Datasets:

mpasila

/

DarkViperAU-Essays

like 0

The worst example when it came to Asmongold, was a guy made a very wonderful animation… and within 24 hours Asmongold had reacted to the entirety of the animation, put it on his YouTube channel without a single edit in it and his video, with the animation in it, got way more views than the original. I'm sure the other content benefited to some degree, but that is still exploitative. I'm not gonna go into it longer, but in my videos I talk about negative externalities and how this affects YouTube as a whole, how we're all negatively impacted by this kind of content. My videos were fairly extensive. Xander, you do not know anything about this topic. It boggles my mind though hearing this coming from a person on the left. A person concerned with exploitation of people in power, using people who are smaller to grow themselves. To massively enrich themselves off other people's labor and giving a small amount in return because that's what this is, that's what the content is.

Hope you enjoyed this video. Uh obviously I should have been streaming something more interesting than this… but I care about this stuff. But it's, as I said in my video, I realized that my opposition to this is not gonna matter. That people like Xander who wanna hand wave this away to give the powerful content creators more and more, they're always gonna outnumber me. You either join the reactors or you get crushed by them. 'cause you can't beat that level of return on time investment, 10 minutes for a video that should have taken you a 1,000 hours to make. You can't beat that as a normal content creator.

Xander, despite apparently caring about exploitation, doesn't care about this, and so it's gonna be the lay of the land. We aren't gonna see a resurgence against reactors like we did in 2016. In terms of issues in the world, this is very low down on the list. But it's still not a good thing, but it's probably here to stay.

Sources:

Email shown [https://imgur.com/a/qCzJUt3 Imgur]

LeafyIsHere v. Twitch Streamers (XQC, Hasan Piker, Destiny) [https://youtu.be/ILNRxwmaii0]

Xanderhal’s video on Turkey Tom [https://youtu.be/8HfPj3J_xfM?t=5546]

Turkey Tom YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@TurkeyTom]

Asmongold YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV A͏s͏m͏o͏n͏g͏o͏l͏d͏ T͏V͏]

Asmongold Twitch statistics [https://twitchtracker.com/asmongold/streams TwitchTracker]

DarkViperAU Twitch statistics [https://twitchtracker.com/darkviperau/streams TwitchTracker]

Asmongold Reacts to Dark Souls Remastered Speedrun - Any% in 32:54 IGT (World Record) by Elajjaz [https://youtu.be/gCGFiIFMbn8]

Four factors of fair use [https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors]

The True Harm of Reaction Content - Featuring MoistCr1tikal

'''Original video:''' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqWNmXYC76A The True Harm of Reaction Content - Featuring MoistCr1tikal]

DarkViperAU:

So MoistCr1TiKaL has made a response video to something… that people think is involved with me somehow. I don't know what he is responding to here. But I did write a 14 page script explaining why I don't like reactors and I think they're bad people. Whatever he's looking at here, isn't that because basically nothing of what he talks about in this video do I talk about in that script. That is a little bit of an exaggeration. But I'm somewhat at a disadvantage now. Because Charlie has made a response video to an <u>unreleased</u> YouTube video, my best response would be to just make the video. 'cause anyone who watched it would understand all the things that Charlie didn't understand when he might… have read the script…? I'm not a hundred percent sure. But I don't have time for that. It's a 14 page document. And I'm being defamed by this man.

MoistCr1TiKaL knows that his video is gonna reach far more people than will ever actually read that document. So he has free reign or misrepresent what's in it to 99.99999% of people. He didn't even have the courtesy to link the documents so people could fact check him. He could legitimately just say, “Well, DarkViper’s out here saying that I fucked the Loch Ness monster. I didn't fuck the Loch Ness monster!” people are like, “Wow, this DarkViper claiming that MoistCr1TiKaL fucked, the Loch Ness monster, shameful!”.

He also knows that my video refuting him will also reach one fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who watch his video. This is the power that large content creators have to shape a narrative regardless of how false.

