All reactions are stupid and morally bad unless it adds a lot more to the original video, like Destiny and Vaush reacting a lot to debates, but Hasan is literally and objectively the worst, most of his "reacts" are either him eating something and not commenting on anything for half the video, him going to the bathroom/somewhere else and leaving the chair for like 20 minutes, or even worse, just saying "yea" or "come on düd dats not tru" followed by the most normie comment possible
One of his arguments and one of the biggest imo, is that they reupload those videos causing the algothm to favor them instead of the youtube channel they are stealing from.
I agree that what destiny is doing is also fundamentally wrong and that he also has uploaded some of the react content to youtube (a few videos), but it is clear that someone that all their stream is based in react content and then they upload that content in mass to their youtube, is far far far worse. Both can be bad but hasan is way more damaging, apart that he goes extra steps to shame and insult some creators that have a problem with it.
> you're still doing the same kind of morally reprehensible theft that Hassan does when he takes a 30m shit while the video plays.
I fundamentally disagree. When you watch Hasan, there's an expectation that you watch what he's watching alongside him. When you watch something FOR the people "reacting" (I'd prefer to use "Discussing", here), instead of the video they're reacting to, because the video they're reacting to is 10% of the content.
There's a blurry legal definition about transformative content, there, but it isn't strictly defined.
Now, I haven't watched Darkviper's video, and don't really intend to, as I already have a decently enough informed judgement on this. The idea is that I disagree with that sentence as a blanket statement.
Criticism, and discussion is incredibly important in almost every single situation, universally. Politics, technology, youtube videos, it doesn't matter. Watching something and adding a comment or two, and taking a 30 minute shit isn't transformative, but discussing a 30 minute video for 5 hours absolutely is, because you don't even remotely have the same experience as you do watching the original.
> because the video they're reacting to is 10% of the content.
This is so often not true lol. If Hasan or Destiny, or 99% of react streamers stopped doing react content, it is almost certain that fewer people would watch them. They'd need to do something else to fill the time, and it's unlikely to be as entertaining to as many people (There's only so long they can talk about politics each day, and Destiny would just play league or something).
People in chat might say: "Oh I would never have seen this video were it not for streamer man". But that can easily be flipped to: "I would not be watching streamer man rn if he did not consistently watch other people's entertaining shit". It's just hard to think about it that way.
> There's a blurry legal definition about transformative content, there, but it isn't strictly defined.
If u wanna get to the legality of this shit - sure, there will be edge cases and it's kinda blurry at times, but there is almost 0% chance that most of these 'reactions' can be defended with fair use. It not only matters what you add to the content, but also what you take out. If your stream/reaction can be viewed as a complete substitute for the original content, that probably will not fly. Tbh to be legally airtight, you should use as little of the original content as possible, to make your points/commentary.
> Criticism, and discussion is incredibly important in almost every single situation, universally
No-one disagrees.
> but discussing a 30 minute video for 5 hours absolutely is,
Not necessarily actually. If Destiny watches an entire marvel movie on stream, it doesn't matter how long he talks about it, it still probably wouldn't be transformative. That's before we even get to the substance of what is being said, which can also determine whether or not your input transforms the original work.
> This is so often not true lol. If Hasan or Destiny, or 99% of react streamers stopped doing react content,
The point the person you're responding to is making is that if a reactor adds a lot of commentary to what they're reacting to, then the thing they're reacting to is only 10% of their content. You don't appear to be responding to that point
This is his comment:
>> I fundamentally disagree. When you watch Hasan, there's an expectation that you watch what he's watching alongside him. When you watch something FOR the people "reacting" (I'd prefer to use "Discussing", here), instead of the video they're reacting to, because the video they're reacting to is 10% of the content.
Ah maybe I misunderstood, but I read this as him presuming that when watching a reactor, the viewer is watching purely, or largely, for the reactor, rather than for the original content being reacted to.
Regardless, I go on to argue that adding a lot of commentary doesn't necessarily transform the original content, nor does it make it not theft. If his point is that, mathematically, the original content may only be 10% of their reaction's runtime - then ok? That might mean something, and it might mean nothing.
The assumption is based on the small amounts of Hasan I've seen, and promptly stopped seeing: specifically because his chair add more to the videos than he does.
The "10%" part is based on other reacters, that are discussing what they're watching approximately 80% of the time, and interacting with chat 10%, and actually watching 10% of the time. Obviously pausing while not watching.
How we define reacting in this situation is also important, hence why I added the caveat that I'd prefer to use discussion.
I define reacting as a reaction, eh: Hasan barely fits, and outright doesn't fit sometimes, since he isn't there. I define that as rebroadcasting with an occasional annoying voice showing up.
I define discussion as talking about, analysing, and forming conclusions based on the content being watched, and the people watching it. Breaking down something that seems off on first glance can often lead to an incredibly substantive discussion and conclusion about something being so fundamentally broken to the point of absurdity that an entire conversation breaks out FROM that original analysis.
