This was supposed to be a general post but I wound up rambling about the current youtube drama

[olivermoss]

So, react content drama has recently lead to doxxing and also reactors getting $100 mill exclusivity deals to just... steal other people's content. There are a few major creators who have what looks like fairly clear cut copyright cases, and copyright is pretty complex. To have even lawyers go 'yeah, I'd bet on that outcome if they brought a case' is a lot.



Here is what baffles me: This is cottage industry worth hundreds of millions to major platforms like Alphabet's Youtube and Amazon's Twitch. People want their content curated by people, not algorithms. People driven curation is making curators rich. People want personalities going 'here's what's good today folks'. It would only take one court case to topple this massive money machine. So, why in the name of all that is unholy can none of these tech companies come up with a way to allow these massive creators to have a legal, monetizable way to curate content? Youtube spent days doubling down on supporting Sssniperwolf, a creator who doxxed another creator, and only *just* decided to do a brief demonetization to both creators because there has been bad behavior on "both sides".

Sssniperwolf, who built a career on content theft, considers people reacting to her to be 'harassment'. Even though her whole career is doing that to other creators while making agehao faces. However, her livestreaming from in front of another creator's house after posting the general location, livestreaming to 5 million people... is her 'being an adult' because she 'just wanted to talk'.

I didn't mean to ramble about this but c'mon, why can't any of these platforms go 'okay, here is a non-theft way to embed videos because the viewtime / ad revenue from that portion of your video goes to the creator'. Alphabet / Amazon makes money on the views either way. Why are they dead set on ignoring a several hundred million a year industry that could fall apart, and if it falls apart would seriously hurt both platforms?

Josh Strife Hayes has been actually trying to find ways to rework the react meta, but a major stumbling block is that he can't revenue split his videos. He can't go 'hey Mukluk, I want to react to you and if you say yes you get a revenue split on the video'. Major creators are asking for that feature specifically so they can do reacts with permission and revenue splits. Asmondgold makes BANK off of reacting to Josh, who is a much, much small creator. Josh has basically been a gold farm for Asmondgold at times. Asmondgold, a multi-millionaire, is making more money off of Josh's videos than Josh is. For Josh, each video is a good bit of work. For Asmondgold, he just needs to watch on stream, make a few comments and then put the vod on youtube.

But, instead of tools to allow creators to make the content people want... We've got Sssniperwolf flexing on Jacksfilms that she doxxed him and got away with it.

Doesn't Tiktok have this feature? Duetting? Isn't that why all those music collabs from from Tiktok?

Just, social media, stop being such a cess pit and stop rewarding the worst people with the money to buy malibu mansions for five freakin' seconds...

Comments

[mistressofmuses]

The whole industry of "reaction videos" is bonkers to me. I DO get it, and you're right about why people are into it: having your content curated by an actual person whose taste or takes you trust and like IS very much what people want. (Or they just like that someone is mean and catty about other people's stuff, that's a thing, too.)

BUT. It's super fucked up that there are people who can make a whole fucking career off of (openly! purposefully! that's the entirety of the thing!) stealing content from smaller creators who will NEVER reach the viewership that these bigger names do. Plus it's the same as the content farm accounts where their videos are super low-effort: they can post algorithm-pleasing videos of ideal length and frequency, because they have endless content to steal, and don't have to put forward very much work of their own. Meanwhile the people they're taking from DO have to front all the actual work for none of the reward.

("Response" or "debunking" videos seem different to me, when they're actually about rebutting information that was presented by someone else. Those take a lot more effort and tend to involve a lot more actual content production. I guess that could be a fine line distinction, but I don't think it really is... I've seen both kinds, and they seem quite distinct to me.)

Allowing a revenue share would be a great step, and if it were something that were doable it would hopefully put pressure on big "reactors" to do so and help the people who are actually creating the content they're profiting on.

[olivermoss]

Debunking and Response videos are different. Legally, they are transformative. There was even a court ruling on this. But whoever it was that everyone was pissed at before the Sssniperwolf situation blew up, he made a point of flexing on the haters by getting up and going to the bathroom or making food while the videos played. He even defended lack of commentary by saying his 'audience finds it boring' and it's like... what? xQc, that's the guy's name who is one of the biggest problems. He's also the one who got the $100 million exclusively contract to stream his theft on Kick only.

Imagine being such a profitable content thief that youtube doubles down on supporting you after doxxing someone?

Yeah, there are certain people who if they put out a daily menu of recommended videos I'd watch, for the vetting and also the community aspect.

Revenue share would be so huge for some creators. It's just so low effort to steal, so that's how a lot of the top earners became top earners.

