React Streamers Are Destroying YouTube? (tldr; MoistCr1TiKaL & DarkViperAU drama)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- dont attack darkviperau or moistcritikal bc of this video. you would be trash for doing so. thanks.
00:00 intro
00:51 tldr on the penguinz0 darkviperau drama
05:03 impressions
06:57 consent to react
07:55 react streamers would s*xually a**ault you
08:56 the scarcity mindset
14:03 going over DarkViperAU last response
32:00 conclusion
DarkViperAU 14 PAGE essay: docs.google.com/document/d/15...
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
☆ 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐞 ☆
patreon ♡ / gabibelle
twitch ♡ / gabistreams
instagram ♡ / itsgabibelle
twitter ♡ / itsgabibelle
tik tok ♡ / itsgabibelle
discord server ♡ / discord
spotify ♡ sptfy.com/gabibelle
music channel ♡ / channel
other music platforms ♡ biglink.to/gabi
tags: #darkviperau #moistcr1tikal #reaction 
Приколы
I wouldn't personally consider Danny Gonzalez and Kurtis Connor "reaction" RUclipsrs. Their stuff is more scripted comedy that is reviewing a piece of media, and I feel like that's transformative enough to be a different category than just the "literally leave the entire video playing and occasionally say something about it" channels. You can't really lump those under the same umbrella.
I agree with you definitely I wouldn't personally throw them under that category either, though using DV's definition of "reactor", has them potentially fall under this umbrella, as there is no way for us, the viewers, to police if they script the videos behind the scenes or "watch them blindly on camera without knowing if they have anything of value to add" (though we can make an educated guess that danny & kurtis specifically do script them) ex. Jarvis Johnson Gold would fall under this definition of unscripted reactor, yet he always has a lot to say about a subject and is very entertaining and transformative. I think the definition is flawed in itself lending to a shaky argument to begin with on his end
Commentary is different from react
@@itsgabibelle that's not true at all, his definition of react content is someone who watches a video live before knowing if they'll have anything of value to add to it.
@@itsgabibelle furthermore you argue that watching a RUclips video won't negatively affect that RUclipsr and could be positive for that person, but dark viper argues this too. He never states that someone Who's being reacted to is being harmed. He says you're taking impressions from all other content that would Have NATURALLY recieved that view. Which is true because if you're watchung a streamer you're not going to Netflix to watch that new show or to RUclips to watch your favorite RUclipsr.
they’re commentary channels not react channels (:
i watch charlie for him, not what hes talking about. he consistenly ads his own opinions and contributions to things. And i know most of his fans feels the same way. not to mention all the insane work he puts into original content
Ngl, even the people who he has reacted too, good and bad just love the guy. 😂 even those who disagree with him like the Detroit action hero I forget his name 😂 but they got together to make a video! And it’s honestly wholesome in its very own way. And neither of their careers were hurt. The way I see it, criticisms or even negative react vids are a sign that your content got attention but needs work. So it’s a chance to improve with a promise of possibly gaining an audience to see it! Honestly there are probably ways react channels help that I’m forgetting, despite it being easy to make, it’s much harder to have it entertaining. And like you said and Gabi, an audience is there to see the reactor bot the vid and hear their opinions in the vid. It’s a shame this was even made
while yes, thats right for most cases, he admitted that there are some videos that he just ripped off as he didn't have anything to add, and as such, didnt, for the whole vid
And he’s hilarious
Love Charlie, I mean, a lot of his takes aren't anything new, not to mention his terrible "Why Can't Games Just Be Fun" vid, but he's still fun to listen to and he's in general just a cool, lovable and funny guy.
@@richardhobbs7360 don’t agree with copying individuals but when it comes to doing popular trends and not adding much to them, I’d still prefer to see him do it over the others just because it’s him
I've never seen anyone be so wrong and so proud at the same time, congrats gabi
𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 breed
I wish RUclips NEVER removed the dislike button.
@@SomeBlackGuyWithABigD its still there, its just the creator that can see how bad she messed up when making it
ummmmmm welll actually because the weird australian guy just made a reaction this video got a spike in views!!!! Must be beneficial to the small creator!!! (I’m on Darks side)
@@SomeBlackGuyWithABigD it's 16k like to 1.5k dislikes
Matt is just objectively right about this. Unless you are reacting to something and genuinely adding a new layer of content, whether it be a well thought out, solid opinion, or some kind of planned out meaningful comedy surrounding the content, you are just stealing. You are taking views away from the original creator. I am not personally sure how you can possibly say DarkViperAU is wrong. He is objectively correct about the fundamental basis of the situation, being that reaction content in general is theft and only benefits the subsequent creators at the expense of literally anyone else.
It's fascinating to watch people act as apologist for reactors, completely ignoring their negative impacts, and completely unwilling to entertain the possibility that what they are doing could be bad.
I like [insert reactor name], so it doesn't matter that what they do is able to be characterized as theft/content theft, that can be ignored because i enjoy the video's and that is all the basis i need to argue against all of Matt's points.
@@SlackFX.channelHoly sh!t I can’t tell you how many people I’ve seen do that
True
@@RealJackBolt Hyperbole?
@@SlackFX.channelif you look into the extreme sides of things, just because you like the content they produce, doesn’t mean they are good people, like rice gum for example, terrible person, scammed many kids for money and was cancelled for it but he still had many apologists because so many still liked his content despite him being a terrible person overall and did way more harm to his audience than good
Matt is unable to be wrong in this situation. If you don't add actual content and just talking about a video while playing a video, you are literally stealing content.
He compared what he deems content theft to slipping a drug into a girls drink at a party and sexually assaulting her. Even if I agreed with his point fully, delivering it in a 14 page manifesto where he paints it to be the largest problem facing the online community is, say it with me now cause its Matt's favorite word, disingenuous. However, Matt doesn't make a distinction between the very fine line of just watching something or making a transformative piece of content with existing content. He got butthurt because Asmongold is a long time hater of his and he ripped off a lot of his content, so he declared war against everybody in the vague category of "react channels" with zero nuance. If any other community was called out like this, for example fanfic writers for stealing and changing copyrighted characters, people would be looking at it critically. But since everybody hates react channels since the early days of youtube clout chasing it's perfectly fine to generalize.
@@richardwilkins1283 your very first sentence is inaccurate. He did not compare react cunts to date raping women. He used the date rape line as another example of why ASKING FOR CONSENT AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED THE ACT ISN'T HOW LIFE WORKS.
@@richardwilkins1283 No. No he did not compare react content to rape. He used it as an analogy for misunderstanding consent. Someone who steals content and says "I'll take it down if you ask me to" is assuming consent before it is given. In a similar, but far more extreme way, drugging and or sleeping with someone before they consent but using the excuse "but they didn't say no!".
It's crazy to me how you can misunderstand such a basic sentence that badly, or maybe you didn't even read the statement and instead are regurgitating this information from other peoples videos who also grossly misunderstood the essay.
@@trevorcampbell9294 Ok buddy, stan for the guy who compares react content to date rape. You just replaced the word compare with "as another example" but tell me how he's not comparing the two.
@@EthanDurant I can see my reply ruffled some feathers, it's almost as if in certain circumstances reacting to content is a way to expand upon the points established in a video like we're doing right her right now in this comment section.
There’s a difference between reaction and commentary. Curtis, Danny and Drew make commentary, Hassan, Pokimane do reaction content. Both are valid if it is transformative.
Hasan’s reactions aren’t always transformative though, there are some creators who complain that he just leaves a video on stream while doing something else, which isn’t transformative at all. In some, if not most, of his reaction content he is engaged with the video and does discuss it, but not always.
@@ofthewilderwoods He does comment all the time, but his critics always point the moments he goes to the bathroom or to reach some food lol, the man streams 8 hours a day give him a break 🤣
@@AnaRamirez-ng1tj if he isn’t actively reacting to the video, he shouldn’t have it on the stream. If he needs to leave, turn it off. It’s not fair to the content creator.
@@AnaRamirez-ng1tj if he needs a break thats fine, putting on someone elses content while taking a break is literally stealing their content
@@ofthewilderwoods he literally goes for minutes at the time. And doesn’t pause the video to avoid interrupting the flow of the stream.
Anyone else just here to read the comments😂
just a tad late me tho
Yes even now
@@sybrenschuuring1276bro these folks are going CRAZY
This was the worst take ever from Gabi. Absolutely self-centered interpretation and doesn't address any of the problems with react content.
@@Proletariat12 it’s also a 2-3 year old video, I’m sure she’s not the same person considering she’s clearly young asf
The amount of fallacies you present whilst acting righteous speaks volumes on your persona. The falsification of evidence and malicious deformation shouldn't go unpunished.
youre here after watching that dark viper video, niceee
@@GuzmarkkYes? its a good video
@@Guzmarkk it's a well thought out and thorough rebuttal. Using logic and reson. Shame this video shares none.
Great video. 1hr25mins though. Which means Gabi and her followers will be like "too long, didn't watch" and they'll still reply with ignorant confidence.
@rapisidro4821 probably siphoning through his twitter to try find shit on him lol the importance of debate and discourse can not be ignored. Especially by her.
Theres one thing that I wish people paid more attention to, reaction content and commentary content is not the same. They both stem from the same concept which is watching things and reacting/commenting on them but there is a notable difference between the react channels that just say stuff like "What's that?" or pointing out the obvious and the well constructed jokes of commentary channels.
