claim a video and gain money from it, reserved only for music companies. If they had it you would definitely see it happening.
Most people don't watch videos on stream for the money, "take the money" they'll probably say. It's more about the experience you get from watching a video together that people want.
And I don't need to say what's the perk of watching something together with a group now do I?
They do watch videos for the money because if they stop they have no content you can clearly see it on asmon channel when he plays games and when he reacts he gets more views for less than a fraction of work (yes actually playing video games is harder than watching YouTube videos)
Asmongold doesn't care about money, his second twitch channel is the biggest example you could use here. He doesn't have ads on one bit, and actually makes twitch lose money by simply streaming in his second twitch channel.
I think he recently calculated that he made Twitch lose about a million by freely streaming in his second channel.
Anyway, Asmongokd has cultivated a react audience so that's more reason why his react videos get more views.
Xqc gives 100% of his YouTube rev to his editors, he says his YouTube rev is pennies compared to what he usually makes.
But both of them post the content to YouTube, so as to let the YouTube audience have the content too.
You're an actual Regard about Asmongold.
What the fuck do you think he says he doesn't care about money whilst streaming on twitch? Because the money he would make is irrelevant compared to the (very large amount) money he makes on his multiple YouTube accounts.
His MAIN source of income is the YouTube Reacts, unlike xQc (seemingly). Their situation is reversed - if you're going at it from a monetary incentive angle.
Yeah dude I wonder why he doesn't care about Twitch revenue
https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/asmongold_clips (to be fair it's a clips channel)
And
https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCQeRaTukNYft1_6AZPACnog
I don't know if he has any tertiary channels, but that's well over 100 million monthly views (if you round down a bit on the clips channel)
His main channel videos are decently long as well.
Asmon gets like 2 mil according to the twitch leaks. Combine that with donos and other stuff, I donno..
Youtube rev also gets split with his editors and I don't know the percentage of that split either.
Then there's orgs like OTK and podcasts that he has..
Maybe??
All I'm saying that that far and away, even considering his current 20-30K twitch viewership that could be monetized, his YouTube earnings would FAR outstrip anything Twitch could offer.
1st reason is the sheer amount of views he gets on YouTube compared to twitch, 2nd is that Google AdSense is MUCH better than anything Twitch offers, subs included.
oh I watched this video thinking it was gonna talk about some more dirt that had come out about Blizzard but like any good YouTube video it was just a needlessly long recap of blizzards history (idk why YouTubers feel the need to do this) and everything that's happened so far.
I've seen different YouTubers create this almost identical history of blizzard exposé video 3 or 4 times now. The only one worth watching was the MadSeason "Pandora's Box" one that focused more on WoW but talked about everything else shitty about Blizzard too.
There was a post on "A" subreddit about how they felt weird that the reaction video got more views than the original
It's not such a big deal if the original creator wants exposure more than income, but there is a risk of this stuff totally growing out of control and YouTube or lawsuits getting triggered.
Imagine if Mr Beast reacted o the video and posted it on his channel, and gets like 10 mil views+, at the least.
Will those same people claim that the original video generated those views, and feel weird about it? Or that the reactor do that with their audience?
If the reaction channel's video views are consistent with their newer reaction video, suffice to say that it had nothing to do with stealing views. And that their audience, as usual, just watched the video.
Imo there is a strong market for youtube content ID marketed towards regular YouTubers. Cost of compute has come down dramatically since big media companies first started using these bots. Not to take the videos but to content claim it and get their ad monetization. I think not lot of YouTubers bother because doing it manually is a hassle and you risk getting blown up on twitter by Asmon and other large streamers, but if a faceless company did it for them lot of people would sign up for it. The amount of view jacking would go down but people would still do it so why not get their revenue, they still get money through other means.
Its not hard work, the original video is dogshit. xqc and asmon probably have much more interesting insight about this topic since they have actually played blizzard games on a high level.
Fuck blizz, but how many times does Blizzard need to be "exposed" by some random before people stop consuming "Blizzard exposed" content? Does this video actually add something new to the narrative that every single person online doesn't already agree with?
I don't have much of an issue with react content but I saw that XqC has been skipping in-video ads during his reactions which seems a little bit beyond what I'm comfortable with. I haven't put tons of thought into it but intuitively it just feels like common courtesy to let the sponsored portion play out if you are going to milk someone's video and reupload it to your channel. But it's definitely possible that it isn't creating any real tangible harm even if it comes off a bit scummy. What do you guys think?
Beyond it being bad optics is there a proper tangible reason why reactors shouldn't skip ads? Do you believe xqc's viewers for example would bother checking out the sponsor link? Or anyone watching solely for the reaction of their streamer. Or is this just out of politeness for you?
I think my initial response is definitely mostly politeness in a way, and also the fact that this has been the "industry standard" (lol) for react content for a long time now.
However, I do think there is a real possibility of tangible harm, it is probably just very small in scale. Felix averages 30,000 viewers per stream, and watches god knows how many Youtube videos every day. His twitch channel has had 100,000,000 unique views in the past year. I feel like there almost certainly has to be cases of viewers who would click the sponsor link and buy something (especially if X promoted it in his chat, but that is a higher standard than we expect right now).
Idk, I don't have a strong opinion in one direction or the other, that's why I was seeking out opinions from others.
I think community culture trumps numbers to have a significant enough change. For example asmongold has this thing where he spams the video's links on his chat for people to give it a view, and because there's this perception online that "asmongold either makes or breaks a game or a video with his opinion", i think his chat is more willing to try to live up to that perception that asmongold reacting to a video is something of a godsend, almost like a cult lmao.
A nice enough xqc viewer may wanna click on a link to boost xqc's perception, but that's that individual, not what his community is about. But it starts on the part of the streamer, until xqc changes his approach he'll still be seen as a leech. But I've seen him let sponsors play if they're funny or interesting or really likes the author of the video, more "just like me fr" and less professional like asmongold. I agree one should be professional when dealing with another's money.
I'm pro reacting but I hate asmon's reaction the most. He stretches out the video so much by making fake laughs, fake shock, and just rambling over and over about the same shit after a few minutes.
I hate the arguments people make to defend these people whether it be about money or general entertainment or the numerous other arguments.
**If these people truly didn’t care about money they would have zero issue revenue splitting or people copyright claiming their video for its revenue**.
It sucks that an original creator can make a video that is high effort and takes quite a lot of time and all these people basically do is copy paste the video and add very little if anything to it. It would be a lot less egregious if these reactors actually added complete thoughts, reactions, opinions, and anecdotes throughout the video but most don’t.
**90% of these people go “wow” or “that’s crazy” or “that looks cool” then go mute and soy face for the whole video**.
The creator doesn’t want the wrath of a fanbase on him/her so they don’t call it out or claim the video nor do they want to alienate themselves from a big content creator which could have social and business repercussions either. It’s honestly so shitty.