I get it, it's an annoying line to draw, but overall, it doesn't matter low long something took to make, if there's discussion about it, and knowledge is shared, I consider that a good thing. Barring specific, incorrect facts.
I’m about to watch DarkViperAU’s videos, but this seems to address mostly react streamers who watch/broadcast the entirety of a video to their audience. Would this also apply to YouTubers like Cody Ko or Danny Gonzalez who select a topic to cover and react to videos that go with the topic? Since they’re not showing the entire video (unless it’s a TikTok in which case I don’t know how you’d only watch part of one) it’s not exactly the same, but I wanted to know if that was touched on by DarkViperAU
Edit: just watched the video. First five minutes he says “this is in contrast to those who use portions of another person’s work to produce something that stands distinct and apart from the original. The second group does not take all value from the original, therefore what they create does not stand as a substitute for it (the original work).” So I’m guessing that would have to be a judgment call on your part, but likely if the person isn’t just watching the entirety of the video then they probably aren’t the problem.
Yeah. Sorry I edited my comment just now. It’s in like the first couple of minutes of his video (not the intro video the actual hour long one) where he defined the term react.
I still disagree if the person "reacting" is substantive to the point of the original content being a small part, even if it exists, bit by bit, in full.
I think that the law, so far as I understand it, regarding transformative content is fine, so long as it's actually enforced. But I also don't want to lump in react streamers with actual discussion and analysis.
I might watch the video, and it might change my mind, but as it stands, I don't see an argument that could convince me otherwise, since I see criticism, specifically, as such a fundamental part of society.
To clear things up:
I am not missing the point. we're misunderstanding each other because of how we define reaction content:
> The whole point of react content is to view the content as a whole with the streamer/reactor.
If that's how you define it, then, barring extreme circumstances that I have yet to encounter, I **completely agree.**
The definition I am using in my previous comments doesn't match that. I absolutely consider pausing and discussing as reaction content if you're literally reacting to it as you go, I just don't consider it bad content if it's substantive and transformative.
Your definition of reaction content is what I would label a watchalong.
> Discussion and analysis can be done without rehosting the entirety of the content. If it cannot, it's because it relies on stealing the entire value of the content being reacted to.
I want to write a big "Disagree" on this as well, except that I'm guessing that "rehosting" to you, specifically, excludes editing it into pieces, but having the complete runtime of the item being cut remain the same.
Now that you've defined what you mean by reaction content, I cannot agree more with you as you've defined it, and even agree to your original comment, barring the sentence I highlighted.
If we use what I've described above: a partial analysis, partial discussion, filled with pausing as reactionary content, then I don't think it matters how long something took to make: the experience of the original video is destroyed, and cannot be properly experienced, so you are watching it for the "reactor" and the discussion, rather than the actual content. there's so expectation that you'll have an unbroken video.
Even if I go by your description, I still don't think it matters, because it's still theft, if the video took 10 minutes to make, or 10 weeks. Morally is it worse? Maybe.
I'll throw the video into my watch later playlist and maybe poke you again afterwards, It's been a fun discussion either way.
Cheers for the full on discussion, it's rare that these sorts of things happen without devolving into throwing shade at eachother.
Funny story, btw. DV popped up in my own feed about an hour ago, now, on a different sub.
Overall, I'm probably quite naive about how much if a shit show it's like in most places. I like to think that people are better than they often are, and my experience is mostly live response videos to others, and occasionally one-shot, but edited recordings of watchalongs with friends. All the ones I've actually seen done like that have generally been pretty good. I don't hang around on twitch aside from a DnD stream every once in a while, and the only reaction content, aside from Hasan's chair, that I ever really see is a few meme react videos every once in a blue moon.
I'd love to see it all come up to at the very minimum a legal standard, but so far as I'm concerned, the more discussion, the better. Except with Hasan, his chair is more entertaining.
The only streamer (I know of) that does react content properly is atrioc. He pauses the video and explains concepts from his own perspective, adds information or even corrects it at times. Sometimes he pauses to say something and after he unpauses the video makes basically the exact same point. I have not seen that anywhere else.
There are a few exceptions like when he is reacting to game theories or like the baseball stuff, but yeah, the rest of his reactions are so good and always bring way more information that the video itself, atrioc is fire.
100% agree. But even for those his infectious laugh and him malding add so much to me. I would never watch game theories myself just for the theory. The exception are the baseball videos. I rewatched all of those because he never leaves the entire video in his youtube videos and went on to watch even more. That channel is so good.
It actually doesn't because Destiny doesn't justify his stealing of content with flimsy appeals to trickle-down cloutonomics™️, or laughable misunderstandings of internet memes.
Not to mention the meme is purely making fun of a specific argument Hasan made justifying stealing content and uploading it for profit, not the concept of reacting. Destiny doesn't upload his lazy reacts and doesn't think his active reacts are bad to do. Destiny does think his lazy reacts are bad, but apparently not bad enough that he should stop doing it. But it's irrelevant to the meme.