I have little issue with commentary channels because they actually add to the viewing experience. Pure reactors are the scum of the earth because they really do just watch the video, add nothing to the viewing experience and make money off of someone who really worked hard by doing nothing
I feel like you and many others are unaware that there are reaction channels, i.e., people watching things for the first time on camers, that actually add valuable commentary that goes beyond what you're hinting at here. We all agree that reactors who add little to nothing are bad, but some people are commenting when reacting and they're being shamed here.
@@lolnyny The problem is that they replay the WHOLE video while doing it. I don't see how it's so hard to figure out the obvious problem this has.
Yeah but both still steal the views from the original creators. Just because i love watching Jubilee videos with CodyKo and he adds value, i cant sit here and pretend that my views are not going exclusively to CodyKo and Jubilee is seeing none of it.
Without CodyKo i would never watch a Jubilee video. Even if Jubilee is benefitting in any other way through exposure, it doesnt take away from the simple fact that Jubilee is not getting my views.
Id like to see a way to distribute the income when another creators content being shown from beginning to end. I think Linus also suggested something like this.
I dont think people want "commentator content" as you put it to go away, they are fun. Its just not fair.
@@xenoliferttv9803 but you've just perfectly illustrated the difference between "commentary" and "reaction" as they have been defined in the RUclips zeitgeist (the two of which Gabi has quite blatantly conflated). Most commentary videos are constructive and provide an experience fundamentally different from the original, thus making something that would otherwise be uninteresting to you interesting through the perspective of the commentator (you would NOT have otherwise clicked on the Jubilee video that Cody commentated on). Most reaction videos are not constructive and provide an experience that is basically the same as the original, thus making something that would otherwise be interesting to you uninteresting because you have, for all intents and purposes, already seen the video (you WOULD have otherwise clicked on the Gabi Belle video that Cr1TiKaL reacted to).
How is Kurtis Conner comparable to pokimane, xqc or hasan? He doesn't just leave videos playing while doing whatever else or eat and occasionally say something. Not every "reactor" belongs in the same category that viper criticises.
Then Viper should've clarified that- Commentary is reacting. It's a different type but it IS reaction content. If he doesn't want what to be misconstrued maybe, he should've made his 14 PAGE essay more clear 💀
Bro, they are live for 8 hours a day? Are they just not supposed eat or go to the bathroom?
@@nevaehparis4829 it’s funny how people will just straight up not read something and then complain it was unclear or poorly written
@@woody_you_want It's called the pause button dummy
@@nevaehparis4829 He did clarify. Multiple times. What?
IDK why people struggle so much to comprehend what DarkViper is actually saying, it seems to me that everyone got butthurt at the idea of not being able to make lazy content anymore. For those confused "fair use" is totally okay, and DarkViper says this many times. The whole point was stop stealing peoples hard work. If you wanna make a "response" video where you look at points, pause say your piece, and continue or cut ahead that's totally fine as it fair use. He's not saying nobody can ever show somebody else's video on their channel. Just that it should be transformative in some significant way. Idk about the rape analogy, it makes sense but it is a bit insensetive. sorry for the rant but this response felt very bias'd and poorly researched.
I think a big part of it is that he came across quite badly (first by making the mistake of releasing an unfinished script, and then his angry, wide-eyed, ranty response video) and it was many people's first impression of him, whereas they already knew/liked Charlie so immediately sided with him.
I was already familiar with DarkViperAU and was therefore happy to hear him out, even when I didn't agree with everything he was saying, but if my first impression of him was that dodgy analogy followed by an angry rant then I may have dismissed what he was saying pretty quickly too, unfortunately.
I think him being so angry in the rsponse video also led to a lot of people thinking he was just upset that his videos weren't doing as well as he thought they should or something. Whereas, in reality, his channel's doing great and I believe he was genuinely looking out for the smaller channels who he believes aren't getting the exposure they deserve because the majority of viewers are being funneled towards a handful of larger channels who in many cases are putting in the least amount of effort, yet reaping almost all of the rewards.
Cause they can't be bothered to read properly
In hind sight matt should have found a better way to relay his ideas on consent and taking what you want regardless of other people. He used a buzzword I don’t think he realized would derail his point.
In a nutshell, he’s comparing the idea of reactors caring only for their desire and want for whatever it is they want(easy money,fame, what have you) and are willing to disregard the people it impacts or the ethics, morals or laws to get what they want or achieve their goal, the same way a rapist would disregard the exact same things to get what they want from their victim.
The point is there, but he did take a gamble thinking people would look deeper than what’s written to see it. I don’t blame people for getting upset over it.
@@GargleMeElmo they didn't even read anything LMAO how is this his fault 💀
I think the whole comparing it to rape thing comes from a cultural difference as in Australia jokes about sexual assaults is alot more acceptable compared to other western countries
Good job twisting vipers point to be "if you make any video resembling commentary or talk about anything trending then you're evil"
He starts his tweet with "All reactors are bad people." Kinda see where thats the take away from his points.
@@JosephMichael It all depends on what "reactor" means. If you take reactor to mean 'anybody that makes a video about anything else', as Gabi did (she named Danny Gonzalez for example), then it's easy to make vipers point seem outrageous and incorrect. Viper has written and talked at length about this topic, and has clearly shown that his problems are mainly with people who stream themselves watching something, and then reupload that straight to RUclips to make easy AdSense. Gabi claims to have read and watched all of this content, so either she somehow forgot what his entire argument was while scripting this video, or she's purposefully misrepresented his point to make him seem objectively in the wrong.
@@superdash_ In my opinion, these days ‘reactor’ doesn’t just mean the classic “watch a trailer/make faces/don’t say anything/get paid” reactor. It’s evolved to include a lot the commentary genre as their commentary is a direct “reaction” of something else. It comes off to me knowingly misleading to say such an aggressive blanket statement as he did at the top of the tweet and basically use peoples reaction rage to lead into his article instead of making a more clear point and drawing interest in his views that way.
@@JosephMichael @JosephMichael that's fair enough if it's your definition, but viper clearly gave the definition he was using to make his argument, so it's not fair to take his words out of context and use that as ammunition. Just like how if you were to say 'I like to eat apples', you'd be assuming apples are green or red fruit from trees, and it'd be unfair for me to say 'well I define apples as brown waste substances out of an animal' and turn around and tell everyone you like to eat faeces. Also the original tweet and document were only seen at first by a few of viper's close followers. This wasn't meant to be a thing anyone even talked about until Charlie made his video, so I don't think it's fair to say he was trying to bait reactions. As for the title, yeah it's a bit dramatic but I think he justifies it in the document.
@@superdash_ I haven’t read Viper’s piece. For what it’s worth, people who just watch things and don’t truly add something to it even if it’s their humor or personality I agree make lazy content that isn’t really full of substance. My main point I suppose is, as a channel with 1 Mil+ he has a responsibility to be careful with the shit he posts. You’re right that he has less followers on Twitter so the reach is not there but regardless to say something so bold and not offer even a little context in the tweet for people who skim feels to me kind of shitty.
You should look into Jay Exci's similar situation that happened when Hasan "reacted" to their video while leaving for long moments and barely chiming in. I think this was a much better example of the failures of react streamers who will often use RUclips content as a way to entertain their audience. And when like Hasan did, they don't even link or call our to their chat the name of the channel they got it from, that's where it feels pretty scammy
agreed. exci gave a really nuanced analysis of it, and also called out the major flaws in darkviper’s diatribe.
Yes I just commented the same thing, it's so much more comprehensive, entertaining and in good faith too, Jay is a gem 💕
Honestly getting really pissed off at all the people acting like DarkViper is even relevant to the conversation. He just jumped on the bandwagon to bait views.
Hasan even avoided showing her channel name on the youtube page he's that slimy about it.
@@Jane-oz7pp You realise he's been doing this for like 2 years now, its not new that hes against reaction streamers
Bit different in a livestream context tho, like you can't reasonably expect the dude to sit at his PC for the entire day without getting up for food/bathroom break/etc
It’d be nice if RUclips had an embed feature. So the reactor doesnt just screen record the video but imbeds the video allowing each RUclipsr to share the revenue
I know what you mean but in that case, reactors would be literally giving the creators they react to revenue, which would basically make for lots of sponsored reactions and also the inability to critique creators who have done bad things without also paying them for use.
@@zuggernaut618 well if its an optional feature or maybe if you link the vids together both get views? feel there are experimentation that can be done.
I think that’s actually a good idea. Why can’t both videos get revenue other than RUclips being cheap? Online articles as an example usually source information via links or a title, name, ect. A lot of reactors do credit the original, but embedding would ensure both get revenue.
@@nagashtheundyingking4404 Many years ago you used to be able to post a video reaction under the original video. I really liked that but there must have been problems with it since they got rid of that feature.
You could also just download the video
I literally cannot imagine using your mental illness as an excuse to misrepresent someone’s ideas. As someone who HAS ADHD, how dare you equate all of us to your low standards?
Agreed, I found that to be particularly disgusting
Classic victim move. I'm surprised she didn't take the race route. Cuz that's what these people do when shit comes down on them, they play the victim. I have adhd too, and i know many people who do too, but we dont make that our personality or let it impede us in our lives, is it difficult, yeah, but we march on. Only those who want to play the victim use it as an excuse.