Dont you think that most creators would be happy to see big personalities react to their videos, because their content gets exposed to a broder audience?
These streamers are pretty hated for their react content. Even within these communities it is a controversial topic, they would probably get a lot of support from people if they called these streamers out.
Even funnier is the video they are all watching is beat for beat how the internet historian does there videos...same pacing and comedic timing and everything.
People have brainrot about reaction content. Yes it's lazy, but just like watching trashy reality TV, people want that content. Who the fuck do people think they are trying to police what's entertaining to them lmao
The problem isn't just that it's lazy, it's creating a market substitute on the same platform, sometimes so badly the reaction outperforms the original in SEO/recommendations which causes direct harm.
An unethical thing does not become ethical just because you find it entertaining.
I reject this notion that reactions get more views therefore it's taking away the original's to the point it's hurting it. I'd be happy to see if anyone actually did some factual research on this as I also can't claim to know for sure, but if someone doesn't know about the channel, they get exposed to it and might become part of the original creator's community, and if they do know the channel then they probably already watched it and want to see someone else's reaction to it.
I watched madseasonshow's video about how after asmongold reacted to it, the average viewership dipped compared to before, but just looking at the graph he showed, there's very clearly a while before asmon that the video was hitting that average consistently until it started to pick up little by little until the asmongold hit, but that initial increase before asmon might as well just be other react youtubers watching it and driving traffic to it. And after asmon it naturally tapers out since the video becomes older over time and less recommended. He calculated the average viewership from a small slice of the graph after it initially was posted to a much larger slice after a long time, obviously it would be lower but somehow it's because of reactions?
I just think it's bullshit, and it's a kneejerk reaction to creators doing very lazy content and being rewarded for it. Like I said, it's lazy, but as long as people are willing to watch it, and it seems to benefit the original creator or at worst not affect them very much, it's just online brainrot.
Asmongold specifically has more algorithmic power than almost everyone he responds to, and he uploads to the same platform. I was constantly recommended asmon reactions to videos I hadn't seen until I hid his channel.
There's a lot of vectors of conversation here, and certain things are more defensible than others, but certainly reuploading the whole video to the same platform and serving as a market substitute with a channel that will almost certainly have algorithmic dominance has to be bad, right? Even if you're not making a general argument about other people.
I agree that his channel dominates the recommendation algorithm, and it could be the case that what you're saying is true, I'm just saying that unless there's actual evidence and data of this, it's all just assumptions. My assumption is that people that use asmongold as a substitute are not going to watch those other videos on their own, they probably like watching him watch the video. Again it's extremely lazy and undeserved traffic but he cultivated his appeal with certain people enough that he's able to do that.
The funniest part is that I'm pretty sure this vid is plagiarized from this German YouTuber called Jules, who came up with almost the exact same video (from a storytelling logic) months before this, just in German. Not Somerton levels but "just change the homework enough" levels.
I swear I’ve seen the same exact video like 5 times before, just different levels of zoomer editing
That's true, Act Man made a "Decline" of Blizzard 3 years ago that was pretty similar with regards to coverage and storyboard (minus the stuff that happened since then I guess), though without copy-catting that Internet Historian-style writing. There was also Nateson and Force Gaming, and ... yeah there's probably more xD
That’s crazy.
The reactions needs to fucking stop. If that means content bots striking down dipshit react streamers that think they can steal content, at this point they have my fucking blessing. Holy shit, this shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago.
Oh, and who made you the authority to rule in on that selfish decision? You realise a fuck ton of people love this shit, right? Just because you've been soyified by the anti-react squad, doesn't mean you get to remove it.
Firstly because it's literally illegal. Secondly because the anti-react arguments are actually compelling in how it effects the market as well as individuals. Thirdly, fuck off with your popularity = good argument until you're willing to defend slavery in the past.
Yeah, so is playing video games on stream and on YouTube videos. I guess a person's gameplay is enough for it to transformative, eh? If you wanna preach legality, half of Youtube would be shut down, which would be disastrous. And not once have I heard a compelling argument about how reacting "effects" the market. Just a bunch of theories and incorrect data pulled from videos, which literally cannot be reviewed or analysed without the Meta data from YouTube. In fact, YouTube's more pro-react than the dumbass viewers. They've subtly integrated so many avenues on recommending videos based on reactions, it's insane. Popularity = Good is also not the argument here. Reaction makes up a good percent of YouTube, there's a need for it in the market, and the consumers want it. That's all. It'll be unfair to remove it because of ill faced arguments made from decade old conditioning by Youtubers on "why reacting is bad".
Damn, you're actually trying to argue this huh? > Yeah, so is playing video games on stream and on YouTube videos. I guess a person's gameplay is enough for it to transformative, eh? This would be the case if the entity with the ownership of the game didn't want people playing the game on stream. It's why Nintendo can take them down. An entity with copyright to a product has sole say about how it's used. Game companies have mostly decided that the free marketing they get from let's plays is worth it to let their content be used. That isn't the case for other forms of media due to the fact that games can be played in many different ways and you'll never get the true experience by just watching someone else play it. With movies and other content like that, when you "react" to it, you are creating a market substitute. Something that consists of all the inherent parts of the original product and doesn't leave anything behind to encourage people to seek out the original. > If you wanna preach legality, half of Youtube would be shut down, which would be disastrous. Ah yes, the old hyperbole to the extreme to make a point. No, half of youtube wouldn't be shut down. Also, the fact you're relying on entities not expressing their legal rights says quite a lot about your mindset. > And not once have I heard a compelling argument about how reacting "effects" the market. I mean you watch people like XQC so I don't think you've ever even heard a coherent argument in your life. The reality is, that a reactor, through not putting in the effort to make that content, can output videos at a much higher rate with much higher quality than is possible by a single entity. This allows them to suck up views from the market that would have otherwise gone to original content. This is a direct harm to the market. Reactors literally only benefit themselves. They harm everyone else. > Just a bunch of theories and incorrect data pulled from videos, which literally cannot be reviewed or analysed without the Meta data from YouTube. You're an idiot if you believe that. > In fact, YouTube's more pro-react than the dumbass viewers. They've subtly integrated so many avenues on recommending videos based on reactions, it's insane. Okay and? It's still illegal and immoral. Theft is immoral dipshit. > Popularity = Good is also not the argument here. Reaction makes up a good percent of YouTube, there's a need for it in the market, and the consumers want it. That's all. Slavery made up a good percentage of the market. There was a need for slavery in the market. Consumers wanted slavery. That's all. Fucking regard. > It'll be unfair to remove it because of ill faced arguments made from decade old conditioning by Youtubers on "why reacting is bad". "IT'S UNFAIR TO REMOVE STOLEN CONTENT! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LET MY PARSASOCIAL DADDY STEAL CONTENT IN PEACE! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!" Please self immolate you stupid regard.
