Massive Win For Gamers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- by @UpperEchelon • Kotaku Just Died. Sort...
► Asmongold's Twitch: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Twitter: / asmongold
► Asmongold's 2nd YT Channel: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Sub-Reddit: / asmongold
Channel Editors: CatDany & Daily Dose of Asmongold
If you own the copyright of content showed in this video and would like it to be removed:
/ catdanyru
People keep confusing "Free Speech" with "Getting Paid to Speak". Those writers can still say whatever they want, they just dont get to continue making a living spewing vitriol and hate.
Same goes for manipulative streamers.
@@frequencyoftruth2303 very correct. People act like free speech is under attack when people get mad at what they say, and miss the fact that their ability to say it is their free speech, but free speech is not equivalent to speech without consequence. And those consequences sway and change with culture.
Can you show me example of Kotaku writers spewing hate ?
@@ni9274 Holy crap read their articles.
@@ni9274Kotaku plant spottet
It's not just about Kotaku's terrible one takes and their politics.
It's the slander, the lecturing, the holier than thou, condescending, hypocritical bullshit that so many people are tired of from them.
Remember when Elon Musk suggested taking away the block button on X? Asmon was one of the free speech advocates who said blocking people was necessary.
@@arkoisagoodboyyour point?
@@arkoisagoodboy waiting for point.
@@arkoisagoodboy Blocking individuals is necessary for things like spam or actual harassment, NOT for political opinions. Blocking a single person doesn't actually hurt someone's overall free speech, it just means that SINGLE person doesn't want to hear what you're saying.
Cancellation of the cancel culture is not something i expected in 2024
Thank God if I had to listen to people ragging non-stop about race, sexuality & gender while they look down at us through their nose for another year, I would have lost the plot.
Bro i swear nature is healing. People hate both presidential candidates, cancelling cancel culture. 2024 is kinda looking up
how much of it can be attributed to X and rumble?
Joe Biden truly healed us
It's been an Ouroboros from the beginning.
Bloody hell nobody is taking away Kotaku's ability to voice their opinion, people are no longer paying them to voice their opinion! If they want to fund their own activities and continue to write the crap they do, they have all the freedom in the world to do so.
Would you still do your job, if your boss would tell you, you are a volunteer as of tomorrow? Or would you feel like you are wasting your time now, paying the salary of your boss, with your work, and the only thing you'll earn is praise and rising regret?
@@douwe4254they GAMING journals they are paid to write GAMING articles not whatever Twitter drama or slander they want to make this today
@@douwe4254if your job is to write rage bait then no one has to pay you for it
@@douwe4254 What you typed makes no sense as a response to my comment. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
@@douwe4254ofc not, because I'm free to leave and work somewhere else
The "boss" is nothing but someone that pays me for my work. If the work changes and I don't fit, I change the workplace
Or wait, you're that little baby that thinks you own the McDonalds because you cleaned the toilets?
Kotaku is 95% "This player did (x) and (y) are (some emotion)" and the article is just a reddit post with a short description followed by the next two reddit comments.
😭😂😂😂
I feel like most media I get recommended by my phone is like this. Also, in the gaming medium it's often "(x) meets (y) in this new game!". I'm tired of this
Or what about "The writers are changing (x), and that's a good thing!"
"The live action adaptation is changing things about (x). And that's a good thing!"
"(Movie title) will change the canon of (x), and why that's good."
Absolute Based 💀
AI can write better articles.
What was it Kotaku said? “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence”. IMO Advertisers saying “I dont want to be associated with your brand” is alot more fair than “you said the gamer word 13 years ago so you shouldnt be allowed to feed your family ever”. They can continue to say whatever they want but they do not have a right to advertiser dollars to do so.
it's funny, it's not even about advertiser dollars, it's about audience dollars. advertisers pulled out of twitter when elon took over, even tho twitter never really showed any signs of dying, bc of his policy on censorship/moderation. but this time, it's not the advertisers that have a say, it's the audience that does. no advertiser will waste money on a site that gets no clicks
Exactly. If I were advertising a new JRPG would I rather have the ad show on a JRPG game guide, or a hit piece of the demographics of the gaming community? It's pretty obvious. Kotaku isn't entitled to be funded regardless of the content they produce.
The gamer word? Like "Noob"
freedom of speech does mean freedom of consequences, but from the government. Its a psyops to keep repeating this garbage phrase because now people defend hate speech laws without understanding it IS about the government not being able to punish people for speech even if its hatefull or could produce hate, the government should always take care of real crimes committed because of that speech, not the speech itself.
@@FluffySylveonBoi Maybe it's Tiananmen Square 1989. XP
Nature is healing. How such a lazy site survived for so long astounds me.
Notice that a lot of these companies have been going under after SVB went bankrupt. Perhaps they were getting preferential loans from it. Also they must've gotten funding from other places and those places refuse to give them more now.
Either way the people who have the money are backing out of DEI nonsense as a whole. It's proven to not be profitable at all and in the end, that's all that matters for them.
random giraffe family walking past
Buzzfeed got by on the same lazy readers for a while. Old content propped up the new. Eventually the old couldn't support the site enough and the collapse begins.
it's called quantitative easing. they lived on cheap loans from whales who wanted to push their bad narratives. as we've entered a brief period of tightening, the tide has gone out, and the whales have to either pull out or they'll find themselves beached with these unprofitable companies.
@@cagthetismyeah this could be it. There could also be rich backers that wanted to keep the sites alive. If so they mustve learned the hard way you need a return on an investment.
and so the cancel wars have begun, cancelled the cancellers must be
Gamergate is still gonna happen, the only way to make a real impact is with your money...