@@flamingburrittothis is a really weird comment, cut out the talk about race
@@offthew4ll it's justified as race is often used by non-white morons. I don't hate non-white people but the people that use race in a context where race is not a factor are fucking stupid.
@@offthew4llnah, it’s accurate
I have a genuine question for you - if I sit through an entire video of XQC reacting, in full, to another youtuber's video, barely adding anything except occasionally saying a sentence and pausing the video, why would I watch the video he reacts to? There is literally no reason for me to, I have already seen it in full. Even if it appeared in my RUclips sidebar, there's no reason for me to watch it now.
i've seen so many reactors reacting to the crime psychology videos and I've never watched the videos on their original channel.
That should tell everything that needs to be known about react content lol.
this is one of the most important things gabi misses - she clicks on a reaction video and then sees the original video on the recommendations on the right. at no point does it occur to her that when you watch a reaction video to something that is presented in full and unaltered within that reaction video, it's a market substitute. the vast majority of youtube videos are viewed exactly once by the vast majority of its viewers. if the video in question is reproduced within a reaction video, the vast majority of viewers will not watch it a second time on the channel of the original creator.
i also think that the reason why so many big youtubers have spoken on this topic and defended reactors is because they are often part of the lucky few to have profited from the exposure of reactors, they've become big in their own right and amassed an audience. meanwhile, youtubers that never made it big after being reacted to and don't have a big audience, their voices largely go unheard. survivorship bias.
The issue with this whole debate is that very few people fucking read the 14 page essay Matt posted in the first place. Gabi tries to frame it like everyone read it (30 people viewing the document is NOT a lot in the scope of the internet) but very few did, and she certainly didn't either! People are only following what other content creators are saying about it. And since they haven't read it in full, they've only looked at small parts and thus do not understand the full argument.
Matt examines the issue as a whole. Gabi and others keep thinking this issue works on a two person basis: the reactor, and the persons content they're reacting to. But Matt is looking at the entire market. A react video is not an original video, but it takes away views from other original videos that someone would otherwise have watched if not for said video. It's not just that the original video is unlikely to have good watch time or engagement from the reaction, but it's a problem that it draws from a finite pool of impressions, essentially redirecting views from other RUclipsrs onto that video. Gabi does not seem to understand this.
She essentially made the argument that reactors are doing the same thing as content creators, but just better, and if they weren't doing it better they wouldn't be getting more views. Just entirely missing any point made. She's either intentionally trying to misinterpret what's being said or she really just is that dumb.
dont need to go that far. You can just turn your stream on. Then open stream of XQC. And just talk over it. This is literally exactly the same, that streamers do to youtube videos.
But oh boi, re-streaming other people's stream, without their permission (consent), is against the rules of twitch. jeez, i wonder why... Maybe because you stealing viewers from him?
There’s a tricky balance between watching content and reacting to it, but Critikal is someone who I think does it well. Sure, there are some “react” channels that don’t add anything to the source, but he is not one of them.
I watch Critikal not really the others but I find his reactions and comments definitely adds something to what he is watching Iv seen a lot of people react like you would to your phone as your browsing the internet with a blank expression and a chuckle here and there. I agree not all reaction RUclipsrs are the same.
He is, he is just one of the better ones.
@@tearsofseasons nah man he’s better than jinx. Watching his streams he does let the video play out for periods of time, but almost always has something to say about it at regular intervals. Plus with it being in a livestream format the chat has some interaction as well.
When it comes to RUclips uploads, he does a more general reaction shtick. I wouldn’t say Critikal is the best reaction channel out there, but he is nowhere jinx tier commentary. I do wish he’d stream games more often, that’s where he’s the best.
@@tearsofseasons nah he is way better
Aba and Preach are the only ones I watch.
Gabi: “I’m coming from a factual objective standpoint.”
Also Gabi: “After all it’s just my opinion.”
“And that’s JUST an opinion, a Gabi opinion. Thanks for watching”
Bruh she was making a joke about how you can't be objective with this argument cause it is very heavily based on opinion. But I guess you watched his response and took it at face value so I shouldn't be surprised the joke went right over your head.
@@UnsafeTunaW
@@UnsafeTuna My G ya dumb or something?
Did you not hear the obvious joking tone in her voice?
🎉 Congratulations Gabi! You've got a response from DarkViperAU!!! Too bad it's a 1hr25mins long well-thoughtout response that you'll probably don't understand anyway. But Congrats!
This is funny because you made a typo while insulting her intelligence 💀
I literally already explained that I was just saying it's funny not that this person isn't intelligent because they made a typo. You can stop replying thinking you're the first person to do so now.
@@Stickyz didn't know spelling was linked to intelligence ☠☠
@@Stickyz Care to point out what exactly that typo is? 🤓
@@rapisidro4821 "that you'll probably don't understand anyway"
Took me a few seconds to see it too. Honestly though I wouldn't worry about it. It's very easy to end up with something like that in your comments. I'd wager it's probably because you started out with "You'll never understand it" and then changed it to what you eventually ended up with.
@@bobleonheart9600 Ah. So slightly weird phrasing.
DarkViperAU is not wrong though. You just misrepresented him and ranted about whatever misrepresentation figure you drawn.
Tbh, I don't think DV was actually angry at react channels (as much as it seemed like.) I think he just used this as a way to release the anger he had at the time that he wasn't dealing with, you could see it in his videos at the time.
I don't think he knew how to properly sort out the issues he was going through but used this as a conduit, releasing the anger through this.
@@maxbracegirdle9990 that is the most absurd thing I've seen.
So you actually think that people specifically argue against one harmful practice, write 14 pages and make hours of videos explaining in greatest details what impact this practice has on people, creators and pllatform and why this is bad, not because he's disliking this practice, but because he just wanted to let some frustrations off? Wow.
@@maxbracegirdle9990 try to think about: what if it's not anger first, reaction series later, but the opposite? He clearly stated several times that making this series and people's backlash to this series makes him angry, people's stupidness and ignorance is really frustrating.
@@user-pq5cn2gq5b It's not though. I assume you're a DV watcher?? Just before all this came out, he was always super angry in streams and such. He would even shut off streams when he just got too bad RNG in prologue out of frustration. He took a week or two off a few months before this came out to deal with his mental health, but came back to pretty much the same after a few weeks of speed running.
I think he just needed a way to get everything out and he found a target. That's why it's so full of rambles and incorrect/odd statements. It's kinda like how if you're angry at someone, therapists will tell you to write a letter to that person, then not mail it. It just gets the anger out of you and onto the paper.
I'm a qualified mental health worker, but even in this field some things can be up for interpretation, so keep in mind that this is just my opinion of what I've seen and experienced watching him for a few years.
@@maxbracegirdle9990 sure you are, and I'm actually a head of psychiatry clinics, and I'm telling you're wrong lol
People would make up anything to sound credible these days
Imagine binging half of someone's library of videos, thinking they were pretty neat, and then watching DarkViperAU tear them apart using actual facts and logic.
Bruh.
Word bro I fucked with her singing too 😢. This prob just a rare L tho and a lane that she should stay clear of, hopefully she apolgizes and doesn’t try clap back cuz matts gonna fucking dunk on her
my experience exactly, I've been watching some of Gabi's videos here and there for the last few months then suddenly got smacked in the face with the image of her and Matt in the same thumbnail popping into my recommended, had me doing a double take of monstrous proportions 😭
Honestly I don't think Gabi is a bad person, but I think she doesn't really understand Matt's points and her bias towards Charlie affected her judgement massively in this video. I cannot say for certain if she maliciously misconstrued and misrepresented him, but she certainly lacks understanding of it. She doesn't understand the difference between reaction and commentary, and she thinks free speech is a factor in this when it is not. And she also thinks there isn't a finite pool of impressions, when even Charlie agrees there is.
I think the rest of her content is good, but this video is a massive L.
@@alkrolyd im not sure if the malice was on purpose but there is definitely malice intent. there are several phrases where yes, she adds the entire paragraph, but then highlights the portion that she believes supports her point, leaves it on screen without enough time to properly read it without pausing, and continues with her bias. I've noticed with all of her videos, she's always negatively biased towards the party that she's against, whether deserving of it or not. being biased in the first 30 seconds of the video is not a good way to start as it will almost always negatively impacts the views of the people watching unless the viewer is aware. if you need a disclaimer of your bias, don't post it.
@@heroinabuser5980 she wont apologise. she never does. and her content has always been like this. anyone she doesnt like that she is reacting to she will misrepresent them.
I think it’s unfair that RUclipsrs who just sit there and react get more support than RUclipsrs who actually put hard work into their videos. Now I’m seeing more reacting RUclipsrs and it’s getting annoying lol it’s just the same stuff but different person.
Video essays, critiques, etc. shouldn't be treated the same as reactions. The former are transformative, the latter mostly aren't.
DarkViper never said they are reacton videos, she says that, even though he clarified multiple times his definition of reaction content, Gabi ignores that and creates a massive broad term for it and makes it as if he said that. Honestly I don't think she did more than 20 minutes of research or even watched his videos.
Considering the fact that by Gabi's made up version of darkviper's defintions would make darkviper a reactor in his respons videos... that's exactly what he thinks too.
