Is YouTube Done? (MOD Warning - See post #193)

[Finlandia WOAT]

Mostly replying about Pewdiepie (never even heard of the infowars guy), though it really does apply for any dislike toward someone that is not an immediate existential threat.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

People hate with them because they either disagree with them or don't like their style. I honestly don't watch very much original content on YouTube, so whatever.

These days technology changes so fast that something at some point could be a YouTube killer. We don't know if/when such a thing would happen, but I'm sure it will happen eventually. Will people still be using YouTube 20 years from now? Who knows? Personally, I'd love if social media died a quick and painful death. Our society is worse off with it.

Couldn't you argue it already has with Netflix and hulu and that stuff? I don't know when I was younger people watched YouTube for the weird videos of people doing weird **** for hits. Now YouTube you can play music, watch shows and movies. I mean it really isn't what it used to be though that stuff is still there. I'm not even sure how to classify PewDiePie. He's not even all that political most of the time. He's just a dude playing video games.

I wouldn't mind if almost all technology died. Most of it isn't necessary. Though people would say if that happened no more things like HF. I just think it brings more evil to society than good and on the jobs market it eliminates things yet people just can't see that. Technology has helped things like medicine I suppose but the mainstream technology we are presented with doesn't make our lives better, it may in fact make them worse. Keeping up with people is cool but people still did that even before cell phones, I know it sounds foreign but if you're committed it can be done!

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Don't understand this line of reasoning. The fact that they have a right and an audience that appreciates what they do isn't an argument for why they shouldn't be disliked. People hate them because they present themselves like morons.

People also do that with national media figureheads and outlets as well. Think of FOX. FOX isn't even different. The only difference is they sell a different narrative than CNN or MSNBC or the others but at the end of the day they are all a product, selling a narrative to a certain audience who likes what they say. The point in all of that is I don't mind they exist or that different opinions exist. Different thoughts are good. Although the problem with having different narratives is they all go up against each other and it creates division and fighting against the masses. Contradiction makes you question what is right and wrong and nobody knows really who is right or wrong anymore. Just because something is not mainstream or a common thought doesn't make it wrong or even a conspiracy. Even something sold as common can be a conspiracy but people only think of conspiracy theories as thoughts that are not common because they aren't said often which makes them sound weird. I don't watch the news on TV or follow YouTube guys but I can see the need for both sides. Personally I'm not somebody who cares about being informed because the people in power are gunna do what they want anyway. But for the whole argument, YouTube has changed how people can get their news. Its not inconceivable that down the road something could change that. Facebook adding the live feature people could then post their videos for hits on there. Obviously today its still the king but like anything I can see it being replaced some day.

 

[aleshemsky83]

YouTube is a monopoly, like Google and Amazon. Well I mean I guess you could say you have other options to watch things like Netflix, hulu and what not but think about what youscrew does. Some dude can play video games and ramble off thoughts. Outside of on your Facebook live video where else can people do that?

My problem with you$crew is they demonitize the content that doesn't fit the narrative. Nor everyone uploads for the money and all of that but they hit news organizations that don't fit the narrative. Which infringes on free speech and what the site was really created upon. They probably aren't in trouble because they are a monopoly of sorts but one doesn't need them to survive either. There are other ways to get content or watch things. This all comes down to the masses. Are those conservative/libertarian types going to boycott the site? We now live in a society where they hate different thoughts and the algiorhythm is set up to what they want you to see and some things aren't even in it. Which isn't fair to that username. The whole idea of You$crew is you get to watch what you want, not what a guy like Eric Schmitt wants you to see.

They aren't a monopoly in any way shape or form. You realize how many videohosting sites are out there? I think you need to look up the definition of monopoly.

 

[Shareefruck]

Mostly replying about Pewdiepie (never even heard of the infowars guy), though it really does apply for any dislike toward someone that is not an immediate existential threat.

I don't know if I'm misreading what you're saying, but I don't see why it's necessarily evidence of projecting insecurities to simply dislike a person for being a subjectively annoying and unlikeable presence, even when acknowledging that it isn't an immediate threat or that it isn't intended for you.