Charlie (MoistCr1TiKaL):

And it really heats up. This gets wild and wacky for the touchdown real quick. There's a whole section in here where he basically compares reactors to sexual abuse criminals and insinuates that they'd be likely to spike your drink at a party. Take silence for consent. Basically is comparing react content creators to rapists.

DarkViperAU:

This is on page eight of 14 and is an offhand remark in brackets. This is Charlie's attempt to poison the well. “Hey guys, I'm gonna take this thing entirely outta context to present it as something that it clearly is not. In order to poison you against a 14 page meticulously written document.”, what the hell, Charlie? I didn't have the highest opinion of you, but what the hell is this? He is so keen to poison you against this 14 page meticulously argued document that he goes to the length of finding tweets out of context. He doesn't show the context, and it's just like, here's what the document's about. It's 14 pages!

Reactors will frequently say they have the right to steal as much of a person's labor as they like, until that person says no. If you work 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 weeks, 10 years, it doesn't matter, they have a right to your content. It is only after you find out that your opinion is apparently meant to matter. This is of course analogous to any situation where you ignore consent for your own gain. I did not at any point say reactors are rapists. I said It is analogous to situations where you would ignore consent for your own gain. The idea that it's okay to ask for consent after the fact is obviously a very stupid idea. Hopefully this is one that reactors will constantly say. As for taking silence for consent, that is literally what reactors do. A person has not given you consent to re-upload their content, and you say, “Well, they haven't said no yet, so I must have consent.”.

To again clarify If you read them in context, they're clearly analogies that are used to explain two things to make something more clear. That being the idea of asking for consent after you perform the action is obviously absurd.

Charlie:

In his own document, he admits that he himself was a reactor. He is engaged in a lot of react content himself. So at one point were you a rapist DarkViper?

DarkViperAU:

I of course did not call myself reactor. In fact, I defined reactor very specifically in the first paragraph, which of course, Cr1TiKaL does not show. Because it would undercut this point massively. We'll see that later on.

I was talking about a very specific form of content of which I've never made. I also quite obviously didn't refer to reactors as rapists. The common theme in this video is Charlie gonna be like, “I'm not gonna show you where he said this, but I swear he said it.”, it and I'm gonna be like, “I didn't say that.”. And that's all the defense I can give myself 'cause it's not in the script. This is generally speaking, why you let a person make a video first Charlie, rather than handpicking parts from a script to be dishonest.

Charlie:

Of course, you don't do that anymore and you deleted all the videos, but at one point you did engage in the exact same content that you're coming out so heavily against right now.

DarkViperAU:

In the document, I expressly outline an intricate detail why that is not the case, but even if that was true, All it would do is make me a hypocrite, it wouldn't make anything I say untrue. It does not even for a moment actually attack my arguments that I put forth in the document. It is ‘whataboutism’. Charlie has done everything to avoid the actual content of what I talked about. This is an addendum on page 14 he's talking about first.

Charlie:

It's an outrageous claim, obviously, however, he does make legitimate points in the document. It's overshadowed by this unhinged rant that he goes on.

DarkViperAU:

Keep in mind he's talking about a bracketed sentence on page eight of a text document and calling it an ‘unhinged rant’. Even if you don't like me, can you grant that he's not being fair?

Charlie:

He made a video correcting something I talked about, which was how much money YouTubers make from short content.

DarkViperAU:

Not only did I correct MoistCr1TiKaL, but Ludwig also made a video correcting him. And what was really annoying is MoistCr1TiKaL left that video up. His entire video, that I corrected, is wrong. As Moist will now admit, But he left it up anyway. 1.3 million people did MoistCr1TiKaL give false information to. And he did not give two fucks, did not take the video down, did not submit a attraction, did not give people actual information. No. He, in the original case, made a 10 minute video rambling about stuff that is completely untrue. When shown that it's untrue, didn't give a fuck.