ALTERNATE TITLE: Gabi Belle Accidentally Propogates the Capitalist Myths of Infinite Growth and Trickle Down Economics
Same person who posts Conservative cringe react content too. We are meant to believe this grifter is some moral pillar too
I hate socialism
@@asinglefrenchfry meese is talking specifically about two contradictions in the capitalist way of thinking. 1: businesses must always grow, to generate more profit. the problem with this is that it is literally impossible for a business to never stop growing. in the same way, gabi saying that impressions are infinite is wrong. 2: gabi is saying that react creators help smaller channels by "trickling down" their viewers" (she just said it in different words). this is also false. in capitalism, it is false because the rich use tax cuts to hoard their wealth and give as little of it as possible to everyone else. in youtube, react channels don't generally give channels more views (there are a few exceptions, but they are not the rule), and they take and hoard views from the wider creator community. not sure if i explained this well at all, its 3 am. hope i helped.
@@TheMessiahOfThe99Percent and i hate eggplants. whats your point?
@@asinglefrenchfryRUclips engagement turns to Adsense which turns to money.
It genuinely baffles me how somebody can lie so confidently.
I'm not sure if she's really stupid or really disingenuous with no shame
Fake it till you make it
I feel bad for her boyfriend
Damn I was scrolling through the comments to see people shit on her for her bad takes but this comment, needs an award. 🥇
Me when i’m a DV meat rider
If I were a company that has hired you in the past I'd feel embarrassed for being involved with someone who is either this stupid or this purposefully malicious and mischievous
lmao
hey don't be rude, Matto would not condone that.
Be as real as you want, but don't spread hate!
@@10sansari ?
these are just my honest thoughts on someone who uses their influence over 400k people to lie about someone else and misrepresent them as someone who equates reaction content to sexual assault, uses ADHD as a potential scapegoat for justified criticism and talks with such ego and confidence whilst clearly having no clue about the necessary topics and subject matter at hand
I'm also not mattos lap dog; no offense to him but I could care less what he would and wouldn't condone as I am my own person so yes indeed I will call someone who is a shitty person a shitty person
deal with it
@@lackofoxygen5663 oh no worries I do understand that the timeframe of my comment could bring forth people who will perceive what I wrote as hate and that's perfectly fine, since, as you've also correctly identified already, I couldn't care less about a few random strangers' opinions online
I merely don't mind clarifying my stance once to avoid further misunderstanding of what I may have written originally
anyone who still misunderstands it beyond that point has to come to terms with it on their own
@@lackofoxygen5663 You too. I hope you have a pleasant weekend ahead.
Imagine this.
You're a graphic designer. You spend lets say even 8hrs on a project for client who's taking applications
Someone then copies your work and throws in a new bit here and there. This takes them 1 hour and significantly less talent as you've done 99% of the work already. They then pitch this to the client and they take the money. Don't worry tho they shout you out.
They then find another piece of graphic desgin work someone has completed and do the same thing. Again takes them one hour. They sell it and get the money.
In 8 hours they have 8 pieces of work of equal value in the time it's taken you to make 1.
Would you be happy about this? Going around claiming it's free advertising for your graphic design work?
Or would you be pissed and file a copyright lawsuit?
To further add you saying it's a "woe is me" argument is kinda dumb. Reactors like XqCan'tspeak and Charlie react to enjoyable, high quality content from creators smaller and bigger than themselves. Often creators who have a level of knowledge or that have put time into researching topics.
1) most of these creators are far more talented than any twitch reactor
2)No one from that stream/VOD is then going to back to youtube and re-watch the video they just watched and the OP's channel.
I really don't know how you can defend any of this.
Well said
Edited my many typos, but let's take a moment to appreciate the fact I commented this 4 days before Matto uploaded his response.
@@MichaelGallagher97 🤣🤣🤣 i didnt even notice timed that well to be fair
Charlie isn’t really a reactor. He does so much more than that. Also he actually adds very good and funny commentary. Also without him reacting to “Red Dress” , I would’ve never been recommended your version of the song.
I'm not just a murderer, I'm also a child molester, don't remember me just as a murderer.
He still does react content, and while most of it is fine, he admitted himself that sometimes he doesnt react, meaningfully at least
@@richardhobbs7360 what the fuck????? what the fuck kind of comparison is that?????
@@richardhobbs7360 are you insane
@@Chloelol a comparison that makes sense, literally anything could work
“I’m not just a businessman, I’m a father, don’t forget about that”
That’s what a reaction channel does
The thing is that most of the time he got more view then the guy who put sumacs afford into their video just to get “stolen” by someone and get shit ton of view
Try not lying in your videos
Glad to see you here
Did not expect to see you here lol
Chad
aussies unite
@@bambi_2606 i'm not an aussie just an average DarkViperAU enjoyer.
It was really hard to sit through this whole video lmao. Crazy how much bias can affect ones ability to look at a situation objectively and admit fault... React content is objectively left.
At least you watched the whole video before forming an opinion!
I also agree with you, react content is lazy theft.
Crazy how you came after daddy viper coaxed you into harassment.
@@TheGreatKingChiba I don't condone harassment to anyone, especially as a subscriber of both Matt and Gabbi.
@@TheGreatKingChiba I saw Mat uploaded a video on the topic and, like every other time he has done so, I sought out the original work before watching his response.
I'm only about half way through his video as we speak lol, so not sure when he coaxed me into "harassment".
Not to mention this is simply my comments on the video. Just because you disagree with someone / something and want to voice your opinion does not mean you are harassing them. That's a really weird outlook on life. By you logic Gabby was harassing Mat by making this video. See how that thought process quickly starts to fall apart...?
do better.
@@TheGreatKingChiba i am subbed to both Gabi and Matt, love them both, but the dude has clearly destroyed her with good research, well thought arguments and a damn good video.
She went up against someone who was way too qualified for the level of argument she made and then called the misleading and debunking video as her opinion on the same thing.
DarkViperAU is really intelligent, well educated man who also has a good heart and oh boy it was fun to watch Gabi getting roasted
@@deivytrajanI like DarkViper but I'm not so sure that is how I would describe him.
There is no ethical reason to use someone elses work in its entirely to prop up your own wealth. If you believe a millionaire watching a smaller creators art and profiting off it; whilst also reducing exposure from the original creator is unethical, then I dont know what to say. Except that you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
But doesn't prop up the smaller creator too?
@LilR12 Darkviper's series talking about react videos on his channel goes over this in much more detail, but in short, no, it doesn't. There's very little evidence to suggest that the person whose video was reacted to gets anything but a meager amount of views on that one specific video when said reaction happens.
u̶n̶e̶t̶h̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ----> ethical but yeah facts
@@CrazyTom_ ohh okay
This is a topic that I have strong feelings about, and I agree with DarkViperAU
Based.
based.
Based.
Based.
me when i lie
How about this for an example. You're a graphic designer, you went to school and shit for it. You create a sick artwork to put in your public portfolio. I, John McReacton, press right click, copy, paste it in Photoshop, add my signature, put it in MY public portfolio.
How d'you feel about that ?
Great example, hope she understands now (if she happens to see your comment).
That’s not even the same thing.
@@Davies2710 How is it different?
@@Davies2710 Says it's not the same thing. Refuses to elaborate. Leaves. Way to get your argument across there bud.
@@cleturousWell yeah, close enough in my book. Reaction content is literally take someone else's work, show it to the same pool of people as the original content's potential audience with very minor contributions (like 98% of the value in reaction content is the base material) and reap the benefits with very little effort on your part. Plagiarism isn't a perfect fit but it's very fucking close.
Also I chose this example because of her broken-ass argument about graphic designers
Idk, personally i think that dviper has a very strong and good point, maybe bad expressed on those videos but clear on the other saga
DarkVipers own videos do a fantastic job of providing his own view on things, it's when you watch any of the idiotic responses to him that everything becomes so murky.
@SteveshiClayxui "Swampert, use "Idiotic response"!"
this video poorly conveys his point
"I think we can all agree that react channels that do nothing while videos play are bad." No twitch streamers don't agree. That's literally the issue.
This. I feel like everybody is missing the point Dark Viper is making lol.
No, I think we do agree
This seems strange to me because I thought Danny Gonzales’ genre was ‘commentary,’ and that a ‘react’ video would be more “i’m gonna sit down and watch this with the audience” instead of “I will watch the media, write a script of all my thoughts on it, then film myself performing the script alongside clips of the media.”
Like how Jarvis Johnson will post Twitch streams where he watches Beyond Belief and Dharr Mann videos with the audience. While the amount of the content he shows could be argued about, he definitely adds value by making commentary and also creating games that he plays with the chat.