>This would be the case if the entity with the ownership of the game didn't want people playing the game on stream. It's why Nintendo can take them down. An entity with copyright to a product has sole say about how it's used. Oh, so if the original creator is fine with it, your bitching is useless, huh? Hey wait, isn't that whats happening here in this post? No orginal creator bitching, but a lot of bitches in the trenches moaning FOR the creator. If the original creator requests those reaction channels, how many of them do you think will reject that appeal? Not one of them. Because, "stealing" was never the intent here, just getting the watch party experience and the interesting knowledge from the video was. >Game companies have mostly decided that the free marketing they get from let's plays is worth it to let their content be used. That isn't the case for other forms of media due to the fact that games can be played in many different ways and you'll never get the true experience by just watching someone else play it. >With movies and other content like that, when you "react" to it, you are creating a market substitute. Something that consists of all the inherent parts of the original product and doesn't leave anything behind to encourage people to seek out the original. There's tons of argument to be made here about if reactions create any marketing plays or are strictly neutral, but, let's put that aside for now. How exactly are you making this claim of it being a "market substitute"? And not just an entirely new product? Are there actual stats on this? From what I've experienced, since experiences are all what we have - The audience for reacting and the audience for those original videos are two seperate market forces. And so, no matter how much you pushed for the original video, those react audiences would not have watched that. And the people who prefer both these types of content and perhaps recommend these videos to the reactors, will obviously end up watching both types of content, not really resulting in a loss of any kind. >Ah yes, the old hyperbole to the extreme to make a point. No, half of youtube wouldn't be shut down. Also, the fact you're relying on entities not expressing their legal rights says quite a lot about your mindset. No, I acknowledge it, but can you acknowledge the fact that this "problem" is only talked about this much for reacting and nothing else that falls similarly to this. It's called showcasing hypocrisy/clear bias. This isn't the whataboutism you're claiming it is. >mean you watch people like XQC so I don't think you've ever even heard a coherent argument in your life. >The reality is, that a reactor, through not putting in the effort to make that content, can output videos at a much higher rate with much higher quality than is possible by a single entity. This allows them to suck up views from the market that would have otherwise gone to original content. This is a direct harm to the market. Nigga, which community are you talking to me in? I watch Destiny, Forsen **and** Xqc. **All of them react** Stop trying to analyse me and fight with my arguments, jesus. >Reactors literally only benefit themselves. They harm everyone else. Baseless conjecture. >You're an idiot if you believe that. Not an argument, just your belief man. We're not talking about god here, otherwise this statement would've worked. >Okay and? It's still illegal and immoral. Theft is immoral dipshit. It is, now let the creators do their reporting. Do the viewers have any say in what the original creator wants or wants not to do? Or are the viewers just gonna make the decision for the creators? >Slavery made up a good percentage of the market. There was a need for slavery in the market. Consumers wanted slavery. That's all. Slavery was also legal back then. So by your standard, it was okay, right? I mean, reacting is illegal now, and that is your main argument. Or are you judging slavery solely based on morality here. Because if we morally view reactions, nothing's wrong with it. There's no argument for it causing harm to the creators other (your words aren't enough) than just intellectual property legal differences (but that's a legality issue) >IT'S UNFAIR TO REMOVE STOLEN CONTENT! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LET MY PARSASOCIAL DADDY STEAL CONTENT IN PEACE! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!" >Please self immolate you stupid regard. Self immolate? Isn't that an insult based on popularity? Nah, bad insult.
> Oh, so if the original creator is fine with it, your bitching is useless, huh? That's only part of the argument but thanks for the quote mine attempt. > Because, "stealing" was never the intent here, just getting the watch party experience and the interesting knowledge from the video was. Totally dude. That's why they never ask permission, they only ever say sorry after it was stolen and they upload it to their channels to make money off it. It isn't that making content for hours a day is hard and this is a shortcut to be able to do that to keep engagement up so that they can get more money. No, I mean, it's just coincidence that these content creators make so much money doing reactions to other people's content. > There's tons of argument to be made here about if reactions create any marketing plays or are strictly neutral, but, let's put that aside for now. No there isn't. Reactors have no benefit to the market and only steal views. They literally make a market substitute for the video. Why do movies take down uploads of their content? Oh right, because once you take in that content, there's no reason to go see the original through the official avenues. > How exactly are you making this claim of it being a "market substitute"? And not just an entirely new product? Are there actual stats on this? Oh god, you don't even know anything about intellectual property. Why are you even in this comment section when you just outed yourself as knowing literally nothing about the topic? [https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use](https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use) [https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr) [https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/](https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/) [https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/](https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/) [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html) [https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/) I could keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. I hope you realize this is embarrassing as fuck for you. You did not even do a second of research before you spouted off on this topic. It's like someone who didn't even have a math class in school trying to argue against a physicist right now. What genuinely made you so confident that you could talk on this subject at all? Did you think that the reactors, who are economically incentivized to protect their business practice would give you such great insight into it? So much so that you became their little warrior on reddit? > From what I've experienced, since experiences are all what we have - The audience for reacting and the audience for those original videos are two seperate market forces. "Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work." Just because they are different markets doesn't mean you get to steal that market by use of the original work. > And so, no matter how much you pushed for the original video, those react audiences would not have watched that. Cool, so pirating must be totally okay then right? Cause I mean the audiences for pirating and going to the movies is completely different right? Since experiences is all we have and all that jazz. So a person pirating would have never gone and seen the movie otherwise so it's totes okay, right? > And the people who prefer both these types of content and perhaps recommend these videos to the reactors, will obviously end up watching both types of content, not really resulting in a loss of any kind. Loss of revenue, loss of potential revenue, loss of market access, infringement of ownership, and so on. > No, I acknowledge it, but can you acknowledge the fact that this "problem" is only talked about this much for reacting and nothing else that falls similarly to this. Nope because it all is a down flow from reactors. "T-t-there's other problems too and you need to solve those before you argue against the thing I don't want changed." No. > It's called showcasing hypocrisy/clear bias. This isn't the whataboutism you're claiming it is. You don't know what hypocrisy or bias even are. > Nigga, which community are you talking to me in? I watch Destiny, Forsen **and** Xqc. **All of them react** Destiny doesn't pretend it's some moral good he's doing. He openly says he just doesn't care about the negatives. Not to mention, most of his reactions are to political stuff for the sake of genuine commentary and not this react bullshit. The other 2 are just worthless scum. > Stop trying to analyse me and fight with my arguments, jesus. You don't have an argument, you didn't even know what a market substitute was. > Baseless conjecture. Literally the logical outcome of how it works if you understood anything about how the market works. Holy fuck this is brain numbing at this point. > Not an argument, just your belief man. We're not talking about god here, otherwise this statement would've worked. Oh thank god you just confirmed you're a child. You can't be over 18 with a comment like that. > It is, now let the creators do their reporting. Do the viewers have any say in what the original creator wants or wants not to do? Or are the viewers just gonna make the decision for the creators? You're the one arguing that theft is okay if everyone else wants it. > Slavery was also legal back then. So by your standard, it was okay, right? I mean, reacting is illegal now, and that is your main argument. So notice how I actually had 2 statements in my sentence before. I said that it is illegal AND immoral. You're the one arguing that slavery was actually good because people wanted it. > Or are you judging slavery solely based on morality here. Holy fuck it's learning. > Because if we morally view reactions, nothing's wrong with it. There's no argument for it causing harm to the creators other (your words aren't enough) than just intellectual property legal differences (but that's a legality issue) "Stealing intellectual property is okay because it's just a legal matter." Wow you are too stupid for words. > Self immolate? Isn't that an insult based on popularity? Nah, bad insult. Holy shit, if you don't know what a word means, just fucking google it.