I think that's only a reasonable way to look at it if you took every expression of distaste and dislike as having the intention of demanding that the thing not be allowed or that it must be stopped. I think that seems to be an unreasonable assumption that people too easily leap to, though.

 

[Shareefruck]

People also do that with national media figureheads and outlets as well. Think of FOX. FOX isn't even different. The only difference is they sell a different narrative than CNN or MSNBC or the others but at the end of the day they are all a product, selling a narrative to a certain audience who likes what they say. The point in all of that is I don't mind they exist or that different opinions exist. Different thoughts are good. Although the problem with having different narratives is they all go up against each other and it creates division and fighting against the masses. Contradiction makes you question what is right and wrong and nobody knows really who is right or wrong anymore. Just because something is not mainstream or a common thought doesn't make it wrong or even a conspiracy. Even something sold as common can be a conspiracy but people only think of conspiracy theories as thoughts that are not common because they aren't said often which makes them sound weird. I don't watch the news on TV or follow YouTube guys but I can see the need for both sides. Personally I'm not somebody who cares about being informed because the people in power are gunna do what they want anyway. But for the whole argument, YouTube has changed how people can get their news. Its not inconceivable that down the road something could change that. Facebook adding the live feature people could then post their videos for hits on there. Obviously today its still the king but like anything I can see it being replaced some day.

Yeah, by no means am I defending the idea of stopping these guys from doing what they're doing or not allowing contrasting views from my own, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to hate certain public figures or find them repulsive. It doesn't always necessarily come down to "if you happen to disagree with and hate someone, then the only reasonable conclusion is that you hate them BECAUSE you disagree with them and are against the idea of people having different opinions heard." That seems to be a false equivalence that I'm noticing.

At the end of the day, it has a lot more to do with personality, style of delivery, level-headed reasoning, and integrity of discourse, rather than anything to do with particular views, for me. For example, I'm put off by Paul Joseph Watson mostly because of the obnoxiously shouty and overly intense, wilfully contentious douchiness that he just generally oozes, combined with the poor blanket arguments that he makes to justify acting that way, not because he has mostly conservative views. I could easily see myself being equally annoyed by someone acting the exact same way except in support of the stuff that PJW complains about (and they exist by the hundreds, I'm just not aware of one that has gained as much traction/popularity as he has). I'm not even aware of any political views that Pewdiepie has, I just find his mannerisms and sense of humor annoying and painful to watch and listen to.

 

[Pilky01]

Wait, why is PewDiePie being discussed alongside PJW and Mark Dice?

 

[Jumptheshark]

If last week's Vidcon is any example then it is from being done

 

[hoglund]

It's done for me because I get it on TV from my Wii and after tomorrow it's no longer supporting youtube.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Wow this is crazy though.

http://13wham.com/news/nation-world...ccidentally-kills-boyfriend-for-youtube-prank

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Wait, why is PewDiePie being discussed alongside PJW and Mark Dice?

Despite the different content there's no difference. They are dudes using the platform and marketing themselves with their views on different things. Its all YouTube is, a marketing device. Its like that kid getting killed in that prank video. Totally did it for hits and some attempt at stardom. Its no different than all those reality TV shows on TV. Sell any weird idea now you'll get a shot at quick cash. YouTube just has a global audience potential.

 

[johnjm22]

Despite the different content there's no difference. They are dudes using the platform and marketing themselves with their views on different things. Its all YouTube is, a marketing device. Its like that kid getting killed in that prank video. Totally did it for hits and some attempt at stardom. Its no different than all those reality TV shows on TV. Sell any weird idea now you'll get a shot at quick cash. YouTube just has a global audience potential.

There is quality content on YouTube. Some of my favorite shows are YouTube shows.

I don't care about YouTube personality types, and I don't watch reality TV.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

They aren't a monopoly in any way shape or form. You realize how many videohosting sites are out there? I think you need to look up the definition of monopoly.