As far as content like that goes, I did look up the Beyond Belief show to watch it in full. Did not look up Dharr Mann because I am absolutely not interested
I’m just gonna throw this out there, basically because it was the main focus that caught my ear, but free speech and fair use are different. They go hand in hand, but they are different. Fair use protects free speech. Free speech can be used to achieve fair use, but free speech does not achieve fair use alone. If someone uploads this exact video to their channel, but they added a 5 second clip in the video where they say something like “I do not agree with the views in this video.”, would not automatically make it fair use. It would not by default protect the person who stole your video from you claiming it. Even if through out your entire video if they repeated that same sentence once every minute would it by default be something protected. Your ability to speak freely does not give you the right to infringe on someone else’s work. Tons of people stand on free speech and fair use to post on RUclips, yourself included, which is why I find it hard to believe that you can stand behind reaction content, but not see how streaming some tv show or someone else’s video in it’s entirety while the streamer is eating for 25 minutes instead of practicing their free speech for 25 minutes and potentially reaching fair use. Most major streamers who do reaction watch parties add nothing inherently transformative to the original video. More often then not they aren’t even engaging with the video. This video I’m commenting on now, you’re practicing your right to free speech, and it falls under fair use, you’ve transformed Matt’s video and used the required pieces of his video to make your freely spoken opinions understood. Matt’s video practices free speech and fair use as well. Neither one of you should have any problem with each others videos. You know what you should have a problem with though? If Matt ripped this video and streamed it to his audience while he went grocery shopping. Reactors get the benefit of original content creators work. It’s just what it is.
At 17:20 you showed Charlie’s reaction video and showed how the original video is right there next to his reaction on the recommended, but what is clearly shown but not mentioned is the reaction video has over 3.2 million views and the original is sitting at 332,000. What Matt’s been saying for ages at this point is that if that reaction video did not exist those 3.2 million views would have either gone to the original creator or somewhere else. Where does not matter because with no reaction content they would all either be given to the original creator, another original creator, or the views wouldn’t exist because someone decided to do something else with their time that does not relate to directly watching a RUclips video.
The subscribers gained from the video is not equal per se to the difference in views or any monetary gain that comes with it. People are subscribed to tons of people, and with how much content is pumped out on RUclips it is inevitable that people will simply forget they subscribed to someone because they are constantly overwhelmed with new things to watch. Subscribing to someone with how much content there is ultimately means nothing for the viewer unless they religiously go and watch that specific creator to feed them into the algorithm as a creator you actively watch.
I’m not trying to be mean so I’m really sorry if this comes off that way, but this idea that copyright and ownership suddenly means nothing if you slap a “reaction” stamp to it now is really frustrating. Reaction content is inherently stolen content unless you actually practice fair use. It’s just that simple. If I eat cheerios while I watch this video and put it up on RUclips, you personally, the original creator, may not care that I did it, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t steal your content and got paid for it and all I had to do was eat cheerios.
There’s a reason that jinx got ran off the platform by the people who understood free speech and fair use and rightful compensation for work done, but now no one has to work, practice fair use to even practice free speech anymore, because they can react and get the same results at a faster pace and even paint their room while someone else’s work is getting them paid. Watching your coworker do their job doesn’t mean you get a piece of their paycheck. I don’t know how many other analogies have to be presented to get the idea through to people.
@@Judaisan367then what’s the point in telling me?
@@Judaisan367 I did.
@@Judaisan367 I did
@@Judaisan367I did! You should too
@@Judaisan367hypocrisy
17:16 never happens with me. Every reaction video I’ve ever watched I do not see the original video recommended. I just get recommended more reaction videos from the same channel.
EXACTLY, in fact this is one of DarkViper's point in the series he did explaining his issues with react content.
@@teejayburger2136 and most of the time the reaction channels hogs the views that a certain video could potentially have because they will swarm into it an hour after the video was posted
RUclips had a reply section for videos many moons ago. Something like it should return but it was abused by spam and people just posting their original stuff on popular videos hoping to be seen. Like video games or movies, RUclips should have a way to tag the original video and have it shown prominently like a movie or game is shown. That would be something better than what we have now. Annotations we’re good but they didn’t want to update apps to support them so got rid of them.
Yeah, her argument fell flat for me there. I also never get the original video recommended to me on the reaction video's recommendations.
I member youtube recommending me some Asmongold clip and after I watched it I was SHOWERED with other Asmongold reaction clips. Needless to say it was all reaction content. Thing is, the videos were interesting, and unless I was aware about issues with reaction contect I would probably keep watching.
Previous to that I was getting recommended original content exclusively, and only after I manually forbid Asmon clips channels to be recommended my usual videos came back.
the problem is, no one needs to watch your video if they can just watch it on a reaction channel. A lot of these people title the video with the same title of the original video. Hasan does this a lot, with minimal commentary. People work their asses off making long form scripted videos so some reaction douche can stream it to thousands of people.
You're talking about one type of reaction that everyone agrees is bad. No one is arguing about that. No one. People do actively go watch, en masse, the original video after or before watching a reaction video, oftentimes you'll see comments, even top comments, saying "I came here from xyz channel". Reuploading and reaction is 2 different things. And "reactions" that add nothing is something everyone agrees is bad here. What we're saying is dont group all reactors under the same umbrella when tons of them actually put work, effort and valuable commentary to it, even encouraging their audience to go watch the original creator.
@@lolnyny Telling your audience to go watch someone's channel after stealing their videos doesn't make it magically ethical... Besides, 1 streamer watching a video with thousands of people will NEVER lead to long term viewership on the original creator's channel.
Reaction content is reaction content. Once you start watching a video on stream FOR THE FIRST TIME, not knowing what you're going to say but merely REACTING to what happens in the video, while pausing here and there to say what you think, that is not fair use. It doesn't matter if you pause and speak for 10, 20, 30 minutes; if the entirety of the original is shown, then the reaction video becomes a substitute of the original and that's not only unethical but also not fair use. The right way of making a resxponse video is watching the video before hand and knowing what you want to say, constituting points and arguments while showing clips and snippets of the original video. ALL streamers listed by DarkViperAU are doing the same exact thing: -viewer suggests random video -streamer starts watching it -streamer pauses it every so often to give his thoughts on what he just saw. Some just let the video play and others desperately try to talk about it extensively with no often no particular research on the topic. Once again, it doesn't matter how often or how long the streamer pauses, it ultimately will still be a substitute for the original content and therefore not constitute fair use.
@@lolnynyThat’s why Matto makes it extremely clear what reactors are bad….
@@basilezSo your solution is either to Dilute Reaction Content so much to the point where it might as well not exist. Or not do it at all?
@@D0Y0u3v3r In an ideal world reaction content would not exist leaving all the online impressions to original content. But unfrotunately, greed will never dissappear and people will always take the easy route by stealing the work of others to get more money and recognition easily.
"There is not a finite amount of impressions" Yes, there is. There is a finite amount of RUclips users with a finite amount of time.
Also comparing reaction videos to free speech is stupid. I can exercise my free speech to call the most recent Spider-Man movie shit, that does not mean I have the right to watch the whole movie while occasionally pausing it and then say it's shit at the end of that video.
she seems to confuse "there is a finite pool of impressions" with "there is a finite amount of impressions a single video can get".
Obviously, the latter is largely untrue. But the former IS true. While there is potentially no limit to how many impressions a video can get (or at least the limit is very, very high), the source of said impressions is NOT infinite. It's basic supply and demand. There won't be demand if there's nobody to watch.
@@alkrolyd It's just a weird concept to explain. It's basically saying that, yes, the impressions on a video on June 12, 2015 ARE infinite... Until the day is over, then they become finite.
Like, there was absolutely no limit on the amount of impressions on that day until the day ended, basically.
Nuh-uh 😡
@@janis7077 Doesn't she say that 'SOME reaction content IS lazy'... and even brings up the posting of anime being illegal.
Do people ever actually watch the video they comment on?
You know that YOU'RE reacting to somebody's video... without watching it. You might have some undiagnosed trauma you're repressing there.
I like how much you misinterpreted or just lie so it fits your narrative 😊
Wow how convenient I accidentally cropped out 90% of darkviperau’s tweet and essay! Silly me!
@@torphurusmust have been the adhd
How is she lying ???
@@seilakkkk5252 the other dude made a video about what she claims in this video
Example: you're in a college writing class. Your class is told to write an essay, due at the end of the week. You spend four days between researching, planning, writing, editing, finalizing. You have a great essay
Now comes along your friend. They copy your whole essay, add a couple sentences throughout it, change your name to theirs, and submits the essay as their own. That took them MAYBE an hour That's plagiarism
Now change essay to youtube video.
You spend four days between researching, planning, recording, editing, finalizing. You have a great RUclips video
Now comes along your friend. They copy your whole video, add a couple sentences throughout it, change your name to theirs, and submit it as their own. That took them MAYBE an hour. That's react content
Except there’s a big difference between an assignment and a RUclips video no one’s out here assigning these people to make a RUclips video and using it to evaluate how well you understood what they taught you
Matt’s video though a “reaction video “on Charlie’s response,is not really a reaction.Matto clearly says that watching someone else’s content without basically adding nothing to it is bad,if you only use small clips,and actually add some effort,it isn’t as bad.Matto adds quite a lot,and only used clips from Charlie’s response.
She literally does the same thing so I don't know why this chunk of brain rot even used it as an argument 🤣
Either double down (despite being wrong) or provide an apology in the comment section, etc. You have been thoroughly debunked by Matto and this video has no point
Or just ignore everything because, like Matt said himself, she probably just doesn't fucking care
@abithapa9099 what's the fun in that?
@@dipdip907 There is no fun when you're a bad selfish self centered person like she is lmao
Bro literally compared react content to rape, are you ok?
Ah yes mizkif is a very good person to be standing behind, atleast when he’s not covering up SA☠️
He's also been exposed for beating one of his employees if I'm not mistaken.