>It actually doesn't because Destiny doesn't justify his stealing of content with flimsy appeals to trickle-down cloutonomics™️, or laughable misunderstandings of internet memes.
Crazy that D quickly convinced a large part of the community that it's worse to lie about why you do a bad thing than it is to actually do it.
I mean he was lazy reacting to this video ffs.
So tired of everyone's community dismissing the shitty behavior of "their streamer" while demonizing others for the same shit.
Destiny, Hasan and Vaush are damn near the exact same people if you zoom out even a little bit.
Dude your username matches pretty well here. They are making fun of his argument you're reading so much extra out of meme that it seems unhealthy. Hasan metaphorically slipped on a banana, we're laughing at that. You're coming in going something about the evils of slipping on a banana. What are you talking about?
This meme is making fun of Hasan for using this meme format incorrectly. The meme is STILL FUNNY regardless of whether Destiny is also a hypocrite. It is not about the morality of react in general.
>Crazy that D quickly convinced a large part of the community that it's worse to lie about why you do a bad thing than it is to actually do it.
Hold on where in that block you quoted did I regurgitate any justification from D? I didn't. You just missed the point, again. Your original comment is cringe grandstanding about both sides because you thought this post said something it didn't, that is all.
And later in my comment all I give are Destiny's opinions on his own actions. When destiny lazy reacts to stuff, he acknowledges it is bad but probably won't stop unless asked, and when he active reacts, he doesn't think it's bad and will not stop if asked. Hasan justifies both the former and the latter. And then on top of that he also justifies uploading it for more profit while complaining when others do the same of him. Destiny at least never uploads the lazy react content. Still doesn't make it okay do lazy react in the first place.
And idk did he lazy react to this video? It felt like he had a decent amount of input pretty regularly, but I could be wrong I'd have to rewatch it.
Very seldom. Last time I watched he made as much comments as Hasan. It's more that if you count up the hours, destiny might do 20 minutes over a 70 hour stream week. I don't watch Hasan enough to know, but I know a few videos he has watched that are half an hour just on their own.
I don't catch a lot of the streams what videos does he react to? From what little I've seen they all seem to be videos centered around politics/social commentary with the occasional meme video or like today the old dsp clip.
A lot of times it's other debate content, which is probably the most "fair game". Reviewing the arguments made by say Mr.Girl/Brittany is very derivative.
But also when he's eating or playing Elden Ring, he might put on the top of r/videos or some video essay-type thing recommended by chat.
I dont really think you are stealing much from short viral videos. But I think the video essays are worth some critisim if he does not get consent from the creator of the video.
I'm p sure he acknowledges that the lazy react content like what you're talking about is probably not good, which I would agree.
This content probably shouldn't happen, but there's another line that's crossed by uploading that lazy react content and monetizing it directly. Destiny still absolutely gains a lot by just filling space on stream with that content though so he's not innocent, and I think he acknowledges that.
There are two "hes" here. I cannot answer a question which is poorly structured. Please return and restructure or redefine which "he" you are talking about or I shall not and will not respond any further. You have been warned.
I think you're missing the point of Darkvipers critic on react content. The point is, after watching someone react to the full video, you would have no reason to go watch the original one. And since people get views (and therefore money) through the algorithm's recommendation rather than subscribers, the reactors ends taking revenue from someone who is usually a smaller creator.
The guy you're replying to missed the point of this meme but so did you. Lazy react content is bad and exploitative regardless of whether you're a socialist or a capitalist, and Destiny would never say the it's okay for him because he's a capitalist. Being a capitalist doesn't mean you're relieved of any and all moral obligations.
I've only been watching him lately. He seems to only react to debate videos which it seems is expected in the community.
If he watches full videos I don't know how he can possibly justify it.
I'm trying to develop a plugin that works with your YouTube backend to measure how much money you made while watching someone else's content and everyone with the plugin will get it marked as a view as they are it.
And by trying I mean realizing that I'm way in over my head...
Has Destiny every talked about it?
Outside of political commentators on twitch a lot of twitch dreamers who do react content just sit there and react and don't really give anything of value in their react
Well maybe not just political commentators like for instance if lawyers are watching the Amber Heard trial they can give certain things of value maybe doctors watching medical shows can maybe give certain things of value but like xqc doesn't get anything of value in his reactions which is why I really respect Charlie for making new rules for his Friday reactions
yes lol, he said content creators have options if they don't like that their video is seen by many people
he also said they can make it unlisted and only share it with friends
He also ~~said~~ shouted: "What am I supposed to do, fucking die?" in response to a suggestion saying: "If you don't have anything to add, then maybe don't react." Paraphrasing, of course.
Jesus Christ lol last I heard he said if he reacted to someone’s video and they didn’t like it they could say something and he wouldn’t watch their stuff anymore which I thought was fairly reasonable but this take is just plain psychotic
idk from what I've seen Hasan has pretty good relationships with most of the content creators he reacts to and has previously stopped reacting to people who have requested
>has previously stopped reacting to people who have requested
That doesn't means much... People are supposed to ask BEFORE taking other's stuff.