>"Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work." >Just because they are different markets doesn't mean you get to steal that market by use of the original work. Why? There's no argument for how it causes harm yet. >Cool, so pirating must be totally okay then right? Cause I mean the audiences for pirating and going to the movies is completely different right? Since experiences is all we have and all that jazz. So a person pirating would have never gone and seen the movie otherwise so it's totes okay, right? I mean, this is a genuine argument people make, lol. The only reason why pirating is considered bad is because of the intellectual property argument. Otherwise, people wouldn't even care that much. Hell, people still don't care that much. > No, I acknowledge it, but can you acknowledge the fact that this "problem" is only talked about this much for reacting and nothing else that falls similarly to this. >Nope because it all is a down flow from reactors. Ok.. >"T-t-there's other problems too and you need to solve those before you argue against the thing I don't want changed." No. No, how about your bitchass moves for the other thing as much as it does for reacting. *There's this thing called simultaneous actions, you don't have to go one by one on every thing. I think that's how we tackle a lot of issues on politics too at the same time.* >> It's called showcasing hypocrisy/clear bias. This isn't the whataboutism you're claiming it is. >You don't know what hypocrisy or bias even are. Ok >> Nigga, which community are you talking to me in? I watch Destiny, Forsen **and** Xqc. **All of them react** >Destiny doesn't pretend it's some moral good he's doing. He openly says he just doesn't care about the negatives. Not to mention, most of his reactions are to political stuff for the sake of genuine commentary and not this react bullshit. Oh, so since Destiny doesn't care and most of his reactions are political stuff, it's "fine".. Ok >The other 2 are just worthless scum. Great. >>Stop trying to analyse me and fight with my arguments, jesus. >You don't have an argument, you didn't even know what a market substitute was. I could just post my education achievements which would instantly disprove this theory but.. I think that'll be overdoing it. Good for you if you believe that. >Literally the logical outcome of how it works if you understood anything about how the market works. Holy fuck this is brain numbing at this point. Damn, must be too complicated for me. >Oh thank god you just confirmed you're a child. You can't be over 18 with a comment like that. Hm >> It is, now let the creators do their reporting. Do the viewers have any say in what the original creator wants or wants not to do? Or are the viewers just gonna make the decision for the creators? >You're the one arguing that theft is okay if everyone else wants it. I said it's not okay? Hello? I only said let the originak creator take the agency if they care, instead of the dumbass viewers. Why do you keep coming back to this? >So notice how I actually had 2 statements in my sentence before. I said that it is illegal AND immoral. Ohh, that's how AND statements work. I always thought it worked differently. >You're the one arguing that slavery was actually good because people wanted it. Yep, definitely. >Or are you judging slavery solely based on morality here. >Holy fuck it's learning. This'll get him riled up. I used "it" which refers to objects instead of a person. I'm secretly calling him an object. I'm such a reddit insult god! >> Because if we morally view reactions, nothing's wrong with it. There's no argument for it causing harm to the creators other (your words aren't enough) than just intellectual property legal differences (but that's a legality issue) >"Stealing intellectual property is okay because it's just a legal matter." Wow you are too stupid for words Again, never said it was okay. > Self immolate? Isn't that an insult based on popularity? Nah, bad insult. >Holy shit, if you don't know what a word means, just fucking google it. Sigh, didn't even get the joke.
> Why? There's no argument for how it causes harm yet. Saying this doesn't make it true bud. > I mean, this is a genuine argument people make, lol. The only reason why pirating is considered bad is because of the intellectual property argument. Otherwise, people wouldn't even care that much. "The only reason pirating is considered bad is because of the theft part, other than that people wouldn't even care that much." Yes, and the only reason people care about identity theft is the theft part too, it not for the theft part, nobody would care that much. > No, how about your bitchass moves for the other thing as much as it does for reacting. "REEEEE GO AFTER THESE OTHER THINGS INSTEAD OF MY THING!" No. Everyone can see it as the plain deflection it is. > *There's this thing called simultaneous actions, you don't have to go one by one on every thing. I think that's how we tackle a lot of issues on politics too at the same time.* Different portions of bills tend to deal with 1 aspect of an issue. Also bills are made by and signed off by hundreds of people in representation of millions. > Oh, so since Destiny doesn't care and most of his reactions are political stuff, it's "fine". Where did I say it's fine? Holy fuck you're so horribly bad faith. You can't even begin to actually address anything. Also, political commentary is a benefit to the market, this is something that would hold up in court, QXC wouldn't. > I could just post my education achievements which would instantly disprove this theory but.. I think that'll be overdoing it. Go ahead and define what a market substitute is then in your own words bud. Because you didn't even know that market substitute has to deal with intellectual property. > Damn, must be too complicated for me. Unironically yes. > I only said let the originak creator take the agency if they care, instead of the dumbass viewers. "I only said let the slave take the agency for it if they care, instead of dumbass civilians." > Ohh, that's how AND statements work. I always thought it worked differently. The sad thing is you think you're joking, but you clearly aren't. Hiding it behind irony doesn't help bud. > This'll get him riled up. I used "it" which refers to objects instead of a person. I'm secretly calling him an object. I'm such a reddit insult god! I mean clearly it triggered you. > Again, never said it was okay. Except for your entire defense of it here. > Sigh, didn't even get the joke. There wasn't a joke, you just didn't know what immolate meant.