So it's bad because darkviper used that comparison but its okay for people to actually stand behind and cover SA in her eyes? Lol
They didn’t know this at the time though.
This video came out a year ago. People in the comment section keep complaining about her "lying" and "misunderstanding" what he said when she literally shows him saying those exact things and this his braindead fanbase goes and says stupid shit like this
@willthompson1585 I apologize you are completely right. So mind linking me the video where she talked about the Mizkif situation after it was exposed? Thanks in advance
Gabi, it's a shame to find out you made this video. I had seen some of your videos a while ago about Gordon Ramsey and a few other random topics so I liked you, but this is extremely disappointing. I would have never thought you would defend stealing content.
Ya I've watched some of their stuff for a while. The Spotify shuffle video was really interesting in particular, so seeing this is a real bummer.
its almost like humans want the easy way of doing things
Her Kitchen Nightmares video was trash too. The idea it was a failure for saving 25% of dying restaurants is patently absurd because restaurants have a single digit percentage success rate and the ones in the sample size are all doomed to fail without Gordon. Her entire premise is just stupid and completely unresearched, as, it seems, is the norm for the channel as a whole.
@@Silver.. we all do but when it comes at the expense of others...
@@mlag8858ut my FREEDOM of speech, your telling me I can’t steal things wow you must be a communist
I don't think you really understood his points or didn't watch his video? You bring up that they'll leave the site and consume other content, but he already acknowledged that argument. Saying that even if they leave the site they're still going to consume (any) other content that actually deserves the impression, rather than watching a streamer who is keeping those impressions lazily and isn't doing anything to earn those viewers on stream
Which is even further missing the point that you shouldn't be able to just take someone's content and use it and get all the revenue from it. That's not how it works in any other industry...
Gabi got a lot of things just objectively wrong in this. And calling an essay by somebody you disagree with "a manifesto" just screams out the gate bad faith.
Gabi is an ok channel for hearing her thoughts on unserious things, but here she seems unwilling or unable to engage with the actual arguments being made accurately and in good faith.
Suggesting a reactor is akin to a much more skilled freelance graphic designer -- Even though in this comparison someone would be stealing the graphic designs whole cloth -- has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard in a long time.
As a Logo/Graphic designer I about pissed my pants when she said that. Her lack of understanding of what Matt said is arguably the funniest opinion I've seen on this platform in a long while.
@@zach23ize I'm kinda jealous how you can just find sh*t like this funny and laugh about it... I got so mad watching this braindead video...
yeah and a couple of payment situations I've been in I have gotten the set amount, and more based on video revenue. so if someone reacted to a video my graphic is in, and doesn't compensate the original video creator, i'm also losing money!
Yeah but if you take your tastiest crayon and scribble "Gabi" on top of a graphic design then it's transformed into right to free speech which is cool.
It's not about asking people to react to their content. Anyone is free to do that whenever they want. We tend to call them reviews.
It is on the other hand about asking people if you can display their content while you react to it.
What you can do is use clips of someones content to highlight points that you are making while you review their content but that's not what reaction content creators do. Most of the time they tend to show the entire thing only stopping now and again to add their opinions. This leads to huge swathes of content being displayed where there is no reaction and only particular small sections where there is some kind of reaction.
I've followed a bit of DarkViper's drama with xqc specifically and idk, the dude has a point. Maybe not every single point in his 14 page rant, but such a huge chunk of react content is lazy and is stealing revenue from actual content creators because copyright laws are messed up. He initially got bent out of shape because his own content was being lazily reacted to a bunch. Dude is definitely unhinged tho. I think implying smaller content creators are uneffected because no one would be watching them anyway is a bad take and dishonest. If there was a lot less shite react content out there, then people would obviously be watching something else and I'm sure a percentage of that would be smaller content creator's content.
I must correct you there. Darkviperau never got reacted to before he released that script, and that was not what caused him to make it. It was Jay Exci getting reacted to by Hasan that made him want to make a video.
How is he unhinged? he has a right to be as annoyed as he is, reactors are literal scum of the earth
Calling someone unhinged because of his undying passion for justice to all content creators, is crazy.
The only reason anyone knows or cares who he is is because he records and streams himself playing a video game that other people spent tens-of-thousands of hours and millions of dollars making. I guess Fair Use only matters when it's other people doing it, right?
@@None-lx8kj lol not even close to the same thing. Video games are versatile media and they can be enjoyed and explored in different ways. Watching react content for games doesn't make you feel like you don't need to play the game because you've gotten the same thing from it, whereas react content to video does.
Don't know about this one chief. To quote yourself: "It really comes across that you have no idea how any of this works." You are surely not the first or last person to completely miss the point by equating "I will watch this thing without saying anything" and "I will actively add something to this content to give it further context and make something new" One is what I would like to be called from now on as lazy socially acceptable intelectual theft and the other one should be called response video. Also, would unlist this video or add a pin comment to the video. Just an idea though.
PS: You should have also done more research on the sausage guy. His channel was growing in views and subs before crit and the trajectory didn't signifiantly change after he stole the content. Also, also you have this suggestion cause you you serched it up. Again to quote you: "It really comes across that you have no idea how any of this works." I would highly recommed to unlist this video.
mf lied so much lmfao
Lady got absolutely cooked 💀
i think Charlie actually adds content to the videos he’s reacting too, i often get annoyed because he pauses the video way too often, but that’s what makes it special and new content
Charlie? Pause video? Idk what vids you're watching but he always talks over the video which is still in agreement with your point but way more annoying still love him though
And in his videos DarkviperAU does say that Charlie isn't as bad as most of the bunch
Not really. He doesn't even edit his stuff
You don't have to defend him. It's okay to admit that your favorite RUclipsrs are sometimes in the wrong.
@@HipixOFFICIAL tell that to viper fanboys. He has a infantile knowledge on Marxism and Labor theory of value
Since I'm rambling. I actually discovered your channel after Moist reacted to the Red Dress video and RUclips recommended your version of that to me. If it wasn't for Moist's reaction,, I would have never been able to sub to your channel and enjoy your content.
Same lol
Same
Same 👍
Same
I'm in the above comment, and I love it.
I know this is an old argument at this point, but you seemed to misunderstand what Matt considers "reaction" creators to be. When he's saying "react" content, he's referring to people like Asmongold or Jynx who would sit there saying nothing with no idea if they will even have an opinion on what they are watching and are practically reuploading other people's content. It confuses me how you misunderstood this when you showed the screenshot at 29:12 where he says that people like Kurtis Connor, Danny, or even you are not "reactors".
inb4 she cries "misogyny/harassment" even though she's 100% wrong
Lol of course, anything to avoid facing the reality that it is theft of labor to reupload the entirety of someones work with a couple of pauses in between. Admitting this would mean that content creators that Gabi likes, such as Charlie, are doing the wrong thing is just too much to ask. It's better to rewrite reality and pretend these people aren't a blight on the platform.
shes a leftist sponsored by soros to create chaos and division with disinformation
DarkViperAU/GrieferJesus squad rolling in!
@@anotherguyhere4599what?
@@IndustrialSociety1995 Ah yes, reduce valid criticism of her bad take as 'griefing'/trolling,' because god forbid you spend any time reflecting on whether perhaps reaction content, as in, content where a persons entire video is reuploaded, is immoral.
Just say we're griefers and call it a day, arguing with actual reasoning or points that make sense is too much to ask or expect I guess. Maybe you're right and Gabi should be free to misrepresent someone elses viewpoints completely unchallenged, because to challenge her would be to troll her/grief her/harrass her, and that wouldn't be fair would it. As we all know, people pointing out your opinion is wrong is the height of abuse afterall.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "rebroadcasting a video without adding anything" considered Copyright Infringement? It's literally providing an alternate way to view someone's 'original' work without transforming it enough to make it fair use.
22:35 I find this part the most ironic part of the video. You say your sister is an expert in impressions and marketing for 10 years and knows exactly how it works, and then after she gives you an answer you IMMEDIATELY say she's wrong :)))
It seems like you didn't read/understand the essay or watch his videos on the topic.
He specifically defines react content as watching a video for the first time in full while recording yourself hitting the pause button occasionally and giving poorly thought-out, real time, often nonsensical ramblings on a video that will often address the very thing your talking about if you just let it play out.
This type of content is almost never going to result in a high quality transformative reaction, nor is it really fair that they just play your video in full. It shouldn't be hard for them to watch it before hand, see if its worth reacting to, then editing out specific clips from it as needed. But with the way they're currently doing it, particularly on twitch and stream dumps on YT, they definitely need to be asking consent because IT IS NOT LEGAL. Thats right, look up the 4 major points of fair use, this type of content violates points 3 and 4 easily. Ask yourself, why is it wrong to do it with a show or movie, but cool to do it with someone's YT content? That content belongs to them.
As for the argument that if this content didn't exist, then maybe people will just spend less time on RUclips.. Yea, fair enough. DarkViper does mention this briefly, and his response is that it doesn't really matter, and he's right. If you stop watching RUclips then you're very VERY likely to become a consumer of something else. Maybe you'll watch Netflix (then Netflix benefits), maybe you'll play a game (then the ecosystem of that game benefits, or you'll eventually beat that game and likely buy another game), maybe you read a book (and you eventually finish that book and buy a new book). Even if you argue something as ridiculous as- well.. maybe I'll play solitare with myself. First off, those cards had to come from somewhere, and I 110% guarantee you won't be able to sustain your entertainment needs on solitaire alone. You'll have to move on to something else, eventually becoming a consumer of something. Ideally something ethical, unlike this style of react content.