Everybody gets that term wrong. This is why we have chrony capitalism and not true capitalism. Just because others exist does not mean they can compete and that is the point of a monopoly. These things may exist but the masses have never likely heard of them, they also don't have the resources or finances. Now sure they want to launch it into a TV network type of a deal so I guess it'd be a competitor to Netflix and hulu and stuff.

I mean Google is a monopoly. We used to have other search engines(we probably still do but I couldn't tell you one like when we had Ask Jeeves for example) but if they exist the masses don't know them and they can't financially compete.

The only big internet thing I'd probably agree on not having a monopoly is amazon. I don't use it and never used eBay. I assume eBay is still going and you have Craigslist. Though I assume you can get the most on amazon though you can get random **** on Craigslist.

Facebook is a monopoly. Twitter can't turn any profit and snapchat and instagram are just picture apps. Facebook you can do that and post without pictures beyond a certain character limit.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I don't know if I'm misreading what you're saying, but I don't see why it's necessarily evidence of projecting insecurities to simply dislike a person for being a subjectively annoying and unlikeable presence, even when acknowledging that it isn't an immediate threat or that it isn't intended for you.

No, that absolutely is evidence for projection.

That's not to say it is indicative of projection, merely that it is evidence of that theory.

I think that's only a reasonable way to look at it if you took every expression of distaste and dislike as having the intention of demanding that the thing not be allowed or that it must be stopped.

No, the reasonable way to look at it is to think, "Why do I dislike this person, even though they pose no threat to me, nor do they even know who I am, nor do I know who they are?".

Put another way, what does it say about you, what does it mean to you, to dislike someone for being "annoying"?

 

[Shareefruck]

No, that absolutely is evidence for projection.

That's not to say it is indicative of projection, merely that it is evidence of that theory.



No, the reasonable way to look at it is to think, "Why do I dislike this person, even though they pose no threat to me, nor do they even know who I am, nor do I know who they are?".

Put another way, what does it say about you, what does it mean to you, to dislike someone for being "annoying"?

That's advocating a degree of sensitivity that I can't make sense of, personally, and I still don't see what it would have to do with projection or insecurity. I can possibly see the beginnings of an argument for it being an unfair and perhaps narcissistic indictment (along the lines of "get over yourself, who cares what you think anyways?" or "your need to honestly express how you feel about something doesn't outweigh the possibility of someone being hurt by it, so just keep it to yourself")-- something that I could see myself conceding to, but not one for why one would think that it would be driven by insecurities or projection. Being annoyed and put off by something and having a negative view of it as a result of that is about as natural of an instinctive reaction as one can have, and it typically doesn't have a more complicated psychologically revealing motive behind it. It's as basic as having an itch and scratching it.

I don't see how it's any different than finding someone charming and interesting and liking them as a result of that. Words like dislike and hate are simply descriptors of preference. Saying that you hate someone is simply saying that you have a strong negative reaction to their presence, which is something that happens to everyone.

I don't see how that final sentence says anything about me-- It reads like the equivalent of "What does it say about you that you dislike something for having unlikeable qualities or hate someone for having extremely unlikeable qualities?" Both of those things sound perfectly sensible and reasonable to me.

I feel like the disconnect here might be that some people see the word hate and assume that someone is saying that "I wish for horrible things to happen to him," and I think that would be an unfair assumption to make. I'm just using it to mean that I can't stand them, which is a perfectly valid way to use that word. When someone hates olives, they are using it the same way.

I don't think it's reasonable at all to think "The only reason to NOT like someone is if they're actively hurting me." I think that's going above and beyond, personally.

I also think it's a reasonable assumption that when someone says that they hate Pewdiepie, they're saying that they hate the presence of the public figure that is presented to them, and not the human being behind it who they don't know anything about.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

That's advocating a degree of sensitivity that I can't make sense of, personally, and I still don't see what it would have to do with projection or insecurity. .

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you do not know Pewdiepie, nor are you the demographic intended for his content.

Meaning, you can ignore his existence, as it should mean nothing to you.