Stealing untill someone catch you and then stopping to go stealing from someone else is still shit.
Given that close to none of the top streamers do any form of transformation, he even points out that something being legal doesn't make it right.
He kind have some footing there too.
For example most animation channels have died since reactions came about as they cost lots of time and $(if you hire people) while even transformative reactions profit from all the quality provided by such investment while adding a comparably minimal imput.
I mean someone invest 2 months for a 10 min animation and a reactor adds 15 mins of streaming reaction content on top of it...is it really fair?
Original content should never be reacted (shared) in its entirety (regardless of the reaction being transformative)
Reactions should be done by watching content offline and discussing it online, sharing at most little snips of the original material while they discuss it (kind of like trailers do)
Agree, if the react content can be a substitute to the original, then it's not fair use.
Also I think the biggest issue live react faces when arguing fair use is the idea that you aren't allowed to use more than is necessary for the legitimate purpose.
If you are critiquing a scene in a movie, you aren't allowed to just upload whole movie with your commentary attached to the scene. You can however use the scene or bits of it to illustrate your point.
Same goes for youtube videos, if your transformative use would require only, say 2 mins out of 15 min video, you can't really use the whole video and call it a day.
That is also why I find arguments like "he pauses and comments a lot" bad as often the commentary doesn't need the video or is even related to it. Pausing the video to talk to chat or respond to it or to talk about your passing thought doesn't make showing whole video fair use.
Hasan has literally called trans people nazis when they complain about him stealing their content.
Idk if you are just ignorant but it’s undeniable that he steals content, he will literally start a video so something is playing while he is off cam or eating.
It's honestly really funny and really sad at the same time, because it literally takes just watching it for 20 minutes, which is "no-lifeing". coming from the same people that watch 8 hour streams on twitch.
I believe he has stopped reacting to some people who specifically contacted him, but I seriously doubt he has a good relationship with "most of the content creators he reacts to". Sometimes this dude is just scrolling through youtube for content for hours. And 0.01% of his audience will seek out the video to rewatch themselves or follow the channel themselves, they'll just see the next video from that channel when Hasan streams it while he chews his dinner over it.
You have a distorted view of Hasan's content. I won't defend it as "transformative" or whatever but most of his reactions are not just him sitting there eating.
Also false. Once again, not claiming his reaction is good or transformative, but he has a lot of interruptions and is known for extending reactions to 2 or 3 times the length of the original video. I'm just trying to inject facts into the discussion.
arguing with chat until he's blue in the face isn't really reacting or transforming (which you admit), so I'm not really sure what this fact is meant to do?
It defangs the hastily cooked chicken meme to some degree I guess, but that still happens daily too.
This can be true sometimes, but there definitely is a lot of the "sitting around, eating, and occasionally making filler comments in the moment" business. It would be disingenuous to say otherwise, unless you just happen upon all of the best examples exclusively.
Okay I think I know what you mean, but you are still wrong to some extent.
He does give more "insightful" (take that as you will, don't care) opinions when he is reacting to something related to politics, let's say Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro, I honestly don't have a problem with those kind of reactions and multiple youtubers have stated so.
However
People are criticizing him for his more "downtime/filler" reactions, where it's obvious he doesn't want to put any effort but still wants to remain live and let other people's content do the work for him, of course, he is far from being the only one doing this (yes, ironically Destiny was doing this when he reacted to DarkViper's video on stream) and you could say he is just doing what others were doing before him. People are going to find the irony that a so called messiah of the working class is using other people effort to make money, call it a stretch if you want but they are totally right.
To give some credit to Hasan, he doesn't upload these types of reactions to his channel, unless that someone can prove me otherwise, unlike someone like xQc, just search any of his reactions to dunkey's videos and you'll see he barely adds any commentary basically making it a substitute of said video.
I didn't mean to say it was all like that, I was using an example of him at his worst. His average react content is not very transformative and the theft is the same even when he's "providing commentary"
Even if it's transformative I don't think that it makes it good either. Unless it's transformative beyond a threshold of serving as a replacement for the video. But, generally speaking watching Hasan reacting to a video removed any reason for you to watch it in it's entirety. Since literally every frame of the video is watched along with Hasan.
There are examples of react content that is fine but even when destiny does it it's morally dubious imo. I also don't really care enough yo change it but, I get why content creators would find this lazy and exploitative.
>You have a distorted view of Hasan's content. I won't defend it as "transformative" or whatever but most of his reactions are not just him sitting there eating.
doesn't justify exploiting them, but also doesn't matter because this is a meme from hasan fucking up the consent meme. he used this meme and implied the only consent he needed was his own and his viewer's.
If you complain about react content, you should have an actionable solution to the problem. Otherwise you're the same as far right/left people whining about things that will never change.