Mind you, I'm only 8 minutes in your video and you already had a number of heavily flawed arguments. I would consider deleting this video. It's not very good.
Throughout the first 8 minutes all that I can think is that she doesn't like the analogy that Matt used about SA compared to react content. I personally didn't like the analogy either but to make this big of a point about it is absurd. I watched every single video he made on the react drama when it first came out and about a month ago re-watched the entire thing because it got recommended to me again. Just because you can sit on your ass for 22 minutes to sit on your ass and watch a 20 minute video doesn't mean you should. It's unethical to watch something that has taken 100s of hours to create and uploading the entire thing in full on your RUclips channel to reap the rewards. Don't you think the person who invested time and money into a project should get those rewards? Some react videos will even get more views than the original therefore making more money than the original video that took 100s of hours to create. Some of Matt's points I disagree with but I do agree that when people are reacting they're being a bad person. About the impressions thing, a video that has 50k views from a channel with 10k subs could keep growing and grow the 10k sub channel with it or you could post a reaction video with no effort being put in and take money and success away from the 10k sub channel.
This comment sums it up perfectly. I just watched this video, and her misunderstanding of the points really was unlike I remember her. Sad to see.
I have read the document and seen all of both DarkViperAU and Charlie's videos on the topic and I fully agree with your comment
@@something_different7632 What's really sad is that it's often the original creator that will get smoke if they dare to copyright claim a reaction of this type, so creators are super reluctant to do it. But some of these videos definitely deserve to be claimed, and they have every right to do it.
Your claims are disingenuous and you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
I agree. She is disingenuous.
Can you drones ever make an original statement or do you just parrot "matto" and his garbage fake intellectual takes?
Asking permission IS IMPORTANT. DON'T ever let this person tell you otherwise.
No one should be allowed to lazily reuse content of yours and just react to it.
Review and commenting on something is fine, but it is absolutely a big issue when someone lazily reacts and reuses the entirety of your content and reacts to it with no substance. That is a huge artistic issue that I would assume an artist like Gabi would understand. It felt so strange hearing her argue otherwise.
PS. If we applied your definition of free speech, I can just download a movie, put it on my stream and pause it once in a while and say "hahaha that'S funny I like that guy"... because free speech doesn't allow you to just steal someone's work and add nothing to it. That's why we have copyright and Fair use.
No not really. She literally spoke out against that type of content in the beginning and said it wasn't fair use. Did you even watch the video? She's talking about react content that adds commentary and transforms the original content. You're doing exactly what Dark Viper did. You're lumping in all react content with lazy reactions that don't actually transform the content. If you actually watched the video you would see that she specifically agrees that the example you used isn't fair use. The vast majority of reactors aren't making content like that.
@@erickshunn8498 She then claims "reacting to some podcast / drama" would be forbidden if they needed consent, but that falls under fair use so DVAU doesn't have a problem with that.
And also she uses "free speech" when she means Fair use. You can react to stuff (response in DVAU essay) if you transform it, but you shouldn't just let it play and let your chair watch:)
@@BeSk9991 if you needed permission to react, then yes, if you want to make a negative reaction then nobody would let you. If they know your reaction is going to be making fun of them they absolutely will refuse to let you react. That's precisely why fair use is a thing. So that you don't need consent. That's the entire reason behind fair use laws. You have no understanding of this subject.
And fair use IS free speech. That's why she uses it interchangeably. Again you can look this up, the entire reason fair use laws were put forth is so that copyright holders can't infringe on your first amendment right. It is a first amendment right to transform somebody else's work. You don't need consent. Just like you don't need consent to make a parody of a song. It's the same principle.
Again, nobody disagrees that watching a reaction without adding anything (letting your chair watch) 8snynfair use. You're having an argument that nobody disagrees with. Jesus Christ dude get all of the facts right before you form an opinion.
@@erickshunn8498 Did you even read my comment? Nobody is saying "negative response to someone's video" shouldn't be allowed, you are allowed to do a review of a racist video and react negatively, say why it is bad etc. thanks to Fair Use.
But if you want to watch some video on livestream, without knowing first if you have anything to add, then you should try to get permission.
@@BeSk9991 yes I read it. You're saying that you should ask consent before making a reaction video. No content creator is going to give you consent to make a reaction video that makes fun of them. Why do you think H3H3 got sued? He made a react video that was negative and the original creator didn't like it. So he sued him to try to get it removed. If you had to ask consent then no creator would allow you to make a negative reaction. It isn't hard. This is the entire point of fair use. So you don't have to ask consent.
And again, reaction content that is transformative is fair use. You don't need consent. Consent is not part of the equation. Even if you've never seen the video before, you can still add transformative content. The viewers are not there to see the original content. They're there to see the reactor. That in and of itself is transformative.
Gabi the type of gal who cannot visualize a spinning red apple in her mind.
i can visualize anything doing anything in my head, but not when im doing this thought experiment
holy shit thats the best roast i ever seen
She doesn't know what it would feel like to not have breakfast in the morning.
Weird, my ADHD doesn’t make me lie about people on the internet but after all it is a spectrum so 🤷♂️
🤣🤣🤙
And to think at some point I actually believed you had a working brain ☠
The fact that Danny Gonazales, someone who DEFINITELY DOES NOT make the react content Darkviper was addressing, is one of your primary arguments in this video, proves you don't actually know what you are talking about.
She's another delusional commentary channel. Nothing new to see here.
React channels literally steal from people I don't understand what's so hard to get ? Also next time use facts please and thank you.
Stealing hypothetical views and money they don’t actually have?
Right sure
@@Davies2710 don't have because they keep being pushed to watch the reactor rather than have the algorithm show them content they would watch on their own.
@@Davies2710 the child is back.
How can you be a commentary RUclipsr and not understand the situation 💀
Nine times out of ten when I watch react videos, it's because I've already consumed all the original media that I can, and I want to see someone else enjoy the same media that I do, and I want to be able to see someone else see it for the first time. It's like sharing a video with a friend, I know what's coming, I know it's good, and I'm excited to see someone else get to experience it. React content has a time and a place, and, like Gabi said, what's "good" content is highly subjective.
Yes same!!
I know often after I watch Ghibli movies, I watch various channels react to it just to see them enjoy it too. Some add a good amount to the content, like the channel Cinema Therapy, while others simply just show their emotions upon watching it. I think it’s a very valid form of media, they don’t steal the experience of watching the movies, but they just add a bit of extra experience which is added on to my enjoyment
I ate a sandwich today therefore world hunger doesn't exist
Me to but most reactors like xqc etc. get more views on their videos than the original, which shows that most people don't see the original video. This proves that it's still very unethical
Although I sometimes share the same desires to see people's reactions to content I enjoyed for various reasons - it doesn't take away from the fact that it is theft of the content to just play it through and "react" to it. If someone watches the reaction video before the original, they have no reason to watch the original because they just saw it.
The first time I saw this was the Fallout 76 video from Internet Historian. I loved it, and watched some reactions of it. Then I thought "huh, if someone watched one of these streamers copies before the original - they would have no reason to go watch it".
When you can do that with multiple videos a day, every day - it's like a cheat code. The only effort you have to give is the time to watch the video and someone (usually an editor) to get it on youtube.
“Facts and logic” and “that’s just my opinion” kinda contradict each other 🤷♂️
Girl thinks she's ben shapiro
I agree with matto and dont agree with gabi bellybutton
This is so childish, I love it
Bro destroyed her
terrible take there gab
I have to agree with Darkviper to some degree it’s not as dramatic as he makes it seem but there is a change to the algorithm due to reaction content hell if you try searching for some videos you’re likely going to see reactions to that video instead of the original video itself which is wild and it does take away some revenue because I watched someone react to something why tf would I watch it again
Dark viper really said “react videos are like sexual assault” and then proceeds to react to a video by his logic he is just as bad as a sexual assailant
way off bro
"Reacters use the same logic as sexual assaultists"
ERMAGHERD HE SAID REACTERS ARE RAPISTS
Maybe get both sides points of views before making comments?
DARKVIPER FANS, WHERE YOU AT
Now that i have your attention, why are you here? Are you here to just check out her comments and have a structured and calm debate? Or are you a bad noodle and only here to argue, hate, and spit venom at Gabi's fans and her/their pov? Think about how her fans and Gabi herself are going to feel about Darkviper fans.
The bad noodles, think of how you are portraying Matto's fans and what light you are painting us in.
I've scrolled for about 5 minutes and have seen, not kidding, 26 comments about her, for lack of better word and i mean no offense to Gabi, her stupidity and inability to understand much of anything about Matto's words. (Im sorry, i have no easy way of saying it, i hope i didn't sound like a dick)
As fans of a man as well spoken and well read man as Matto, we should be debating in calm manners, not putting others down.
If you're a Matt fan, like this please, it will help spread this message around this comment section.
I understand that the words Matto said near the end about gabi being dense and the stupidity of mankind being infinite, but just understand where hes coming from, understand that he is a passionate person about what he believes to be true and just, that he is so heavily AGAINST misinformation.