Instead, you choose to "dislike" him. Alright, why?

Being annoyed and put off by something and having a negative view of it as a result of that is about as natural of an instinctive reaction as one can have, and it typically doesn't have a more complicated psychologically revealing motive behind it. It's as basic as having an itch and scratching it.

Wrong.

If you dislike someone, and that person:
1) Has not insulted you directly,
2) Is not holding a shotgun to you/a loved one,

Then there is a reason behind that dislike.

One of those is psychological projection, ie, transmitting qualities one subconsciously suspects about herself onto others, the classic example being the homophobic closeted homosexual. That's not the only example, it's just easy.

I don't see how that final sentence says anything about me--

It reads like the equivalent of "What does it say about you that you dislike something for having unlikeable qualities or hate someone for having extremely unlikeable qualities?" Both of those things sound perfectly sensible and reasonable to me.

.

You are more than free to dislike some thing based on having unlikable qualities. I don't particularly enjoy the music of Brian Eno, for example.

But it is an entirely different thing to then follow that with, "Because of that I don't like Brian Eno." I'm sure you can see how ridiculous that would be, as we are transitioning from some thing to some one. I would find it worrying to meet someone who fails to distinguish the difference between those two states.

Hating someone is a powerful emotional response reserved for extreme situations, ie direct insults and maniacal shotgun wielders. Again, if you find holding those powerful feelings for someone that has done you no wrong, you would be well suited to stop and ask yourself why.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you do not know Pewdiepie, nor are you the demographic intended for his content.

Meaning, you can ignore his existence, as it should mean nothing to you.

Instead, you choose to "dislike" him. Alright, why?





Wrong.

If you dislike someone, and that person:
1) Has not insulted you directly,
2) Is not holding a shotgun to you/a loved one,

Then there is a reason behind that dislike.

One of those is psychological projection, ie, transmitting qualities one subconsciously suspects about herself onto others, the classic example being the homophobic closeted homosexual. That's not the only example, it's just easy.







You are more than free to dislike some thing based on having unlikable qualities. I don't particularly enjoy the music of Brian Eno, for example.

But it is an entirely different thing to then follow that with, "Because of that I don't like Brian Eno." I'm sure you can see how ridiculous that would be, as we are transitioning from some thing to some one. I would find it worrying to meet someone who fails to distinguish the difference between those two states.

Hating someone is a powerful emotional response reserved for extreme situations, ie direct insults and maniacal shotgun wielders. Again, if you find holding those powerful feelings for someone that has done you no wrong, you would be well suited to stop and ask yourself why.

But just as you can distinguish between a person and an object, you should also be able to distinguish between a person and their persona. It should go without saying that when you hate an entity that you're only exposed to as a public persona, you are hating their persona in the same way that you hate an inanimate object, rather than the human being behind it. This is particularly apparent considering that we're all referring to him by his Youtube screen name and not his real name. That context is established for us, and anything negative said about Pewdiepie has more or less been made with that caveat.

Whether I am the intended target of his content or not, his presence has been felt, one way or another, simply because I've been exposed to him enough that I know about his schtick. I'm naturally going to have a reaction to that presence. I can choose to ignore it moving forward, and I do, but when the subject comes up, I'm going to acknowledge the factual reality that I had a negative reaction to what little I have experienced of him. That alone is enough reason to say that in the spectrum of preferences, I dislike what I know of his persona.

That's the simplest, cleanest, and most obvious explanation for it, and as far as I can tell, no further round-about psychological explanation is needed to explain that behavior. Could what you're saying POSSIBLY exist in someone? I suppose, but there's really no reason to think so. I'm not sure what the inconsistency or missing information is that should raise alarm bells.

It would be like saying "You saw this person being rude. The rudeness was not directed at you, you were not harmed by it, you can choose to ignore this person's existence, and you don't know anything else about the person. If you have a negative impression of him and start out disliking him the next time he's brought up in a conversation, simply by having that negative reaction, you are probably projecting some weird sort of insecurity about your own rudeness (or whatever implication you were making)."