It is human to destroy your enemies.
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!@@InternetHydra
@Miguel211216 Gamergate 1 Never ended, they just went clandestine
This is different from someone cancelling because of ideology and someone cancelling because it’s no longer profitable
Advertisers aren't pulling out of Kotaku as a means to infringe on their free speech. The fact of the matter is that Kotaku has been speaking freely, nobody likes what they're saying, and so they make no money
Exactly. Advertisers are free to put their money wherever they want, they don't want to put it with Kotaku, and that's not infringing on their speech in any way.
So true. It's like any form of sponsorship they need some sort of return out of it regardless of what they are sponsoring
It's like firing employees who make bad, unprofitable products are considered illegal these days. Wild.
"Even if they are actively destroying your company's profitability and public image, you CAN'T fire them."
nah, I'd fire them.
Then you'd legally have to give them severance pay. But, if you make their job so impossible that they quit without letting people prove you're doing that, no severance pay
@@devinward461 it's funny (kinda) because that's actually standard procedure in Japanese companies.
But seriously, paying that severance is worth it to get rid of cockroaches and restart your company in a speedy fashion. Instead of playing a tug of war, waiting for them to resign while still receiving wage anyway.
It's the labor theory of value in action. These people think they should be paid to do whatever they want to do, that the stuff they create has real market value for no other reason than the fact that they spent time making it. They're just communists, dude.
That's not entirely true. Depends on the state. Some states are "at will" meaning you can be fired for any reason. Usually, without cause, they just get to collect unemployment which companies have insurance for
@@st.lucient4755 Your comments are wild because people who have a different opinion are cockroaches now? Who defines bad or unprofitable in terms of firing people? It's not so black and white. RUclips for many years in it's early days was "unprofitable" and many company don't always turn a profitable. How about the many games we pay that break even or don't raise huge profits. Live services would be every game if that was the case. Kotaku comes or goes doesn't make a huge deal to me as it happens, but I wouldn't be so brazen to take glee from people losing their jobs over opinions or CEOs trying to make more money.
Kotaku has been a joke for years, you cannot keep biting the hand that feeds you and expect to be feed forever. Please tell me Wired is next to learn this.
Now look at how the gov prints money. The crash will be the same.
"Years" is putting it lightly. They haven't published a single decent article since roughly 2008.
Kotaku has survived far longer than it deserves to.
They had Jason schreier. After he left they did nothing of value anymore.
Polygon as well
And nothing of value was lost
404 error originality not found
This is not an unfair thing, Kotoku was supposed to a gaming news site along with having walkthroughs. They're losing their jobs because they weren't doing the job. No tears shed for them.
Well to be fair, I'm sure a lot of them can make a really good argument that they were doing exactly what Kotaku told them to, and now they are getting punished because their boss made a bad decision.
@@janitorizampedthe whole "I was just following orders" excuse lost its charm a long time ago. These people knew exactly what they were doing and why, if they had a problem with it they could have quit and found employment elsewhere. No shortage of trash journo sites out there.
@elephantality3753they don’t want people who can’t actually play games but instead use kotaku as a platform to push their own opinion in the company. The 50 guides a week seems like a fair test to root out the rot.
@@janitorizamped ok, let's go with that. What are you proposing other than the "punishment" of them losing their jobs after making such a bad product the company failed? Who are they making this "argument" to? And whoever it is, do they get some magical "guard at new concentration camp" job just because they were following orders?
@@miff227 they should get fired, but they should be eligible for unemployment benefits. The way it's being structured, they are going to lose their jobs and many of them will not be eligible for unemployment.
Kotaku is getting what it deserves... Those people would never hesitate to campaign to deplatform, cancel, get you fired if they can, or worse. The way they operated as "journalists" was despicable and they won't be missed.
They hated gamers and anyone that pushed back against their "message" or "agenda". And I 100% believe it is a tactic to make them quit or not meet standards so they can be fired, that's just smart business.
This isn't Kotaku losing their free speech, this is advertisers using their freedom of association lol
Being able to say what you want is a right, but being able to get paid and make a living saying what you want is a privilege. Simply put what they are saying isn't bringing in the money so they don't have the luxury to make a living saying it.
Freedom of Speech does not mean you are entitled to others' money. Advertisers cannot be forced to pay Kotaku so they can write articles. They can still produce these articles for free if they want. Nobody is paying me to write my opinion. They are not being censored, they simply fall down to our peasantry level of having to write it for free.
Advertisers are realising that they don't actually make money on Kotaku, and it is perfectly normal for them to end their business deal. It is now an even playing field between Kotaku and every other independent youtuber who does games journalism.
Bingo! I have absolutely no idea why this concept is so hard for so many people to understand
But kotaku isnt losing advertisers, infact, fun shit, i went to the website, and the same advertisers there a month ago, are still there now. So which advertisers did they lose? The video sure doesnt seem to back up what it claims. I get it, some people have a bias against kotaku. They could wait for nothing more than kotaku dying out, because they want to live in their anti-media shell rather then expect that people might not just agree with them. They do not wish to be told that people do disagree with them. Hey, atleast asmon here says he supports freedom of speech for kotaku despite disagreeing with them, but most people who disagree with them wants kotaku to die, including the original video creator.
tbf Kotaku and the ads are probably still in the middle of a signed agreement, no more future business will be conducted after the current deal ends. And immediately upon the end date hitting, all ads must be removed.@@hajkie
@@kamewoniI guess we'll see if that opinion holds true. That said, 4 years ago, we heard the same thing, advertisers is blacklisting kotaku. Nothing came out of it.
@@hajkieyk how buiness deals work? If advertisers are ending contracts now they'll still show their ads until the end of the current contract.