[mistressofmuses]

Yeah, the transformative nature of genuine debunk or response videos is very different... but yeah, thinking about the ones where the reaction channel does some bare minimum thing to claim they're "producing content", even if it is just them walking from one room to another or pouring a bowl of cereal or whatever. It's OBVIOUSLY bad faith, but hard to codify a minimum effort they have to put forward to qualify for "actually transformative." Any asshole who wants to continue making bank off of content theft will do whatever they can to skirt the line that means they still do nothing.

But fucking hell, this whole thing is a mess. Because yeah... the biggest video hosting platform out there deciding that "doxxing is fine if you bring in enough money" really is SOMETHING. (I mean, I know it's business as usual - it's why they do nothing about content farm stuff, even when it's often misleading or even dangerous, because it also brings in revenue.) But still! What the fuck!

Revenue share would be a huge way to make this sort of thing a lot more equitable than it currently is, if people are going to keep making this content as its own genre (which they will). But yeah. It'll always be easier to steal content, and that makes it easier to make money that way than any other. Youtube (and other platforms) will also help boost those """"creators"""" (they are creating nothing) because they can please the algorithm that demands constant, steady, correctly-sized output.

[olivermoss]

Content theft and people being downright aggro about it, and getting away with being so aggro about it, has reached a point of ridiculousness before this doxxing even happened.

YT typically takes action when it's even threat of doxxing, and this is one of the most high profile creators. This really feels less like business as usual and more like a breakdown in what norms and protections exist.

Revenue sharing would open up so much on the platform, so many creators would be able to do collab projects. Right now it's so janky. Usually if two creators do a video they both upload to their own channel because it's all they can do, but having 2 videos the same means they are kneecapping their own momentum.

Content theft is such big business, it's nuts.

[mistressofmuses]

This kind of thing has been a huge issue for a LONG time, but the open doxxing is a pretty striking low in an already shitty dynamic that's been playing out.

That's a fair point. I think the motives are likely the same as usual (money! we like money!), but this is a line that HASN'T generally been crossed, and finding out that YT's desire for continued ad revenue and clicks means popular creators really ARE above the platform's rules, even when it comes to something as egregious as doxxing, is... certainly something.

The ability to open up collabs between different creators (even outside of this sort of content theft "react" genre) would be great! Because yeah - either they trade "guest spots" on the other channel, so they each get one video of "theirs" with the crossover appeal, OR yeah, each share the same identical video, which means it's splitting the attention and pageviews in a way that doesn't really help.

It's shit that theft is so rewarded.

[olivermoss]

And the precious revenue is 100% content theft. That's her whole deal! They aren't even protecting the people actually making the content, they are protecting the content thief. It is just so messed up. And, right in the middle of when YT is trying to pressure people into their paid service.

Nothing will be done. During the day she was demonetized on one channel she just posted to her other channel. But, at least enough people are covering this and don't see it as okay.

Creators having a viable way to do collabs would be amazing.

[mistressofmuses]

It really is obscene. People who actually produce content are just more meat for the grinder. There'll always be more, so who cares if some of them give up or get burned out or have to quit for their own safety? You can say that about any entertainment "industry", including youtube as a whole, but making it THIS apparent, when it's in defense of one amoral but popular thief... really does feel like new hell.

At least there is some outcry. Probably never enough to really help the situation or prevent it from just happening again.

[olivermoss]

Swell Entertainment did a video on this, and I am glad she did because she reached a bunch of people who weren't aware. She said that her PO Box is in another town and she opens boxes there due to risk of Air Tags. She's got a following, but she's not big time or anything. These are just reasonable things to do as a creator.

[mistressofmuses]

I'm glad for anyone trying to make sure that people are aware about this whole situation happening.

It's sad that those are such necessary precautions for anyone with even a small online following. I mean, yeah, I'm very pro-privacy, and it's of course a good idea to protect that... but it's still really shitty that it DOES have to be such a concern. Having a PO box is one thing... having to make sure it's in a different town and worrying about airtags hidden on stuff seems like a bit much (even if it's very understandable and absolutely the right thing for her or anyone else in her position to be doing.) Those are the reasonable things... they just should have to be.

[olivermoss]

Yeah, it sucks that such precautions are just a normal part of having YT as a side hustle, especially for women

[mistressofmuses]

No kidding. :( And yes, I realize this case was a man who was doxxed, and by a woman, but there's little question that women are more often targets for that kind of extreme stalking, and particular kinds of threats with it. That shouldn't BE a "normal" level of precaution to have to take, and yet it is.

[olivermoss]

That is part of why Swell and some others are so pissed. There is no way Sssnpiperwolf hasn't dealt with threats and attempts to invade her privacy or find where she lives. idk maybe she's actually desensitized to it at this point.

[mistressofmuses]

It really does give it an extra layer of "you absolutely should have fucking known better." Maybe she is desensitized to it, or maybe she's one of those who claims to find those sorts of things "flattering" in some way.