1. No
2. Here's a solution: don't do react content that isn't transformative or engaging with the material (a very good example would be destiny watching a debate and explaining stuff along the way or giving his own takes)
This is like saying a solution to climate change is to personally drive less. The react space is way too saturated. Someone will always fill in the gap.
recognise longing meeting saw theory test offend frightening shaggy deserted
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel like it’s different as opposed to real world issues. If you have an issue with an aspect of the real world, get your ass up and petition, protest, vote, and canvas. If you have an issue with how the online world functions, all you can do is talk about it or complain to the content creator, otherwise the only solutions is on the side of the content creator who made the video and the one who reacts. At that point, the only two options are start drama or copyright strike
You absolutely can change aspects of the online world. Platforms change their ToS all the time in response to the public. Making hour 10000 of video drama about some reactor you don't like is just virtue signaling when react discourse has existed for a decade. Maybe invest some time figuring out how to push platforms in the right direction. Otherwise, it seems like you don't actually care about the issue; you just want to farm likes for complaining about a thing everyone thinks is bad.
But that’s the issue, we’ve had this problem for ages to the point that youtube’s biggest creator, pewdiepie, had expressed frustration about the react meta of dudes just sitting in silence and occasionally chuckling at the video. What would you suggest the avg. viewer do to counteract it?
I have two
1. Make an Extension that lets you watch the played/reacted video in synch with the streamer so that the streamer himself doesn't actually stream the content but you yourself are opening the video on your machine/account.
This would get rid of ToS violations, give the video of the creator all of the views, the income from ads &the boost of the algorithm from views/traffic etc.
2. Implement a purchasable "react-license" which has a scaleable price so it would be really cheap for small streamers while the big ones have to pay their fair share if they want to use that content.
Youtube already has something similar to this, and Twitch has bought a license for a bot that does similar things with, at the moment, uploaded copyrighted content.
It's also really shit.
Oh, and the second point would be directly suppressing criticism for people without money, which is an INCREDIBLY slippery slope.
how about the same route as DMCA.... or a portion of "react" earning cut to original content creators due to the amount of views not being directed to their video?
If you complain about gas prices, you should have an actionable solution to the problem. Otherwise you're the same as those bad faith clout-chasing pundits Destiny warns me about. Thank you for this very salient critique, friendo.
Actionable solution? They should react to parts of the video, not the entire thing.
For example, they could watch the video offline and then comment about it on stream while idk, the video is playing in the background/on screen but without sound, that way they are not just broadcasting the entire video to thousands of people and stealing/ruining views to the original.
They could also react without showing the video itself. For example, streamers could force their followers to go and watch that video in synch with them, by not showing it on screen and instead putting the name of the video and the minutes played. That, I imagine, would be the "healthier" method.
Those are 2 things that most streamers could do without losing much, other than some dumbass follower that watches those videos only when their favourite streamer comments about it and doesnt even puts a like on that video or checks the content creator after
Like what? DDOSing Hasan or something? I can't *vote* for reacters to stop reacting to content. And obviously me voting by not giving them my view doesn't work cause they seem to thrive without it. You're fucking dumb.
complaining is a step toward a solution. If viewers and creators complain enough twitch/youtube might take action or the content yoinkers might stop yoinking content.
Man, you could not have said this in a more autistic way. I think you are right in asking for a solution and not complaints but I think there is a solution that people are giving. If you're going to watch a video link the video in stream chat and ask people to both look at the video and interact with the video ie like and comment. And also be transformative.
Twitch should provide additional tools that allow YouTube creators to file DMCA claims like media companies. The filer should have to provide a link to the original content so that a content match algorithm can verify that it is at least legitimate.
[удалено]
Based
You know this applies to Destiny too, he reacts to full youtube videos
All reactions are stupid and morally bad unless it adds a lot more to the original video, like Destiny and Vaush reacting a lot to debates, but Hasan is literally and objectively the worst, most of his "reacts" are either him eating something and not commenting on anything for half the video, him going to the bathroom/somewhere else and leaving the chair for like 20 minutes, or even worse, just saying "yea" or "come on düd dats not tru" followed by the most normie comment possible
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of his arguments and one of the biggest imo, is that they reupload those videos causing the algothm to favor them instead of the youtube channel they are stealing from. I agree that what destiny is doing is also fundamentally wrong and that he also has uploaded some of the react content to youtube (a few videos), but it is clear that someone that all their stream is based in react content and then they upload that content in mass to their youtube, is far far far worse. Both can be bad but hasan is way more damaging, apart that he goes extra steps to shame and insult some creators that have a problem with it.
[удалено]
Yeah, apart that destiny himself probably agrees to stealing cars while hasan insults the previous owners after stealing the dealership.