Freedom of speech is one thing, those journalists still have the right to say whatever they want in opinion pieces on their own personal website/blog/social media site etc... just not as a kotaku employee.
The problem is attacking your customers on a regular basis is bad for business and Kotaku IS a business after all.
Example of Kotaku attacking their customers ?
@@ni9274 most kotaku articles
@@ni9274 You know there are hundreds of examples out there proving Kotaku is trash. Stop being a disingenuous shill.
@@Hax268 If using google is too hard for you, you shouldn't be left alone with a box of crayons for the fear of you eating them.
@@Hax268 Are you saying you cant find any?
2:09 "I don't like the Idea that we should sit here and celebrate that they are losing advertising revenue"
22:35 "I'm sorry guys but i'm the kind of person who celebrates whenever bad happens to people that I don't like"
I fucking love this man's hypocrisy and that fact that he doesn't give a single fuck about it.
Never change King.
They can say whatever they want, but advertisers don't need to work with them if they don't like what's being said.
Exactly that's how capitalism works
While I understand and appreciate the point about Kotaku writers having freedom of speech, advertisers also have the freedom to choose where to advertise and who to associate their clients/products with. It's a two-way street, and when there's a disagreement between the two parties, neither one has to play ball if they don't want to
According to Asmon they’re required to waste their advertising budget on a failing site because the writers have “freedom of speech”
On top of that, Kotaku is not self owned. It would be one thing if it was their own website and thier own money going into everything, but they do not own it G/O does.
1:30 respectfully disagree. While freedom of the *press* (this isn't speech, it's press, let's be clear) is important to respect, advertisers are paying for a service. The website is expected to provide eyeballs (and the further expectation of sales conversions). It doesn't make business sense to do a sponsorship if that sponsorship doesn't provide the company value in some form. I can't imagine a company that would advertise with Kotaku without knowing what Kotaku really is and supporting that. If Kotaku isn't providing a valuable service for it's advertisers, the relationship becomes parasitic, and the advertiser is not obligated to play host.
Freedom of press is still freedom of speech. They're covered by the same rules. Furthermore, its not the first time people say kotaku is dead because advertisers pulled out, in 2007 and 4 years ago, the same thing happened, you can still find right wing articles whining about this on google. Yet, here, they are.
@@hajkieThey've been a walking corpse for years now, sustained by rage bait and general nothing articles that help pay the light bills. Then shifting entirely to no longer allowing the usual opinion pieces they put out as "news" is in fact a death nail in the coffin. I believe another website also took this approach that I genuinely can't remember the name of but it's either dead or barely existent in the space. The same fate awaits Kotaku as I'm positive many writers will either leave within the year or the site will quietly fade into obscurity. Everything that Kotaku wanted to be and tried to be is essentially dead. Not really sure how this is a hard concept to grasp
@@Soulferno Sure, youre welcome to that opinion, but it is just an opinion, i posted this elsewhere but their last article was posted like a hour ago. Same advertisers i saw a month ago was there today.
Speech is to Press as Slander is to Libel. in the same way the later is a distinction of defamation, the former is a distinction of expression.
Speech covers ephemeral expression, and press covers the right of mass production and publication of ideas.
I don't make the distinction to be pedantic; the confusion has led some media outlets to behave as if they have some higher right to the 'freedom of the press' than others. @@hajkie
@@RyeNorth I mean take the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
We dont call that speech, we call that freedom of expression, straight out, as simple as that.
As for "higher right to the freedom of speech", no, thats not it. They dont act as press is higher, they act as entertainment to circumvent news laws in other countries. I.e news neutral laws, or hate speech laws, or debate clause laws etc.
As far as kotaku goes, does this even matter? They havent been sued for slander or libel. They're still within their rights.
I'm surprised Kotaku outlasted VICE
LMFAO y'know this is the best thing I've read this year so far the most true statement
As lame as vice is, they still try to post actual news about real life events. No matter how shitty they are at it.
I have no beef with VICE honestly some of their documentaries are top notch and i enjoyed or engaged with their content much more than most news media. That being said my experience was from foreign perspective as i didnt really watch their news regarding USA politics
@@janisarbidans8931 their very early docs were great, but they went down hill real fast a long time ago
Vice is in terrible shape, but they at least have in the past created some content of value. That, unfortunately, actually has operating expenses unlike paying some failures to not play games and look down at gamers
Sorry Asmon but I gotta disagree slightly here. The market has spoken and advertisers decided to pull out. Voting with your wallet is an effective form of free speech as anything else. Kotaku is about gaming and strictly gaming. That’s why the advertisers invested in them in the first place. When it becomes about anything BUT GAMING, then in capitalistic common sense fashion, the money will dry up. Kotaku can talk about whatever they want but don’t expect your original audience and your advertisers to stick around. Free Speech works BOTH ways
I am starting to feel like Asmond has been hit with a stupid stick lately. Like how in the fuck can he think advertisers are in some way obligated to continue to fund a company they no longer see as a good place for advertising? What even is the logic? It’s not unfair it’s a company deciding to exit a business partnership and they have every right to do so.
It's called riding the fence.
@@thekraken4886 no it’s legit stupidity. He isn’t riding the fence he has a stance and it’s a dumb one the contradicts with many of his other viewpoints.
@@nathanhargenrader645 fair enough
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to be paid for it. Kotaku’s staff can still post what ever they want they just can’t waste other people’s money anymore to do it.
Everybody is entitled of their opinion, they are just not entitled to be paid for it.
“Not something to celebrate.”