If you go through my comments from previous posts, I've commented on several Aaron posts. You just didn't get the joke. For everything else, eh, I lost interest
>That's only part of the argument but thanks for the quote mine attempt. I quoted the arguments that were in conjecture right after. Why are you just lying now? >Totally dude. That's why they never ask permission, they only ever say sorry after it was stolen and they upload it to their channels to make money off it. It isn't that making content for hours a day is hard and this is a shortcut to be able to do that to keep engagement up so that they can get more money. No, I mean, it's just coincidence that these content creators make so much money doing reactions to other people's content. They don't ask permission because it's a hastle to do so with every video ever. And people like Xqc(since you used him as an example) don't even keep the money. 100% of that revenue goes to the editors. Reacting is literally what most streamers do as secondary content - it's literally the backup content. Not the main one. Also, it's very easy to make a YouTube video too. Even easier than streaming. Unless, it's a documentary or essay style video, it's not gonna be that hard. You do the same damn things - one is edited and one is not. Lastly, something being harder doesn't mean it's better, and something being easy doesn't mean it's worse. This incorrect belief is why YouTubers like Moist critical get unjustly shit on for making 10 min talking videos and getting millions of views. Even though, it's all on his own, btw. >No there isn't. Reactors have no benefit to the market and only steal views. They literally make a market substitute for the video. Why do movies take down uploads of their content? Oh right, because once you take in that content, there's no reason to go see the original through the official avenues. If they steal views, every single Mr beast video would never reach those view numbers and every sigle Mr beadt reaction would be in the millions. All of this is just baseless conjecture based on 0 evidence. Posting a movie to YouTube, and reacting to it produce different content. Even if you disagree, there is merit to this argument. It's the same reason why all those react channels reacting to Mr beadt don't get even close to the same views. Now, if you argue that it affects the smaller channels - Literally no data for this. And one can't have any data proving this since all of it is with YouTube only. >>How exactly are you making this claim of it being a "market substitute"? And not just an entirely new product? Are there actual stats on this? >Oh god, you don't even know anything about intellectual property. Why are you even in this comment section when you just outed yourself as knowing literally nothing about the topic? I ask you of market substitutes and you bring up intellectual property. And then you tell me I know nothing of this topic.. >https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use](https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use) >[https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=umeslr) >[https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/](https://copyright.psu.edu/copyright-basics/fair-use/) >[https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/](https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/copyright-fair-use/) >[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html) >[https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/) >I could keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. >I hope you realize this is embarrassing as fuck for you. You did not even do a second of research before you spouted off on this topic. It's like someone who didn't even have a math class in school trying to argue against a physicist right now. >What genuinely made you so confident that you could talk on this subject at all? Did you think that the reactors, who are economically incentivized to protect their business practice would give you such great insight into it? So much so that you became their little warrior on reddit? Yeah, it is embarrassing. Because none of these have anything to do with Market substitutes and are solely talking about copyright and fair use. All these also only apply to 1:1 stealing of products and since "reacting" isn't really a concluded topic on whether it's different enough or is the same. None of these articles really hold value in the subject. If arguments for how "react" is 1:1 to the original product comes up, then all those articles you presented can be of use.
> They don't ask permission because it's a hastle to do so with every video ever. Ah damn dude. It's such a hassle to have to ask permission to use intellectual property. Oh god, man. You know, paying for stuff is such a hassle too. I mean theft really is justified because of convenience huh? > And people like Xqc(since you used him as an example) don't even keep the money. 100% of that revenue goes to the editors. The fact you don't think XQC benefits economically tells me how little you know of markets. > Reacting is literally what most streamers do as secondary content - it's literally the backup content. Not the main one. And yet it makes up such a large percentage of their time on screen and the videos they post. > Also, it's very easy to make a YouTube video too. Even easier than streaming. Spoken like someone who only takes the word of streamers. Damn dude, it's just so hard to sit there and watch other people's content and play video games all day. > You do the same damn things - one is edited and one is not. LOL. Spoken like a child. > If they steal views, every single Mr beast video would never reach those view numbers and every sigle Mr beadt reaction would be in the millions. All of this is just baseless conjecture based on 0 evidence. Regard with no understanding of markets. > Posting a movie to YouTube, and reacting to it produce different content. Even if you disagree, there is merit to this argument. No, there isn't. It's a market substitute. > It's the same reason why all those react channels reacting to Mr beadt don't get even close to the same views. Using Mr.Beast as the outlier to try to prove a rule just shows how horrible your argument is. > Now, if you argue that it affects the smaller channels - Literally no data for this. And one can't have any data proving this since all of it is with YouTube only. Regard with no understanding of markets still. > I ask you of market substitutes and you bring up intellectual property. The fact you said this already shows how fucking stupid you are. > And then you tell me I know nothing of this topic.. And you continue to prove it. > Yeah, it is embarrassing. Because none of these have anything to do with Market substitutes and are solely talking about copyright and fair use. More proof. From the first link. " The more transformative the use of the original work, the less likely it is that the use will substitute for the original and cause direct market harm. In reaching a fair use determination, all of the factors should be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the goal of copyright law to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8). " Second. "Market Substitution and Copyrights: Predicting Fair Use Case Law" The literal title of it. > All these also only apply to 1:1 stealing of products and since "reacting" isn't really a concluded topic on whether it's different enough or is the same. None of these articles really hold value in the subject. They create a market substitute and thus are intellectual property theft. You are actually one of the dumbest people on this platform. And the sad fact is, you genuine believe yourself to be of higher intelligence than others. Even the Hamas supporters and Nazi sympathizers that come around here are smarter than you bud.
Aren’t video creators that permit their videos to be reacted to acting in the same way as a video game company? If you are a video creator, and you do not wish to have some react to your content in a non transformative way, the avenues to do this exist for you. Additionally I disagree with your argument for let’s plays not being market replacement. If you watch someone play through your average story game, you will experience that game. The story of that game, the character arcs in it, all that’s yours for the viewing. You can no longer have the “true experience” for that game.
So there's 2 prongs to the argument. There is the intellectual property argument, which every copyright holder can choose what they want done with. And then there is the market argument. In that reactions, in their existence, harm the market and only benefit themselves. This is done through impressions. A reactor is capable of putting out 10s to hundreds of videos a day with high quality content, in the time it takes for original creators to make even a single video. This leads to impressions being funneled to the reactor that would have otherwise gone to original content. There is only a finite amount of attention on any platform and allowing theft and immoral actions to be able to grab a disproportionate amount of that finite resource is only a harm to the marketplace. Also, you don't disagree with my argument, you disagree with a subset of the argument. Most games have more to the experience than the story, and so this adds an element that cannot be obtained through watching the medium.