I can't make sense of why someone would choose to see things that way.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Stevie ryan one of the earliest youtube stars has reportedly killed her self. There is lots of speculation that her quick rise and inability to maintain stardom was hard

This is not the first youtube star to go out early

 

[aleshemsky83]

Everybody gets that term wrong. This is why we have chrony capitalism and not true capitalism. Just because others exist does not mean they can compete and that is the point of a monopoly. These things may exist but the masses have never likely heard of them, they also don't have the resources or finances. Now sure they want to launch it into a TV network type of a deal so I guess it'd be a competitor to Netflix and hulu and stuff.

I mean Google is a monopoly. We used to have other search engines(we probably still do but I couldn't tell you one like when we had Ask Jeeves for example) but if they exist the masses don't know them and they can't financially compete.

The only big internet thing I'd probably agree on not having a monopoly is amazon. I don't use it and never used eBay. I assume eBay is still going and you have Craigslist. Though I assume you can get the most on amazon though you can get random **** on Craigslist.

Facebook is a monopoly. Twitter can't turn any profit and snapchat and instagram are just picture apps. Facebook you can do that and post without pictures beyond a certain character limit.

You are the king of being wrong sports enthusiast. Just because you don't use other services doesn't mean other people don't. Coca Cola could be the only beverage you ever drink, doesn't mean theres a carbonated beverage monopoly, you just don't drink anything else.

But you're clearly a youngster, I shouldn't be so confrontational. This is a family site.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Stevie ryan one of the earliest youtube stars has reportedly killed her self. There is lots of speculation that her quick rise and inability to maintain stardom was hard

This is not the first youtube star to go out early

Not saying that was necessarily the case, but I feel sorry for people whose self-worth is so heavily influenced by their fame.

 

[Devourers]

You are the king of being wrong sports enthusiast. Just because you don't use other services doesn't mean other people don't. Coca Cola could be the only beverage you ever drink, doesn't mean theres a carbonated beverage monopoly, you just don't drink anything else.

But you're clearly a youngster, I shouldn't be so confrontational. This is a family site.

Comparing Coca Cola with say Pepsi is not a fair comparison when comparing Youtube with say... Dailymotion.

Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong that his definition of a monopoly is incorrect, as there are definitely alternatives and it isn't like there's some ban on the internet from anyone creating a new alternative. However, youtube is for sure "dominating" the market to an extent as they have the greatest share of the video sharing space by a huge margin. Some might say monopolizing depending on the definition used, when you look it up it gives multiple one being exclusive control, the other being "the greatest share of", so one can understand in this instance why the poster you quoted may think that.

 

[Pilky01]

Stevie ryan one of the earliest youtube stars has reportedly killed her self. There is lots of speculation that her quick rise and inability to maintain stardom was hard

This is not the first youtube star to go out early

This was the top story on Twitter's (stupid) trending news section. I had 100% no idea who the person was.

And on the topic of YouTube stars, I watched Bo Burnham's 'Make Happy' over the weekend and was blown away. It is just incredible. And the fact that I can distinctly remember watching his original YouTube videos nearly ten years ago feels very surreal.

I loved his final advice to the audience; which is probably great advice for anybody fantasizing about YouTube stardom. If you can live your life without an audience, then you should do it. I loved how for that line the camera cut to a POV of Bo looking out at the crowd of people staring at him, waiting for their entertainment.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Not saying that was necessarily the case, but I feel sorry for people whose self-worth is so heavily influenced by their fame.

It may not even be stardom but inability to make a living on something that you dedicated all your time doing, all the while potentially passing off education opportunities and ending up with nothing to fall back on as a result.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

It may not even be stardom but inability to make a living on something that you dedicated all your time doing, all the while potentially passing off education opportunities and ending up with nothing to fall back on as a result.

There would always be education opportunities for someone in her position though, wouldn't there? She's 33 and presumably didn't have crippling debt or anything.

 

[John Price]

Youtube continues to enable stars like PewDiePie who went on another racial rant recently