Me: 🕺🕺🕺🪩🪩🎉🎉🎉🥳👏🎊🍾🍻
I think it's just him doing CMA (Covering My Ass) policy
@@anggasatya69Yeah. Pandering. Asmon has done a lot of that.
*plays dancing crabs song 🎵 🦀🥳*
We smoking that kotaku pack. RIP Bozzo🚬🚬
@@yyyahwehhh no, it makes him uncancelable. It gives him power that's what
Advertisers are absolutely right here
1) They pay a popular gaming magazine to show their adverts
2) The gaming magazine goes woke and becomes a joke
3) They don’t get the results they want so they pull their adverts
I’m sure those advertisers are also present in Political magazines, but if Reuters went high on their own fart like Kotaku and started making half assed articles about Alpaca breeding, they’d lose them
I have a company with an audience, I advertise on magazines FOR THAT AUDIENCE
If the audience is ALIENATED by said magazine, then it’s on them 100%
This is precisely like advertisers leaving Twitter as it becomes more and more of a sesspool of idiocy. Hopefully there's some crossover where people realize this isn't censorship no matter which political side you lean towards.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences for saying dumb shit.
Asmon: “if youre happy about something unfair happening to someone you dislike, it’s only a matter of time before it happens to you”
The thing is, this has been already happening to normal people who disagreed with them for years. Let the monster they fed devour them, then we think about course correction.
Its not even "unfair." Put out a shitty product that no one likes and the market will respond accordingly.
I cant imagine how many people got cancelled by Kotaku and other outlets these past few years. Yeah, no tears shed for Kotaku!
I am satisfied that justice is served
Its more unfair that if they've been saying bs and gotten away with it for years imo
Advertisers pulling their support isn't unfair - it's the free market.
Sure, but do we really want the market of the Internet to essentially be a giant advertisement with large marketing firms dictating content?
@@Thezuule1Bro, it already is. And its not necessarily bad thing, because advertisers tend to go wherever the money is, which boils down to giving people what they want.
@@christianalanwilson434 I would much prefer a different system. Being constantly bombarded by advertisements on every single digital platform is awful but not nearly as awful as the realization that these firms can destroy companies by simply cutting off the flow of money on a whim. This isn't a "vote with your wallet" situation, it's a corporate stranglehold on the modern Internet.
@@Thezuule1 if companies are following their fiduciary duties, another issue altogether, the ads and money go to content that is popular which is basically democracy
@@Thezuule1is this a troll? it already is
Kotaku is a perfect example of everything wrong with game journalism. It won't be missed.
Small victory on a loosing battle, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoey Quin getting sued with jail time is what a win is.
1:30 no asmond - advertisers don't participate in your right to free speech, if someone says something which the brand doesn't want to be associated with - it is the commonsense thing for them to stop advertising with that entity.
as an aside, it's also clear people are writing these articles in bad faith from time to time - they don't believe it, they know it will cause controversy and get clicks. it isn't someone exercising their rights.
Kotaku isn't having their freedom of speech removed, they've always had it. Advertisers on the other hand also have the freedom to choose who they pay to run their ads. The fact remains that if you want to get paid ad revenue, you are beholden to the advertisers and what type of speech they are willing to get behind.
Also, is the complaint that each employee to write 50 articles *each* or the company as a whole. I didn't spend hours researching this but from the few articles I've read they reference the whole group of employees. So if they had 10 employees, it's five articles a week. Upper echelon made a guide video in less than an hour by his own admission. I further this by adding, and I could be wrong, but I swear at his peak of guide making he was pumping out what seemed to be 5 videos a week or damn near close to it. If Kotaku has more than 10 writers it becomes orders of magnitude easier.
Solid video as always.
The advertisers are a private company they can do what they want.
If Kotaku doesn't like it they can make their own ad agency
Dude, you can't say you advocate for their freedom speech when they are intentionally spreading mis-information as truth to get the results they want. That isn't free speech or opinions, that's using false information and trying to shape the truth as they see fit, making people believe it for money. Reporters have a moral issue nowadays where the actual truth means nothing in the face of money or ideals that don't actually exist. People look to reporters to try and find out the truth of things, they trust that these people know better than they do, and those that intentionally mis-use that trust are simply scum.
Example of Kotaku spreading mis-information ?
@@ni9274 Kotaku plant spottet
@ni9274 I really shouldn't feed the troll, but what the hell. There are far too many to list, but the Dragon's Crown situation is a great example from back in the day. They actively tried to smear the game and developer with one of the flimsiest accussations I've ever seen.
But it is free speech. They can say whatever they want, misinformation or not.
@@nloadergd9193 There "freespeech" had nothing to do with there job. so they got fired for not doing there job.
Kotaku…the grift finally ends. Good riddance…I’d lie if this didn’t feel like schadenfreude on steroids. I may go outside today! 😝
"Tis a sweet and seemingly thing, to watch from the shore the struggle of another."
Kotaku is a slandermachine trying to destroy people with their batshit astroturf. I dont feel sorry for them, what goes around comes around
Kotaku was one of the last two remaining gaming journo's involved in the original Gamer Gate.
Now all that's left is Polygon.
Advertisers have the freedom to pull out whenever the want. That's not censorship. Kotaku controls what they put out.
So are you applying the same logic to almost every major platform, including RUclips, who have been continuously censoring more and more topics because of those very same advertisers? You can't even talk about something simple like a certain type of flu without getting demonetized (or as a commenter, shadowbanned). Of course it's censorship. Same thing that payment processors have been doing for years, that's also censorship.
Arent they losing money from advertisers because of their bullshit they post that people are sick of? if they were doing good things people want, they should be successful
It's mostly because no one actively looks for these types of posts. So they lose out on SEO traffic and revenue because of that. Their image going down in the shitter is just the bowtie on top.