Charlie:

Obviously I do react content from time to time. 100%, I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not trying to bury it in the past and hide it, pretend like I didn't, or try and justify it because I'm not embarrassed of it.

DarkViperAU:

There's not something to brag about. It is something you should be ashamed of. You have a staggering amount of money, which you could use to pay people to make content for you, but instead you just take it for free from people you don't even ask.

Charlie:

When I react to something, I'm constantly trying to either pause it and add something to it or interject comedy into it. I treat react content like Mystery Science Theater.

DarkViperAU:

That is hilarious 'cause Mystery Science Theater actually asked for consent for every single movie that they used, and what they watched was like <u>40 years</u> old. You are watching videos as they're fresh off the presses without asking for consent. You are the furthest thing from Mystery Science Theater that could possibly exist. Mystery Science Theater had like edited sketches and stuff in their content. What is he talking about? And they at least had some idea what the content was beforehand, so they knew whether or not they could make good content out of it.

Charlie:

Now, of course not every time is going to be a hit, which is why you'll find plenty of videos where I'm reacting to something like ‘''The Downfall of Quibi''’, which comes from a great channel that I really like to watch, and I just got too engrossed in their storytelling and the way they presented it, that I didn't add anything to it. So I ended up just kind of watching it with my community.

DarkViperAU:

So not only do I really heavily attack that idea that anyone can transform a six month work by pausing it every once in a while and going, “Ha. I think that's funny.”. Here's an idea for your revolutionary concept. How do you watch the video first and then once you've watched the video, you say, “Hey, I actually have nothing of interest to add here, I'm not gonna make a video out of it.”. Or you might say, “Hey, I have something interesting to add. I'm gonna take that individual part in the middle where I have something to add and make my own video about it.”.

The script from my video is 14 pages long. It goes into intricate detail why what Moist is saying is fucking nonsense. If he sincerely believed he had something of value to add to a video, he'd watch it and then make it into a video, putting in the effort rather than watching it and rolling the dice. “Guys, sometimes I do things that are good and therefore all the times why I don't do something good it's perfectly fine.”. This logic doesn't track.

Charlie:

And yeah, I always feel guilty when something like that happens, but that's never the goal.

DarkViperAU:

I question a person's ability to feel guilt after doing something thousands of times and never changing their behavior.

Charlie:

DarkViper's entire document here is about this belief that every reactor is doing it for financial gain and to fuck small channels. And the logic he uses to make these points is deeply flawed and isn't substantiated by any real evidence. It just feels like he pulls it out of his ass and it's “Source: Trust me bro.”.

DarkViperAU:

Guys, I want you to think for a moment, what are the odds that a person writes a 14 page document that can be summarized that simply, Moist is literally misrepresenting all of my work and then saying, “Look guys, just trust me that's what it says.”. What a hypocrite.

Charlie:

Is he has an understanding of capitalism in the free market, and that's what he's using to base all of these claims on, even though it's not directly applicable to YouTube itself.

DarkViperAU:

So I write a script where I make points to substantiate that point, and Moist says, “So, he says this thing, and no,”. What a witty even taught just not showing people what I said or how I can justify that comparison and just saying ‘no’, wow!

Charlie:

I wonder how many small channels are out there shaking their fist right now like, “Damn, you Pokimane! My channel died because you watched my video on your stream and said nice things about me. I had such a promising career as a YouTuber until you said nice things about my video on stream to your audience of 30,000 concurrent viewers, now I'm fucking trashed. I'm ruined!”. And to be fair, that's not the exact point he's making.

DarkViperAU:

You spent the entire first quarter of your video misrepresenting what I said and poisoning the well. Then you specifically say something you know is not true and say, “Well, to be fair”. No! You are not being fair. You are actively misrepresenting the content of the script, 'cause you know you can, 'cause there isn't a video yet. You know that people won't actually read it. If that wasn't the point I was making Most, why did you say it?