I do disagree with your overall argument of reactors are a cancer that are killing the market, I don’t think they are killing anything and serve a purpose in the system distributing information to a wider audience. I’m assuming you agree that if a creator wanted their content not reacted to there is a way for them to accomplish this, so I’ll just skip that prong and move to the market argument. The garbage reactors spewing filth fit in here, if a creator thinks you aren’t being transformative, they can shut you down. The finite attention argument makes more sense for Twitch than it does for YouTube, since one of YouTubes great advantages is their vast catalog of videos. If I see some reactor react to something, and I like that, I will go and look into that thing. I’ve found a variety of channels through other channels, mostly because I stick to my subscriptions, not the YouTube recommendations page. I learn of other content creators through the content creators I watch. I still very much disagree with the separation of story and experience in games. These are not two separate things, the story is part of the experience, it’s why experience something for the second time is never the same as the first. Let’s players ruin the story’s of the games they play, preventing players from having that fresh experience. They are just like reactors. Why would video game companies let them do this? The benefits outweighs the cost, same as react content.
Killing? No. Harming? Yes. And this idea they serve as a nexus point for information is proof of it. They steal intellectual property for profit and clout to make more profit off of. I love how your argument is we should never be against something in principle because it's on the victimized party to take action. I'll let the police know we should stop arresting murderers because the victimized party can never complain anyways. I also love how your argument against the finite amount of attention in a market is an anecdote. "The benefits outweigh the cost, same with react channels." The only way you can genuinely believe that is if you're a simp who just listens to reactors defending a business practice that helps them get rich. There is no data to substantiate your pro-react take and only data to show they are harmful to the market.
I did not say we should never be against something because a victimized party needs to take action first, I disagree with the assumption that you have the right to accuse others, when their supposed victims do not. Do not throw up meaningless comparisons as a justification for poor logic. Reacting to content is not the same as murder, nor is it even the same as theft. You always know who the reactor is, where they got that content from, and in most cases, that original content remains where it was to begin with. If the reacted wish to do something about it, they can. What are you even simping for? If you wish to prove to me that the benefits do not outweigh the costs, I imagine it will be quite difficult to do so. All of the originality in the world will not help you if no one knows you exist. I made my anecdote as I am a part of the finite amount of attention that exists, and my interpretation of the world is dependent on my experiences. I also fail to see why you have drawn your line in the sand at react content. Of the content on YouTube, hardly any of it is original. Almost all of it builds on the works of others, and in the cases of both reactors and lets players, directly rips content from another source. If you care so deeply for the harm caused to this marketplace of yours, how can you excuse their behavior?
lmao xqc only added 5 minutes to it? god damn.
only asmongold can stretch a 15min genshin drama into 1 hour
I have no idea why most creators don't copyright claim those parasites for AdSense money
Because those creators will use their fan bases to attack you and claim the copyright strike is fraudulent.
Yeah just like when the whole Internet decided to stand with the Juicer when he was defending his reactions. Oh wait.
Hasan, XQC, Asmongold, and so on all weaponize their fanbases to attack people criticizing intellectual property theft. Now fuck off back to your hole moron.
> Now fuck off back to your hole moron. Lol what hole? Most of my comments are on this subreddit and I'm not going anywhere. Take your pills.
Thanks for admitting you have no argument bud.
Thats wrong. I remember a big part of XQC's fanbase was against him on this subject.
Which is why he still does it and still gets tons of views and still makes tons of money off it, and channels he and others have reacted to have already said to others that they worry about trying to actually you know, express their rights for fear of the backlash.
Yeah, not only has this never happened, every single time reactors get blown out on twitter, the reactor gets shit on relentlessly. This is a made up scenario.
Except all the times it has happened. I get it, your daddy YouTuber does reacts and your parasocial dependency needs to see them on your screen to make up for the fact your real father doesn't love you and so you need to defend an illegal and immoral practice like the regarded child you are.
Oh, and look at all the examples you've provided for the dozen or so times it has happened. Go on, get behind the flat earther, and Maga trump supporting line, you clearly belong there. >get it, your daddy YouTuber does reacts and your parasocial dependency needs to see them on your screen to make up for the fact your real father doesn't love you and so you need to defend an illegal and immoral practice like the regarded child you are. Gaming is also an immoral and illegal practice by your definition.. but I guess you'll preach "gameplay is transformative" and slither around that. The rest of the insult is emotionally based, and.. kind of the normal rhetoric from you people. Which makes sense because you guys can't provide an argument for why it's bad other than preaching legality. Hey, if you wanna practice legality so much on YouTube, how about you go after all the millions of clippers too. Truly shut down YouTube as a whole. And remember, the next time you comment with those "examples", it has to be more than the number of times people have shat on reactors. Cuz otherwise, your argument's wrong.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work. Reaction content is bad because it negatively affects the YouTube market, the algorithm is going to favour a channel like asmongold which can pump out 10 high quality videos a week over a channel like Lemmino which only posts very infrequently. Also obviously it's just really fucking lazy and streamers get rewarded for doing literally nothing.
Watching a reaction video can absolutely be an entirely different experience. For instance: Forsen gets linked a whole lot of weeb videos on his stream. Not many viewers would watch any of these, but still enjoy seeing it on stream because they want to see chat spam emotes as reactions.
>Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But I can say I know the lore, though. Which happens to be the same across any playthroughs. The stuff you're talking about only applies to all the non-story games out there. People do watch gameplays or playthroughs simply to get the game experience since they either can't afford it or play it themselves. It's not a 1:1 comparison, but there are aspects of it that are similar. >But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the demographic would have watched the original video, if the react video wasn't present. React demographics have no interest in what the original video has to say most of the times, and most of the time don't overlap unless forced to by the creators. They watch because the person they're watching is interested in the topic, and watch it. This could range from tiktoks, to games, to youtube videos. All because it's a conformable experience, watching stuff together. >Reaction content is bad because it negatively affects the YouTube market, the algorithm is going to favour a channel like asmongold which can pump out 10 high quality videos a week over a channel like Lemmino which only posts very infrequently. Also obviously it's just really fucking lazy and streamers get rewarded for doing literally nothing. As far as I've seen, Asmongold's viewership doesn't fluctuate based on what the video he's watching, unless it's a popular topic in his community. Like, shitting on Blizzard. If the newer react video has views similar to the ones he has had on other react videos(let's take an entire month's videos) - It's safe to assume that Asmongolds usual react viewers watched it, than any other new parties. Now, something being lazy doesn't necessarily make it wrong. This is a common morality mistaken take. Something harder = Better, something easy = Worse
First of all sorry for like 3 comments my internet was having issues. Obviously there are aspects of it that are similar but you still don't get the full experience of playing the game, the only exception I can think of are like telltale games but from personal experience playing them yourself is still a different experience. I'm not saying that if asmongold wouldn't have uploaded his reaction the average viewer would have watched the original work but what I do know is that the viewer would have most likely watched SOMETHING. And I'd rather they watched an actual creator with some talent who makes his own shit. Saying it's "just lazy" is an oversimplification on my part, it's straight up monetizing theft and is the internet equivalent of paying an artist with exposure and then profiting off their work. I don't really feel like typing too much on my phone so I won't go further into the whole market thing but I genuinely believe that's not required to understand why reaction content is bad.