Kotaku has freedom of speech. But advertisers also have freedom to choose where they spend money.
Yeah. It's called freedom of association.
Important to remember that it's 50 guides per TEAM not per writer
That's what I also thought. It would totally change many of the points in the video, because 50 for multiple people is a lot more reasonable and doable.
I'm certain at least one of the Kotaku writers has either said or at least thought "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" in relation to cancel culture for persons they disagree with. So, these witers are not being censored, this is simple the consequence of not producing a financially viable product.
Couple things:
1) First, the advertisers _also_ have freedom of speech. They are under no obligation, and no one has the moral authority to force them to continue to do business with Kotaku. Freedom goes both ways.
2) Second, it isn't a matter of "wait until it happens to you." This is _their_ turn to see their own actions come back to them. Kotaku was (among others) proud participants in "cancel culture". They have repeatedly gone after advertisers, employers, and other corporate infrastructure to get people they don't like fired. Anyone remember Parler? They shut down because people went after Amazon Web Hosting to get them cut off. Now it's looped back around to Kotaku shutting down.
always remember Kotaku has a lit murderer as a writer and likes to push people to suicide. SBI is the same built on the life insurance on the founders dead brother that she helped kill for Zoe quinn.
They did it to themselves, im not gonna cry for those who insulted and lied about "us"
When did they insult and lie about gamers ?
@@ni9274 Kotaku plant spottet
@@ni9274im talking about kotaku, and if gotta answer that, you dont know kotaku or GG 1.0
@@ni9274You literally spam the whole comment section LMAO
@@ConstantineFtwyeah and at one point they claim to have never read an article. I think this is what the kids call 'sus'
RIPBOZO Kotaku
Are you seriously saying companies should have to give money to a company saying things they don't support? If companies don't support what you represent, they shouldn't be forced to give you money. If their views and opinions are good, they will get companies that support their views. It's good that the companies giving them money were told the truth about what they represent. If their views and opinions are bad, they don't deserve money.
2:10 "I don't like the idea that we should sit here and celebrate they loose money"
20:00 "They would very quickly fire you from your job and be happy, never have sympathy to someone who don't have sympathy for you, f them"
Pick one.
If you have a blog say whatever. You work for a company. Not a soapbox.
Asking people to pity the Kotaku journalists who are or have lost their jobs is akin to asking people to pity the dying cancer cells of a cancer survivor. Sure, there is a difference between humans and cancer cells, but the humans we are currently discussing are people who have dedicated their lives to ruining the lives of others for their own amusement. At least with cancer cells, they do not actively choose to ruin lives, nor do they do it for amusement.
Can you give me an example of Kotaku ruining the lives of others ?
@@ni9274 Did Asmon not list enough for you? Per chance, you might watch his video again as he does an adequate enough job listing a few of their attempted victims, himself included.
@@HarbingerOfRespite he's been given countless examples yet ignores them. so he just copy paste this question like some kinda gotcha
@@ni9274 kotaku bot. Reoported
@@ni9274 Shouldn't you be applying for a different job? At this rate, you'll never get those 50 guides out.
Kotaku just sucks in every way possible.
It's not unfair though. Advertisers don't have time for politics. If you actively alienate half the audience why would they want to run ads?
Dont think Kotaku employees can make any guide. its too much work for them.
A group of people goes around trying to get people cancelled , they get cancelled, and Asmon’s take is we shouldn’t cancel the cancellers because we too might get cancelled someday? It is a W when professional doxxers are deplatformed.
Seems to me more like a moral center of not actively seeking the downfall of others because that makes you just as petty as them. But if it happens, it happens, and its okay to smile a little.
@@christianalanwilson434 Which is what I believed for most of my life. But you shouldn't provide a shield for your enemy to strike you from behind. Now that I've grown, all of my morals require reciprocation. You should not give advantage to people who only want to see you lose your job or your right to speak freely.
@Hyrule409 very fair position. In ancient times before all the safety nets we have, people got 1 chance to prove themselves decent and to follow the rules. If they failed, they were out, and were extremely lucky if they begged their way back in. The group cannot survive by giving shelter to those who actively work against the interests of everyone else. Give shelter to the weak, give help to grow to the lazy, but never give anything to the traitor but a quick toss out the door once they reveal themselves.
@@christianalanwilson434this is like saying "we have a mass shooter in the mall but we shouldn't take him down cause that would make us as petty as him", and the mass shooter has the support of the entire military and secret service
@@LarryHazardFr they literally attach themselves to these games like leeches and hold gaming companies' PR for ransom
I disagree with Asmon.
I think free speech is great and should be supported, but not for those that advocate against it.
This is typical "pulling the ladder up behind you" behavior that is extremely toxic and destructive and in this case fully against what "free speech" is meant to be.
Just fyi, the right to free speech just ensures the government can't stop you from voicing your dissatisfaction with them. I won't be jailed or executed for telling Ted Cruz to suck it, as I would for saying the same in China. But free speech has nothing to do with what's going on at Kotaku.
They can say what they want, but seems like the consequences of their actions have now finally caught up with them!
Live by the cancel die by the cancel is my personal take away with kotaku like companies
You can’t talk about how terrible gamers are and how they should be censored and how gamers shouldn’t be anyone’s audience then expect them to support your brand
Especially when you build your brand supposably as a gaming journalist website a term I use as loosely as inflatable tube man
You don't understand the concept of free speech.
@@tylerulfmann4586 Can you show me where Kotaku said gamers should be censored and how gamers shouldn't be anyone's audience ?