Just know that what you say here could be harmful to not only our image but our boy, DarkViperAU.
Amen brother
Some of the comments are from people who didn't even finish watching Matto's video , just here to spread hate over an argument that at the end of the day is gonna be forgotten to the annals of history
I don't know if you already did but you should also post this comment on matto's original
@@Meliodas-xs4jc I should tbh
@@Meliodas-xs4jc posted it, unsure if you'd be able to find it to like it, but it's in the sea of comments somewhere :D
You know why Matt is right about react content? Recently Charlie made a vid about the Oompaville thing where he got scammed for a truckload of money and then made a vid about it. Charlie doesn't actually REACT to Oompa's vid in his own or even shows a single frame from it, he actually asks his audience to go check it out themselves and links it in the description
If react content brings in so much exposure to small creators and is so much of a quid-pro-quo thing why wouldn't Charlie do that to his friend in need?
Watching this and DarkViperAU's response back to back is like watching a little child play basketball against micheal jordan.
lmao
That implies "matto" would ever leave his house. Bro is a hikikomori.
There's always this one stinky video that makes me unsub
I feel your pain! Same situation happened to me.
I was really hoping she posted a follow-up or statement but I didn't see anything. Plus the video still being up like this (no notes, comments or edits that I can see) speaks volumes about her I'm afraid.
This is such a biased analysis wow
Gabbie, you tried going up against a man who is known for his extensive research and relentless dedication towards meticulously studying and learning everything to do with not just RUclips, but content creation as a whole, and unsurprisingly managed to make yourself look extremely ignorant around a topic you yourself clearly did barely any research on.
I'm not accusing you of purposely misrepresenting Matt (Viper) here, nor that you had any ill intent with this video.
I'm simply, along with the majority of this comment section, advising you, for future reference when discussing important topics, to truly let go of any bias and also make extensive research and make sure your video ticks all the correct boxes, all of which you obviously failed to do here
She is extremely biased for Charlie and based off of her mannerisms and the way she presents this video along with her bias I’m not willing to give her the benefit of the doubt
@@galaxy6251 Of course she's biased, that we already know. But I think everyone can learn and improve
This is one of the most blatantly biased and full of deformation video I have ever seen congrats lmao
I've watched this video from beginning to end and my conclusions is that she jumped on a band wagon to get views and if she call someone unhinged for making a 47 min response video what does that say about her making a 35 min react video.
It's truly hilarious just how hypocritical she is. She defends react content and stands by it not being unethical, calls Matt's (Darkviperau) essay poorly written and lazy - when this video itself is infinitely worse written and lazier than anything Matt has written or filmed during this 'drama'. When the screen caps of his essay accidentally prove her own arguments to be lies and falsehoods and yet SHE tries to call his work lazy and dishonest is truly, astonishly arrogant
Your argument of why it doesn't matter that it took the original creator of a video significantly more time to produce than it did a react streamer is done in such bad faith, too. Snapping back at DV's point with you saying that it can take a professional creator less time to produce something than an amateur is nonsensical when the person for whom it takes less time to put out the same product which often times is competing in the same space, is taking video of themselves watching something that took somebody else hours of research, editing, scripting, etc. to do, regardless of skill level, who now gets none of the ad revenue, or algorithmic rewards of getting the views from the video. If asmongold or mizkif (pedo, btw) watches the entirety of somebody's half hour long video essay, if the streamer's audience liked it, they have barely any incentive to seek out the original creator, and even less incentive to watch the video again.
so if i reacted to this vid made more money and views u wouldnt feel anything?? mind u i didnt even apply an hour of effort?
I mean that would be silly but go off ig
@@squin6959 youtube is a competion react from many streamers is just one of the cheats you can use to stay on top w/o the time it takes to create content from scratch the "shoutout" is deffo not gonna help ur channel grow like dat, cant change a mind thats not open 🤷🏽♂️
@@squin6959
How would it be silly she's advocating for it to happen
I think there's been a weird mixing on Reaction content and Response content lately. Because the vast majority of Reaction content is the same lazy junk that has been around since the days of Jinx getting mocked by Jacksfilms for reacting to Jack's content and hardly adding anything.
I personally refute the idea that Reaction content lifts up the content that is reacted to, because the vast majority, especially the more famous and popular channels, only really react to already viral or popular content. Because hoards of fifteen year olds watching Pokimane watching Avatar is totally going to bring Avatar into the public consciousness, of which it has NEVER been a part of before. Sure, SOME of the content might see a boost in one way or another, like a handful of pennies being thrown into your face, but most Reaction content are flying in the original content's slipstream, hardly ever contributing back anything meaningful.
It is a pretty obvious fact that of plain and pure Reaction content, a fairly generous estimate of 85% of it could be DMCA'd off the planet with no leg to stand on. Because again, Reaction content has not substantially changed since the days of Jinx, it just seems people fail to have eyes and can't differentiate between critically analyzing content and watching content with your brain switched off.
But the original content still still sees mores views and exposure . She claims to be an example and I only found her through Critical. Where is your actual evidence?
@@DukeUncanny there's none...this whole point of the argument is literally "source:dude just trust me" from people that don't like the creators this Darkviper dude accuses
One thing, no one gives a fuck about the law if the majority don't like it or enforce it, it's about how it's bad, there is a video by darkviper (a new one) that explains in great deatail how this harms RUclips CREATORS not meme channels not music channels but specifically RUclipsrs, it's a bit long but you will understand that even if s person gets a fuckton of subscribers it won't help them, but if you do not care about the above statement just let me tell you, no one here is gonna defend Viacom because their content is being reacted to we do not care about Viacom we care about youtubers and bigger influencers being lazy and taking everything for themselves without working.
@@some_one Unfortunately I won't be giving darkviper any clicks over this controversy so I won't fully understand your claim. I have seen a few graphs on smaller youtubers getting the spotlight and while the boost doesn't last typically they get more viewers than they previously had per video after it evens out and it's still good exposure. The fact of the matter is as long as it's transformative content it's fair use and it's free speech. From what I see darkviper is guilty of throwing his mob of viewers around like he accused moist of.
If we're talking about the huge streamers streaming copyrighted content then yes obviously I agree they shouldn't do that and they should have their channel taken down over it but I don't think that's what were talking about here. There's a huge difference between content that has a pay wall and content from a public site. One of these you get to see full context from and again if you're not just streaming it but also adding commentary this falls under fair use.
It just sounds like she’s Charlie’s #1 fan, and to her Charlie can do/say no wrong 😂. Saying this as a fan of both Charlie and DarkViperAU myself, just unbiased unlike her
Yes you are super biased
I’ve seen a few reaction channels and they literally just sit in the corner of the screen saying nothing until the end of the video
I'm curious if you have any updated views on the topic since DarkViper has actually made a more detailed and thorough video describing the problems with react streamers. A lot of things that were communicated poorly in the original essay are more clearly defined.
A few examples...
The definition of reactor not including reviews or opinion pieces on certain content. Like this video would not fall into the react category.
Also, what impressions are. You were talking about impressions in regards to specific topics; however, DarkViper was talking about impressions in regards to the videos put in a person's recommended.
Doubtful she will ever comment on DVAU again
You know that people sometimes don't like other people, right?
We don't all have to get along.
Leave them kids alone. Dark Viper outed himself and his followers, what a fool.
@@jack-a-lopium Wtf are you yapping about? By that definition "Gabie outed herself and her audience" because of your comment. I assume you could be gabie's audience but I wouldn't say that cause I am not 100% sure. "You know that people sometimes don't like other people" and what tf does this relate to anything? No one here is trying to make world peace? The comments are just disagreements and discussions. And who's 'them kids'??? Creepy ahh mf though he was onto something💀
RUclips needs to implement a system similar to TikTok duets, where a creator can watch a video or stream a video and both channels get views and ad revenue, that could totally solve the problem on RUclips even though twitch would still be a problem
I disagree with this because if you get things like Gabi is talking about, where react youtubers are talking about something really shitty that someone else has done, why would you want that person to get ad revenue when you are trying to show people how unethical that person is?
@@1ndiasmusic It's still the guy's content. Maybe people can set their video to free reaction or shared revenue reaction or something like that. Maybe make it so that you can only have for example a minute reaction time per 10 minutes in a video or something stupid like that anything better than this system.
@@1ndiasmusic Don't show the vid then, if you aren't okmwith them getting paid for their work, no matter how wrong it is, don't use their work
Matt was right, this video was made lazily while at the same time lying even though you can be proven wrong by just reading the essay that he made
Do research
you didnt even understood a single word
3:14 Wait so you watched dark vipers' whole video and still didn't understand what a reaction video is? A reaction is when the reactor is seeing the content for the first time. Dark viper already saw the video and is going through and adding clips to explain his point. That's not a reaction. A reaction is always a video with little to no editing involved. Thats why its low effort. If it has substantial editing and only clips of the video are taken then you'd have to be an idiot to think that its still a reaction
This is embarrassing Gabi
Why???
@@seilakkkk5252because it's an entire 35 minute video built on the foundation of bad faith, deceptions and lies
so basically what you're saying is that it should be ok to steal other peoples hard work and get paid for it?
There's a difference between reaction and commentary all of your points are null
honestly its hard to believe you even read the essay or did any modicum of research. I would have been embarrassed to so brazenly be so wrong about a topic.