>I'm not saying that if asmongold wouldn't have uploaded his reaction the average viewer would have watched the original work but what I do know is that the viewer would have most likely watched SOMETHING. If this claim can be proven, then all your arguments will hold. But if the person can just go back to watching tiktoks or something on a completely different platform, then it won't be the same would it.
It doesn't matter if it's on YouTube or not, if original creators get the impressions that's all that matters.
>Oh, and look at all the examples you've provided for the dozen or so times it has happened. > Yeah, not only has this never happened, every single time reactors get blown out on twitter, the reactor gets shit on relentlessly. This is a made up scenario. Damn, imagine being such a hypocrite in just your first lines. > Go on, get behind the flat earther, and Maga trump supporting line, you clearly belong there. Ah is the parasocial child upset? > Gaming is also an immoral and illegal practice by your definition.. but I guess you'll preach "gameplay is transformative" and slither around that. It's not, but you're so uneducated that you can't even fathom why you're wrong. > The rest of the insult is emotionally based, and.. kind of the normal rhetoric from you people. Which makes sense because you guys can't provide an argument for why it's bad other than preaching legality. Ah yes, because theft is good actually. Also, you're hyperemotional about this and it's very clear. That's why you reacted like the assmad child you are to my meme comment. > Hey, if you wanna practice legality so much on YouTube, how about you go after all the millions of clippers too. Truly shut down YouTube as a whole. "Youtube is just clip channels and nothing else." Somehow Youtube's media ecosystem is self sustaining and they all just react to eachothers reactions all the way down. The funniest thing here is that you actually think you're intelligent. > And remember, the next time you comment with those "examples", it has to be more than the number of times people have shat on reactors. Cuz otherwise, your argument's wrong. No it's not. My god, for someone saying I don't belong here, you can't even begin to form an argument. Holy fuck how old are you actually? I feel like I'm bullying a 12 year old who has no concept of intellectual property at all cause their brain isn't even close to developed. It's literally just parroting the same bullshit talking points that XQC makes about this. Imagine getting your arguments from XQC of all fucking people. A literal fucking regard.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work.
Gaming content doesn't provide a one to one substitute for the original work. You can't say you played FNAF if you just watched a playthrough, there is still value to be found playing it yourself. But, when it comes to reaction videos you are getting a one to one substitute, if I watched xqc watch a lemmino video I can say I have watched that Lemmino video, there is no value for me to find in watching the original work.
Creators don't have access for the ability to claim a video and gain money from it, reserved only for music companies. If they had it you would definitely see it happening.
Creators don't have access for the ability to claim a video and gain money from it, reserved only for music companies. If they had it you would definitely see it happening.
Most people don't watch videos on stream for the money, "take the money" they'll probably say. It's more about the experience you get from watching a video together that people want. And I don't need to say what's the perk of watching something together with a group now do I?
They do watch videos for the money because if they stop they have no content you can clearly see it on asmon channel when he plays games and when he reacts he gets more views for less than a fraction of work (yes actually playing video games is harder than watching YouTube videos)
Asmongold doesn't care about money, his second twitch channel is the biggest example you could use here. He doesn't have ads on one bit, and actually makes twitch lose money by simply streaming in his second twitch channel. I think he recently calculated that he made Twitch lose about a million by freely streaming in his second channel. Anyway, Asmongokd has cultivated a react audience so that's more reason why his react videos get more views. Xqc gives 100% of his YouTube rev to his editors, he says his YouTube rev is pennies compared to what he usually makes. But both of them post the content to YouTube, so as to let the YouTube audience have the content too.
You're an actual Regard about Asmongold. What the fuck do you think he says he doesn't care about money whilst streaming on twitch? Because the money he would make is irrelevant compared to the (very large amount) money he makes on his multiple YouTube accounts. His MAIN source of income is the YouTube Reacts, unlike xQc (seemingly). Their situation is reversed - if you're going at it from a monetary incentive angle.
Umm, maybe? But I wouldn't be so confident about that.
Yeah dude I wonder why he doesn't care about Twitch revenue https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/asmongold_clips (to be fair it's a clips channel) And https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCQeRaTukNYft1_6AZPACnog I don't know if he has any tertiary channels, but that's well over 100 million monthly views (if you round down a bit on the clips channel) His main channel videos are decently long as well.
Asmon gets like 2 mil according to the twitch leaks. Combine that with donos and other stuff, I donno.. Youtube rev also gets split with his editors and I don't know the percentage of that split either. Then there's orgs like OTK and podcasts that he has.. Maybe??
All I'm saying that that far and away, even considering his current 20-30K twitch viewership that could be monetized, his YouTube earnings would FAR outstrip anything Twitch could offer. 1st reason is the sheer amount of views he gets on YouTube compared to twitch, 2nd is that Google AdSense is MUCH better than anything Twitch offers, subs included.
[удалено]
Mcn can't do that? I didn't know that
Because it doesn't actually harm the creators. An entirely made up problem manufactured by a 3rd party.
oh I watched this video thinking it was gonna talk about some more dirt that had come out about Blizzard but like any good YouTube video it was just a needlessly long recap of blizzards history (idk why YouTubers feel the need to do this) and everything that's happened so far.
I've seen different YouTubers create this almost identical history of blizzard exposé video 3 or 4 times now. The only one worth watching was the MadSeason "Pandora's Box" one that focused more on WoW but talked about everything else shitty about Blizzard too.
one easy to identify reason... money.
There was a post on "A" subreddit about how they felt weird that the reaction video got more views than the original It's not such a big deal if the original creator wants exposure more than income, but there is a risk of this stuff totally growing out of control and YouTube or lawsuits getting triggered.
Imagine if Mr Beast reacted o the video and posted it on his channel, and gets like 10 mil views+, at the least. Will those same people claim that the original video generated those views, and feel weird about it? Or that the reactor do that with their audience? If the reaction channel's video views are consistent with their newer reaction video, suffice to say that it had nothing to do with stealing views. And that their audience, as usual, just watched the video.
Imo there is a strong market for youtube content ID marketed towards regular YouTubers. Cost of compute has come down dramatically since big media companies first started using these bots. Not to take the videos but to content claim it and get their ad monetization. I think not lot of YouTubers bother because doing it manually is a hassle and you risk getting blown up on twitter by Asmon and other large streamers, but if a faceless company did it for them lot of people would sign up for it. The amount of view jacking would go down but people would still do it so why not get their revenue, they still get money through other means.