Kotaku was dead to me the minute they said something evil about the Japanese, because they didn’t get a review copy of Super Mario Wonder
This was so petty and hilarious. I did like kotaku when they were epic nerds (ages and ages ago). But for years now, I don’t like’’em at all.
They activly started harassing people well over 9 years ago and wrote complete garbage aswell as leaking while under NDA (Fallout 4 having voice acting, leaking the announcement of Assasins Creed Syndicate (while under the working name Victory). I remember that Kotaku journo who went to a luxury after party with game devs and he only wrote stuff like how he wanted to leave and how bad the drinks were. Nathan gray-something wrote some garbage about "ubisoft refuses to talk about women in games with me" and back in 2013 he wrote "Blizzard and the Heroes of the storm and female designs in MOBAS" while whe worked for rock paper shotgun is a really shiny example of classic games journo writing and the backlash afterwards.
Stephen Totilo was a real snake, said over and over that his journos never wrote anything without sources, but the quality and shadyness of the sources was "ooh we have to keep the sources anonymous and we can't even say we know the sources". Witholding and non-disclosure of sources galore during the 2 hour interview with TB ( video still up: Ethics in Games Media: Stephen Totilo of Kotaku comes to the table to discuss ), that's how shady they were back then, and they only became worse and worse. "You'll see more disclosure in the future from Kotaku".... never happened.
The number of times Kotaku got black listed over the years ... well I lost count.
They've been that bad for years before, been dead to me nearly 7+ years now.
@@alejohp8725 They let in the activists, same with Wizards of the Coast (who used to respect Gygax and often asked him on advice when designing D&D 3rd edition. D&D 3.5 and by extend the 99% similar Pathfinder 1E are the most realistic and hardcore systems of D&D btw, and a must play!). Now the activists, who hate us genuine fans, run the show and hate how their mediocreness is showing for all to see!
they forget the fact that their brand name was derived from the japanese (ko + otaku).
I don't think Kotaku is losing advertisers because of their speech. They're losing advertisers because no one is using their trash website and advertisers are losing money? I hope Polygon is next.
Problem is, they're not posting opinions. They fabricate parts of a story or omit other parts in order to manipulate the thoughts of their readers.
This is not the same as saying "I think this"
UpperEchelon: "So it's not something that should be celebrated, at all."
Asmon's video: "Massive Win for Gamers"
It can be both. It is both.
To be fair, the "us journalists vs you Gamers" frame came from them. It was not something gamers conjured up.
I thought the free market was allowed to choose? If advertisers dont want to advertise with you, isnt that just the free market in action?
Asmon should consider this: Kotaku is just as entitled to their free speech as gamers are entitled to it as well, AND also are fully allowed to ignore and reject them if they dislike their speech. Free Speech only applies to being discriminated against for ideas and to keep government agencies from carting you away.
And since Kotaku made a living and dying on the concept of hating and ridiculing the demographic that would read their articles... It's a no brainer. Advertisers are only there because people are there, and they all know that without bots there would be no Kotaku.
Ergo: Kotaku died, and that's okay. It will be an example for other sites to not do that.
"I support Kotaku's right to free speech, and I don't think it's right for advertisers to pull out."
Why not? The advertisers ALSO have a right to free speech, and they're choosing to pull out. No one is preventing anyone from speaking.
It’s in the context of the advertisers were already subscribed and they pulled out due to skeletons in closet, I think if you’re an advertiser you should be informed about whoever you’re sponsoring
But I agree at the end of the day free speech is free speech, but people love their black and white takes, but conversely there is gray area, this is why things should be seen as case by case
Free speech is and has ALWAYS been about not having consequences for the speech used. Saying "free speech is not equivalent to speech without consequence" is an oxymoron, literally. If you cant say something about your political belief because you get arrested for (consequence) then that's in and of itself not free speech. I dont even understand how anyone can make that argument without INSTANTLY seeing the ironic part.
A company can choose not to pay you for expressing a political belief, but if it functions in the US, that directly contradicts the reason free speech exists in the first place.
thing is G/O Media already sold another site called deadspin and fired all of the employees after they got sued after one of their writers said that a 9 year old Kansas City chiefs fan was wearing black face at a football game. I’m guessing that they want to avoid something like that again
ah yeah, good ole karren. I think my feet are going to get tired in 2024 with all these graves to dance upon.
Asking me to not be full of glee and schadenfreude that the useless waste of carbon and oxygen that is Kotaku writers are getting fired and advertisers are GTFO? You sir are asking to much. Freedom of speech is not the same as being free from the consequences of your speech, there is also no such thing as the right to get financed.
The entire point of freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. But "not getting paid" is not a consequence, people disagreeing with you is not a consequence. Those are just normal exchanges. A consequence, is a punishment for speech. Like getting jailed. Or losing your job. That's what anti-freedom of speech looks like. Woke people try to blur this line, so they can be excused to bully people with wrong opinions out of their jobs. The spirit of freedom of speech is exactly the freedom from consequences - as much as possible while maintaining a functional society. (Can't yell bomb in theatres etc.)
"fReEdOm oF sPEEcH iS noT tHe SaME As FreeDoM fRoM cOnsEQuenCes" Why are you spewing their rhetoric? Needing to be afraid of consequences for speaking is the opposite of freedom of speech.
Not censorship, just the free market at work.
So... Asmon told us to vote with our money. But when the rich advertisers vote with their money, it's somehow suddenly bad?
Asmon, my man. You just said, "I dont like companies pulling out because people are talking about what they believe in."
They companies aren't forced to back things THEY don't believe in either. They're exercising the same "right" as the other party is.