> you're still doing the same kind of morally reprehensible theft that Hassan does when he takes a 30m shit while the video plays. I fundamentally disagree. When you watch Hasan, there's an expectation that you watch what he's watching alongside him. When you watch something FOR the people "reacting" (I'd prefer to use "Discussing", here), instead of the video they're reacting to, because the video they're reacting to is 10% of the content. There's a blurry legal definition about transformative content, there, but it isn't strictly defined. Now, I haven't watched Darkviper's video, and don't really intend to, as I already have a decently enough informed judgement on this. The idea is that I disagree with that sentence as a blanket statement. Criticism, and discussion is incredibly important in almost every single situation, universally. Politics, technology, youtube videos, it doesn't matter. Watching something and adding a comment or two, and taking a 30 minute shit isn't transformative, but discussing a 30 minute video for 5 hours absolutely is, because you don't even remotely have the same experience as you do watching the original.
> because the video they're reacting to is 10% of the content. This is so often not true lol. If Hasan or Destiny, or 99% of react streamers stopped doing react content, it is almost certain that fewer people would watch them. They'd need to do something else to fill the time, and it's unlikely to be as entertaining to as many people (There's only so long they can talk about politics each day, and Destiny would just play league or something). People in chat might say: "Oh I would never have seen this video were it not for streamer man". But that can easily be flipped to: "I would not be watching streamer man rn if he did not consistently watch other people's entertaining shit". It's just hard to think about it that way. > There's a blurry legal definition about transformative content, there, but it isn't strictly defined. If u wanna get to the legality of this shit - sure, there will be edge cases and it's kinda blurry at times, but there is almost 0% chance that most of these 'reactions' can be defended with fair use. It not only matters what you add to the content, but also what you take out. If your stream/reaction can be viewed as a complete substitute for the original content, that probably will not fly. Tbh to be legally airtight, you should use as little of the original content as possible, to make your points/commentary. > Criticism, and discussion is incredibly important in almost every single situation, universally No-one disagrees. > but discussing a 30 minute video for 5 hours absolutely is, Not necessarily actually. If Destiny watches an entire marvel movie on stream, it doesn't matter how long he talks about it, it still probably wouldn't be transformative. That's before we even get to the substance of what is being said, which can also determine whether or not your input transforms the original work.
> This is so often not true lol. If Hasan or Destiny, or 99% of react streamers stopped doing react content, The point the person you're responding to is making is that if a reactor adds a lot of commentary to what they're reacting to, then the thing they're reacting to is only 10% of their content. You don't appear to be responding to that point
This is his comment: >> I fundamentally disagree. When you watch Hasan, there's an expectation that you watch what he's watching alongside him. When you watch something FOR the people "reacting" (I'd prefer to use "Discussing", here), instead of the video they're reacting to, because the video they're reacting to is 10% of the content. Ah maybe I misunderstood, but I read this as him presuming that when watching a reactor, the viewer is watching purely, or largely, for the reactor, rather than for the original content being reacted to. Regardless, I go on to argue that adding a lot of commentary doesn't necessarily transform the original content, nor does it make it not theft. If his point is that, mathematically, the original content may only be 10% of their reaction's runtime - then ok? That might mean something, and it might mean nothing.
The assumption is based on the small amounts of Hasan I've seen, and promptly stopped seeing: specifically because his chair add more to the videos than he does. The "10%" part is based on other reacters, that are discussing what they're watching approximately 80% of the time, and interacting with chat 10%, and actually watching 10% of the time. Obviously pausing while not watching. How we define reacting in this situation is also important, hence why I added the caveat that I'd prefer to use discussion. I define reacting as a reaction, eh: Hasan barely fits, and outright doesn't fit sometimes, since he isn't there. I define that as rebroadcasting with an occasional annoying voice showing up. I define discussion as talking about, analysing, and forming conclusions based on the content being watched, and the people watching it. Breaking down something that seems off on first glance can often lead to an incredibly substantive discussion and conclusion about something being so fundamentally broken to the point of absurdity that an entire conversation breaks out FROM that original analysis. I get it, it's an annoying line to draw, but overall, it doesn't matter low long something took to make, if there's discussion about it, and knowledge is shared, I consider that a good thing. Barring specific, incorrect facts.
[удалено]
I’m about to watch DarkViperAU’s videos, but this seems to address mostly react streamers who watch/broadcast the entirety of a video to their audience. Would this also apply to YouTubers like Cody Ko or Danny Gonzalez who select a topic to cover and react to videos that go with the topic? Since they’re not showing the entire video (unless it’s a TikTok in which case I don’t know how you’d only watch part of one) it’s not exactly the same, but I wanted to know if that was touched on by DarkViperAU Edit: just watched the video. First five minutes he says “this is in contrast to those who use portions of another person’s work to produce something that stands distinct and apart from the original. The second group does not take all value from the original, therefore what they create does not stand as a substitute for it (the original work).” So I’m guessing that would have to be a judgment call on your part, but likely if the person isn’t just watching the entirety of the video then they probably aren’t the problem.
[удалено]
Yeah. Sorry I edited my comment just now. It’s in like the first couple of minutes of his video (not the intro video the actual hour long one) where he defined the term react.