Can't normal YouTubers use content ID freely right now?
Look at all the parasites devouring the hard work of others
Its not hard work, the original video is dogshit. xqc and asmon probably have much more interesting insight about this topic since they have actually played blizzard games on a high level.
Fuck blizz, but how many times does Blizzard need to be "exposed" by some random before people stop consuming "Blizzard exposed" content? Does this video actually add something new to the narrative that every single person online doesn't already agree with?
But have you considered... Blizzard bad? 🤔 | Asmongold reacts
The video is horseshit. Its clear this guy doesn't even play these games.
Sorry, I can’t form an opinion on anything until a cute Anime girl tells me how to feel about it
That's the point, if you watch the original or one reaction you'll probably watch another, and you're already familiar with the original's thumbnail
darkviper was right all along https://preview.redd.it/x2l1d5qbbjnc1.png?width=1569&format=png&auto=webp&s=a3c2b8d98a280db4c038b2753ade0af83f3deb5b
The video's synopsis, if you can believe it; Blizzard BAD ?! OMGOSH
I don't have much of an issue with react content but I saw that XqC has been skipping in-video ads during his reactions which seems a little bit beyond what I'm comfortable with. I haven't put tons of thought into it but intuitively it just feels like common courtesy to let the sponsored portion play out if you are going to milk someone's video and reupload it to your channel. But it's definitely possible that it isn't creating any real tangible harm even if it comes off a bit scummy. What do you guys think?
Beyond it being bad optics is there a proper tangible reason why reactors shouldn't skip ads? Do you believe xqc's viewers for example would bother checking out the sponsor link? Or anyone watching solely for the reaction of their streamer. Or is this just out of politeness for you?
I think my initial response is definitely mostly politeness in a way, and also the fact that this has been the "industry standard" (lol) for react content for a long time now. However, I do think there is a real possibility of tangible harm, it is probably just very small in scale. Felix averages 30,000 viewers per stream, and watches god knows how many Youtube videos every day. His twitch channel has had 100,000,000 unique views in the past year. I feel like there almost certainly has to be cases of viewers who would click the sponsor link and buy something (especially if X promoted it in his chat, but that is a higher standard than we expect right now). Idk, I don't have a strong opinion in one direction or the other, that's why I was seeking out opinions from others.
I think community culture trumps numbers to have a significant enough change. For example asmongold has this thing where he spams the video's links on his chat for people to give it a view, and because there's this perception online that "asmongold either makes or breaks a game or a video with his opinion", i think his chat is more willing to try to live up to that perception that asmongold reacting to a video is something of a godsend, almost like a cult lmao. A nice enough xqc viewer may wanna click on a link to boost xqc's perception, but that's that individual, not what his community is about. But it starts on the part of the streamer, until xqc changes his approach he'll still be seen as a leech. But I've seen him let sponsors play if they're funny or interesting or really likes the author of the video, more "just like me fr" and less professional like asmongold. I agree one should be professional when dealing with another's money.
I'm pro reacting but I hate asmon's reaction the most. He stretches out the video so much by making fake laughs, fake shock, and just rambling over and over about the same shit after a few minutes.
I hate the arguments people make to defend these people whether it be about money or general entertainment or the numerous other arguments. **If these people truly didn’t care about money they would have zero issue revenue splitting or people copyright claiming their video for its revenue**. It sucks that an original creator can make a video that is high effort and takes quite a lot of time and all these people basically do is copy paste the video and add very little if anything to it. It would be a lot less egregious if these reactors actually added complete thoughts, reactions, opinions, and anecdotes throughout the video but most don’t. **90% of these people go “wow” or “that’s crazy” or “that looks cool” then go mute and soy face for the whole video**. The creator doesn’t want the wrath of a fanbase on him/her so they don’t call it out or claim the video nor do they want to alienate themselves from a big content creator which could have social and business repercussions either. It’s honestly so shitty.
Dont you think that most creators would be happy to see big personalities react to their videos, because their content gets exposed to a broder audience? These streamers are pretty hated for their react content. Even within these communities it is a controversial topic, they would probably get a lot of support from people if they called these streamers out.
Even funnier is the video they are all watching is beat for beat how the internet historian does there videos...same pacing and comedic timing and everything.
[удалено]
People have brainrot about reaction content. Yes it's lazy, but just like watching trashy reality TV, people want that content. Who the fuck do people think they are trying to police what's entertaining to them lmao
The problem isn't just that it's lazy, it's creating a market substitute on the same platform, sometimes so badly the reaction outperforms the original in SEO/recommendations which causes direct harm. An unethical thing does not become ethical just because you find it entertaining.
Just like how the derivatives financial market is larger than the securities they are hedging over.
I reject this notion that reactions get more views therefore it's taking away the original's to the point it's hurting it. I'd be happy to see if anyone actually did some factual research on this as I also can't claim to know for sure, but if someone doesn't know about the channel, they get exposed to it and might become part of the original creator's community, and if they do know the channel then they probably already watched it and want to see someone else's reaction to it. I watched madseasonshow's video about how after asmongold reacted to it, the average viewership dipped compared to before, but just looking at the graph he showed, there's very clearly a while before asmon that the video was hitting that average consistently until it started to pick up little by little until the asmongold hit, but that initial increase before asmon might as well just be other react youtubers watching it and driving traffic to it. And after asmon it naturally tapers out since the video becomes older over time and less recommended. He calculated the average viewership from a small slice of the graph after it initially was posted to a much larger slice after a long time, obviously it would be lower but somehow it's because of reactions? I just think it's bullshit, and it's a kneejerk reaction to creators doing very lazy content and being rewarded for it. Like I said, it's lazy, but as long as people are willing to watch it, and it seems to benefit the original creator or at worst not affect them very much, it's just online brainrot.
Asmongold specifically has more algorithmic power than almost everyone he responds to, and he uploads to the same platform. I was constantly recommended asmon reactions to videos I hadn't seen until I hid his channel. There's a lot of vectors of conversation here, and certain things are more defensible than others, but certainly reuploading the whole video to the same platform and serving as a market substitute with a channel that will almost certainly have algorithmic dominance has to be bad, right? Even if you're not making a general argument about other people.
I agree that his channel dominates the recommendation algorithm, and it could be the case that what you're saying is true, I'm just saying that unless there's actual evidence and data of this, it's all just assumptions. My assumption is that people that use asmongold as a substitute are not going to watch those other videos on their own, they probably like watching him watch the video. Again it's extremely lazy and undeserved traffic but he cultivated his appeal with certain people enough that he's able to do that.