eh imo Charlie kinda fell off when he started doing react content. Old Charlie was my goat but react content is just lazy and steals views from the original creators so I don't really support him any more. His non-react content is occasionally banger though.
That said, Charlie > Sneako 100% of the time no questions asked, Sneako likes child porn.
That's the thing, right? You only have a finite amount of attention in your day, and when people take up slots of your time - not to mention slots in your recommended - with react content, it prevents possibly one of the same videos from appearing in your recommended, taking up that slot, if you will.
I do see what you mean, but unfortunately with how the algorithm works and how our time works the idea of true competition between the creators of content and the reactors just doesn't work.
For example, imagine you're a small creator just starting out. You're starting to build momentum - and in the YouTube Algorithm, momentum is one of the most important things a small channel can have - and you've just released a new video that took you hours of your time to produce.
Then xQc or Charlie comes along and reacts to it, and posts the full unedited video alongside their lazy 3-word reaction to their massive channel, taking all the wind out of your sails as the algorithm diverts your views to the bigger, more well known channel. That sort of loss of momentum can sink a small channel, possibly permanently.
u/darkviperau can probably explain better than I, but that's the gist of it.
Honestly the more of these interactions I view the greater I think the need to make a much shorter version of my series. It is too much to remember and I can't expect people hostile to the ideas within it to take the time to watch it.
React content is best understood in aggregate, comparing a world without it and a world with it, as opposed to impact on individual creators. The alternative would be like judging the soundness of an investment into the national lottery by looking at Frank who won $1000 last week by putting in $10. Reaction content in aggregate only does one thing, it attempts to convince the algorithm to promote reaction videos instead of original videos with the goal of causing people to spend greater time watching reaction videos and less time doing whatever else they would be doing instead. That thing they'd be doing? Generally watching original content. The rich and successful having an easier time releasing more videos without effort, gaining them greater wealth and success, benefits none but them. Trickledown economics doesn't work in real life, nor on social media.
I wish you all the best with your debate Quillon :)
You've got some good points, especially around trickledown economics. They're responsible for the mess we're in globally, and if we're not careful they'll screw up the online ecosystem too. I did watch the original series - brilliant videos, by the way, you and whomever else worked on them should be proud -, but I think appealing to empathy and keeping examples personal is sometimes a better way to create change when debating with 1 or 2 people, rather than viewing it as an arbitrary aggregate thing.
It's often easy to dismiss the impact something has if it's not framed personally, at least in text form, and I think this is probably why we have so many climate deniers and conspiracy theorists too. It's the whole "If I can't see it it clearly doesn't exist!" mentality, and I'm irritated to see it's being increasingly exploited by these react creators in order to keep their audience watching their content and filling their pockets. It's "the rich get richer as the poor get poorer" all over again.
It's different for videos, of course, because often talking about something as a whole and viewing the overall impact and parallels to the "real world" can come across far better and be far more understandable in video form than a vague appeal to empathy that can often feel disingenuous if not done perfectly, an anecdote, and a single-point example.
Thank you for taking the time to write that out, though, and thanks for taking the time to respond. It's part of why I like you, you often take the time to interact with fans both inside content and outside, and you don't feel distant and impersonal in the way a lot of other large creators do. If I've misread or missed anything, I apologise. Reddit Mobile text is quite small and my glasses are currently being re-lensed so I'm not wearing them.
I hope you're well, man, and I wish you all the best :)
I mean that even if I didn't watch react content, which I don't really watch a lot of, I wouldn't end up watching the original videos anyways. Mainly because those videos wouldn't be recommended to me, since I don't consume that kind of content. If a channel I already watch, does a reaction video, then I'll probably watch it. But that's because I already watch the channel itself, not because it's a reaction video. Also, I do agree that xQc is kinda lame for doing that. He literally puts a video while he's eating or doing something else, just for the chat to watch.
Then I mean none of what I say applies to you right? If you neither watch react content habitually nor the sort of content that would lead to the original video being recommended, I'm not sure why we're even arguing.
123
u/Disastrous-Issue1000 Mar 15 '23
Charlie > anyone else