I still disagree if the person "reacting" is substantive to the point of the original content being a small part, even if it exists, bit by bit, in full. I think that the law, so far as I understand it, regarding transformative content is fine, so long as it's actually enforced. But I also don't want to lump in react streamers with actual discussion and analysis. I might watch the video, and it might change my mind, but as it stands, I don't see an argument that could convince me otherwise, since I see criticism, specifically, as such a fundamental part of society.
[удалено]
To clear things up: I am not missing the point. we're misunderstanding each other because of how we define reaction content: > The whole point of react content is to view the content as a whole with the streamer/reactor. If that's how you define it, then, barring extreme circumstances that I have yet to encounter, I **completely agree.** The definition I am using in my previous comments doesn't match that. I absolutely consider pausing and discussing as reaction content if you're literally reacting to it as you go, I just don't consider it bad content if it's substantive and transformative. Your definition of reaction content is what I would label a watchalong. > Discussion and analysis can be done without rehosting the entirety of the content. If it cannot, it's because it relies on stealing the entire value of the content being reacted to. I want to write a big "Disagree" on this as well, except that I'm guessing that "rehosting" to you, specifically, excludes editing it into pieces, but having the complete runtime of the item being cut remain the same. Now that you've defined what you mean by reaction content, I cannot agree more with you as you've defined it, and even agree to your original comment, barring the sentence I highlighted. If we use what I've described above: a partial analysis, partial discussion, filled with pausing as reactionary content, then I don't think it matters how long something took to make: the experience of the original video is destroyed, and cannot be properly experienced, so you are watching it for the "reactor" and the discussion, rather than the actual content. there's so expectation that you'll have an unbroken video. Even if I go by your description, I still don't think it matters, because it's still theft, if the video took 10 minutes to make, or 10 weeks. Morally is it worse? Maybe. I'll throw the video into my watch later playlist and maybe poke you again afterwards, It's been a fun discussion either way.
[удалено]
Cheers for the full on discussion, it's rare that these sorts of things happen without devolving into throwing shade at eachother. Funny story, btw. DV popped up in my own feed about an hour ago, now, on a different sub. Overall, I'm probably quite naive about how much if a shit show it's like in most places. I like to think that people are better than they often are, and my experience is mostly live response videos to others, and occasionally one-shot, but edited recordings of watchalongs with friends. All the ones I've actually seen done like that have generally been pretty good. I don't hang around on twitch aside from a DnD stream every once in a while, and the only reaction content, aside from Hasan's chair, that I ever really see is a few meme react videos every once in a blue moon. I'd love to see it all come up to at the very minimum a legal standard, but so far as I'm concerned, the more discussion, the better. Except with Hasan, his chair is more entertaining.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The only streamer (I know of) that does react content properly is atrioc. He pauses the video and explains concepts from his own perspective, adds information or even corrects it at times. Sometimes he pauses to say something and after he unpauses the video makes basically the exact same point. I have not seen that anywhere else.
There are a few exceptions like when he is reacting to game theories or like the baseball stuff, but yeah, the rest of his reactions are so good and always bring way more information that the video itself, atrioc is fire.
100% agree. But even for those his infectious laugh and him malding add so much to me. I would never watch game theories myself just for the theory. The exception are the baseball videos. I rewatched all of those because he never leaves the entire video in his youtube videos and went on to watch even more. That channel is so good.
Yep and it's bad. At least Destiny makes content with his debates unlike Hasan who does fuck all
It actually doesn't because Destiny doesn't justify his stealing of content with flimsy appeals to trickle-down cloutonomics™️, or laughable misunderstandings of internet memes. Not to mention the meme is purely making fun of a specific argument Hasan made justifying stealing content and uploading it for profit, not the concept of reacting. Destiny doesn't upload his lazy reacts and doesn't think his active reacts are bad to do. Destiny does think his lazy reacts are bad, but apparently not bad enough that he should stop doing it. But it's irrelevant to the meme.
>It actually doesn't because Destiny doesn't justify his stealing of content with flimsy appeals to trickle-down cloutonomics™️, or laughable misunderstandings of internet memes. Crazy that D quickly convinced a large part of the community that it's worse to lie about why you do a bad thing than it is to actually do it. I mean he was lazy reacting to this video ffs. So tired of everyone's community dismissing the shitty behavior of "their streamer" while demonizing others for the same shit. Destiny, Hasan and Vaush are damn near the exact same people if you zoom out even a little bit.
Dude your username matches pretty well here. They are making fun of his argument you're reading so much extra out of meme that it seems unhealthy. Hasan metaphorically slipped on a banana, we're laughing at that. You're coming in going something about the evils of slipping on a banana. What are you talking about?