Kotaku is a business. I see no reason to celebrate or defend. Businesses often redirect or retool in order to survive. In an ad based business, the business is subject to whether or not advertises wish to pay to attach their name to that business. If advertisers disagree with the current direction of a business they have every right to disassociate with that business to protect their brand. Everyone has a right to their opinion but every opinion does not have a right to be platformed and distributed.
Advertisers also have freedom of speech and freedom to support or not support a publication.
This is not a “freedom of speech” situation, this is literally a “not doing the job you were paid to do and facing the consequences” situation.
i will never understand why a business would take political opinions so openly. why alienate half of your customers? provide your service or product and shut up.
The advertisers pulled out because they lost money. Advertisers don't care about politics unless it effects their bottom line.
Advertisers pulling out is more than fair. As a business owner, why would I ever want to align myself with a platform that purposefully tries to piss off my potential customers?
Asmon is making the fatal flaw of holding himself to a standard that the people who hate him would never hold themselves to
He and other classical liberals do this all the time. Liberalism only works when everyone respects its principles. If someone tries to abuse it, you can no longer extend those principles to that person, otherwise they will destroy you.
The only way you're getting any form of courtesy, is if you reciprocate.
It is called integrity.
@@Hyrule409this is not an office environment thiss is literally strangers online that have no problem going out of their way to ruin people's lives and you're still naive about it lmao
It's a silly standard though. Would he pay to advertise on a website he thinks is bad for his brand?
I hope people on Kotaku find a job they actually like, because from my perspective the last thing they wanted to do was play or talk about videogames
Maybe Sweet Baby Inc is hiring. These sound exactly like the people they'd be looking for.
I doubt that kind of person actually likes anything.
Most of them wanted to be political journalists the y couldn't make it so they fell into the lowest form of journalism.
*The Gamer revolution is slowly but surely coming up. A short one but a welcomed one*
Corny
@@Chebka_ hes accurate though.
I don't agree with you that it's an "unfair thing". Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you gotta pay for it. If someone says something you don't like then people, including advertisers, are free to not financial support that company. If you don't agree with that your free to stop doing business with those advertisers.
Freedom of Speech also doesn't mean freedom of consequences. It's why we have defamation laws, you can't yell fire in crowded theater, several laws against various forms of Advertising fraud, and many many other laws that can make you libel for what you say. If you say something that pisses off people they are free to not do business with you. It's why go woke go broke is a thing, companies spout garbage and people take their business else where. Just look at Bud Light.
Both sides call for boycotts when the other says something they don't like. I notice a lot of people are Hypocrites on this though as calls for boycott are ok if it's something they are against but fueled by hate mongers and is unjust if it's something they support. I support freedom which is why I think if people wanna boycott, pull ad funding, or whatever from something they don't support they are free to do so.
Advertisers, like consumers, are perfectly reasonable to speak with their money. I've heard asmon say if you don't like it don't buy it, so why doesn't that apply here?
how crazy a gaming site to just focus on gaming and not politics /mind blown
I find that people only care about politics being talked about when it's the politics they don't support
There will be politic in any form of arts, since video games are art I don't see why gaming site should never talk about politic.
@@ni9274 Kotaku plant spottet
@@ni9274 plenty of games have a political message as well.
@@DeosPraetorianits not just "politics" tho. What most people are referring to is political activism, which no one likes except activists.
1:43 Advertisers have freedom of association. That's a right too. If someone is saying things in public that you think are insane, you're not required to do business with them. This isn't even about 'freedom from consequences,' this is about freedom of association. I don't want anything to do with these people, I'm not surprised other people feel the same way that I do. Kotaku as an outlet, doesn't have an 'opinion,' they have a goal. That goal could be to make money, or to make an argument, or some combination thereof, but it that event they might have to make a choice about what goal to make their primary focus. At the very least, they've chosen to make money their primary focus.
Jen Glennon is not entitled to a journalism job that she can use to say whatever she wants. That's why EICs exist. Similarly, Tucker Carlson is not entitled to a job with Fox News where he can say whatever he likes, because there are people in highly placed positions there that decide what stories to pursue. That's one of several reasons why I value independent journalism.
1:55 Absolutely; but nobody has a 'right' to get paid for publishing that opinion. You might get paid based on how well you can convince people to pay attention to that opinion, you have a right to _pursue property_ in that way, sure. But nobody is required to give you anything that isn't already yours.
The problem with Kotaku or anything like them, is that they produce only one sided narratives. Sure, the company could start off with a mix of views, but eventually one side is weeded out, either through complaints or hiring bias. Eventually, the whole place becomes an echo chamber giving their hive-minded opinion on games, which means their customer base can only get smaller and smaller. On YT, you can find differing opinions by searching for different creators, the creator may be one sided but YT still makes money off of both sides.
How is it a problem to produce one side narratives ? They just follow their values and political ideology it make sense to not have a mix of views.
@@ni9274 Kotaku plant spottet
@@ni9274 Sure, it makes sense if you have a message that you want to put out, but not from a business perspective. If you make a product and know that 50% of customers wont buy it, then youve already cut your profits down.
@@ni9274because it means they will all lose their jobs or have to write guides. They are perfectly free to do so and we are free to not read them.
@@ni9274 ^^^why are sociopaths and sadists attracted to the totalitarian left? It’s the power and authority to harm others.
Why do you believe advertisers should pay to run ads with outlets that repulse their target audience? That's not a freedom of speech issue.
Exactly. They weren't deplatformed, slandered or silenced into oblivion, people just simply stopped supporting them. It's a mistake to think someone or a company HAS to support your freedom of speech. All they really should have to do is stay out of the way.
What will we do without a website posting hundreds of Ai written articles every week.
So I'm not even 3 minutes in and Asmon is already arguing against an advertisers right to not advertise on something that gets so few clickthroughs. Make this make sense. I'll keep watching the video.
Everyone doesn't deserve to be paid for their opinion. Thing is, for Kotaku they claimed to have access to an audience and used that claim to get sponsors - Kotaku frequently fluffed up their number through numerous means, and the fact is that they did not have the audience who they claimed they had, aka sponsors are 100% in the right in pulling out, hell if the sponsors found that the sponsorship funds gave them no returns, then they're still in the right to pull out, even if it was triggered by a reaction to something someone said (not sure why Asmon said that Kotaku didn't deserve to lose the sponsors when the sponsors are the ones who decide who deserve to get their funding). This situation specifically isn't that their opinions lost sponsorships, it's that they lied about their reach and now the chickens have come home to roost, Kotaku doesn't provide enough benefits to warrant the continued support of the sponsors.
The reason why their reach isn't sufficient is purely due to them spitting on their (potential) audience and gaming as a whole, they weren't profitable through merit and they've destroyed more than they've built.
I won't shed any tears.
2 mins in “if you celebrate when unfair things happen to someone you don’t like …just wait you’re next” 25 mins in “I’m the kind of guy who celebrates when bad things happen to people I don’t like”
K
I think this is a good thing for Kotaku, because I like the change of direction.
Pulling advertising from a company isn't censorship. There is no fundamental right to be paid for your opinions.
I respect freedom of speech too. But Kotaku writers outright lied in some cases, wrote hit pieces, to smear a whole community. I have no sympathy.
I used to have a Kotaku shirt with their sci-fi pinup girl mascot riding the giant pink NSFW fish. How the times have changed.
I'd agree with Asmon to feel bad for them if they were losing their jobs for some sort of corrupt system bullshit but they're not. They're ""losing their jobs"" because advertisers are pulling out due to the brainrot they continuously spew out and it's gotten so bad that no one wants to be associated with the company anymore.
They have done this to themselves. There is no outside factor or force that influenced this outcome other than Kotaku's direct actions. FAFO.
50 guides per week is totally fair. They have 7 writers - a guide doesn't have to be a whole game guide, just 'How to find XYZ item' etc
50/7 = 7 per writer = 1 per day per writer. Completely reasonable
It’s 50 per week *per writer*
@@omgwatis there a definitive source for which one it is? 50 per writer seems like they would win a lawsuit about being driven out by impossible standards
If they can't complete one game "guide" in 8 hours of work, they should look for a new job flipping burgers or digging holes. It's pure laziness.
@@NickMachado A game guide could take an entire week depending on the game and the thing the guide is made to help with.
Kotaku absolutely MASSACRED their review for The Flowers of Evil and single-handedly destroyed its image in the West based on an arbitrary obsession with what anime is "supposed" to look like, rather than what the contents of its story and characterizations were. Only one of HUNDREDS of articles they've written completely out of touch, all for reaction bait. I hope they burn
Hi ghostdata,
Eye of the storm is one of my favourite songs ❤
@@SnipyShinoAppreciate ya
Same with their Dragon Crown coverage. They just insulted Vanillaware.
Celebrate good times come on!
I just read that Kotaku review, and they do talk about the story and characterizations, not just aesthetics. The article basically said the story is boring because it's too mundane and the characters are never in any kind of danger or give you a reason to care. It also says the characters are bland with no redeeming qualities, to the point you can't even feel empathy for them.
17:50 There's a problem with how the information was presented there. It's not that EACH WRITER needs to do 50 guides a week, but Kotaku as a whole was given that goal. It can still be high, depending on the size of the team, but it is perfectly plausible. Let's say it's a team of 5 people, that's 2 guides a day each in a Mon-Fri week. The guide used as an example here was said to have taken 1 hour of work to do. That makes 10 hours of weekly work per employee. Wanna double, triple, even quadruple that timeframe? It's still more than acceptable.
Creating a bad product and failing is not unfair, it's the way it's supposed to be.
Focusing on Guides is a good idea, there's always someone that'll look up a 100% Achievement Guide or where to find the annoying item they've been asked to farm etc, and if they're using that guide as they play the game it means that the webpage will stay open, allowing you to show more ads.
Except most of the guide sites have so many pops ups I have to block them all anyway...their time will come too.
Gaming guides are more relevant than ever . A lot of people want the badge of “100%” no matter when they play a game . I can play ocarina of time on my n64 and still want the gamefaqs guide for the trading quest .
Advertisers did not pull cuz of their opinions but because no one cares about their dumb opinions enough to go to the website and advertisers ware losing money.
If an advertiser doesn't agree with what you're publishing, why should they support you? Kotaku dug their own grave, let them rot in it.
You can't force a company to give you money to put their logo somewhere. Turns out, Razer or whatever gaming company that would generally advertise on a "gaming" focused website doesn't want to dump money into said website when the traffic it's pulling already share the opinion of "gamers are bad/evil/worthless/etc." It's not attacking their freedom of speech, it just turns out that hosting a website costs money. Also, worth pointing out, yet again because it seems an overwhelming majority of the US either failed their required civics class that taught the constitution/bill of rights or didn't go to high school, there's no such thing as freedom of speech in a private space. Basically all websites, unless funded by/operated by the government, can be looked at as private property. Freedom of speech is an agreement between citizens and the government, not citizens and random private companies. If you come onto my land, or a site I've made with a comment section or whatever, and you start saying or doing things I don't agree with, I have the right to have you removed from the property. You can spout whatever from the highway that's public property, but I have the right to remove you (see westboro baptist church raising hell from sidewalks and not on the private property). If you don't like that I've told you to GTFO, then go somewhere else.