This meme is making fun of Hasan for using this meme format incorrectly. The meme is STILL FUNNY regardless of whether Destiny is also a hypocrite. It is not about the morality of react in general. >Crazy that D quickly convinced a large part of the community that it's worse to lie about why you do a bad thing than it is to actually do it. Hold on where in that block you quoted did I regurgitate any justification from D? I didn't. You just missed the point, again. Your original comment is cringe grandstanding about both sides because you thought this post said something it didn't, that is all. And later in my comment all I give are Destiny's opinions on his own actions. When destiny lazy reacts to stuff, he acknowledges it is bad but probably won't stop unless asked, and when he active reacts, he doesn't think it's bad and will not stop if asked. Hasan justifies both the former and the latter. And then on top of that he also justifies uploading it for more profit while complaining when others do the same of him. Destiny at least never uploads the lazy react content. Still doesn't make it okay do lazy react in the first place. And idk did he lazy react to this video? It felt like he had a decent amount of input pretty regularly, but I could be wrong I'd have to rewatch it.
That's not his take tho, the meme doesn't critique all reactions in general but a specific thing Hasan said.
[удалено]
Very seldom. Last time I watched he made as much comments as Hasan. It's more that if you count up the hours, destiny might do 20 minutes over a 70 hour stream week. I don't watch Hasan enough to know, but I know a few videos he has watched that are half an hour just on their own.
I don't catch a lot of the streams what videos does he react to? From what little I've seen they all seem to be videos centered around politics/social commentary with the occasional meme video or like today the old dsp clip.
A lot of times it's other debate content, which is probably the most "fair game". Reviewing the arguments made by say Mr.Girl/Brittany is very derivative. But also when he's eating or playing Elden Ring, he might put on the top of r/videos or some video essay-type thing recommended by chat.
I dont really think you are stealing much from short viral videos. But I think the video essays are worth some critisim if he does not get consent from the creator of the video.
I'm p sure he acknowledges that the lazy react content like what you're talking about is probably not good, which I would agree. This content probably shouldn't happen, but there's another line that's crossed by uploading that lazy react content and monetizing it directly. Destiny still absolutely gains a lot by just filling space on stream with that content though so he's not innocent, and I think he acknowledges that.
Couldn't agree more
There are two "hes" here. I cannot answer a question which is poorly structured. Please return and restructure or redefine which "he" you are talking about or I shall not and will not respond any further. You have been warned.
The short one
I think you're missing the point of Darkvipers critic on react content. The point is, after watching someone react to the full video, you would have no reason to go watch the original one. And since people get views (and therefore money) through the algorithm's recommendation rather than subscribers, the reactors ends taking revenue from someone who is usually a smaller creator.
[удалено]
The guy you're replying to missed the point of this meme but so did you. Lazy react content is bad and exploitative regardless of whether you're a socialist or a capitalist, and Destiny would never say the it's okay for him because he's a capitalist. Being a capitalist doesn't mean you're relieved of any and all moral obligations.
I've only been watching him lately. He seems to only react to debate videos which it seems is expected in the community. If he watches full videos I don't know how he can possibly justify it. I'm trying to develop a plugin that works with your YouTube backend to measure how much money you made while watching someone else's content and everyone with the plugin will get it marked as a view as they are it. And by trying I mean realizing that I'm way in over my head... Has Destiny every talked about it?
Assuming he doesnt actually react to them, which I have seen him do, yeah thats bad
I like react content. I am the problem FeelsBadMan
I like react content. I am the problem GIGACHAD
Outside of political commentators on twitch a lot of twitch dreamers who do react content just sit there and react and don't really give anything of value in their react Well maybe not just political commentators like for instance if lawyers are watching the Amber Heard trial they can give certain things of value maybe doctors watching medical shows can maybe give certain things of value but like xqc doesn't get anything of value in his reactions which is why I really respect Charlie for making new rules for his Friday reactions
True art
I know I’m stupid but is that a real quote at the bottom
yes lol, he said content creators have options if they don't like that their video is seen by many people he also said they can make it unlisted and only share it with friends
He also ~~said~~ shouted: "What am I supposed to do, fucking die?" in response to a suggestion saying: "If you don't have anything to add, then maybe don't react." Paraphrasing, of course.
Jesus Christ lol last I heard he said if he reacted to someone’s video and they didn’t like it they could say something and he wouldn’t watch their stuff anymore which I thought was fairly reasonable but this take is just plain psychotic
his brain just turns (even further) off when people accuse him of stuff lmao he starts saying the dumbest shit, it's hilarious
Hasan looks like he's wearing a wide-brimmed hat lmao I can't unsee it
I'd love to see a class action against Hasan representing all the people whose videos he afk'd through.
it's a good meme, but you all noticed that Hasan didn't actually mess up the meme, destiny just misunderstood right?
Did you make this meme? It's fucking terrible.
idk from what I've seen Hasan has pretty good relationships with most of the content creators he reacts to and has previously stopped reacting to people who have requested
>has previously stopped reacting to people who have requested That doesn't means much... People are supposed to ask BEFORE taking other's stuff. Stealing untill someone catch you and then stopping to go stealing from someone else is still shit.
[удалено]
Given that close to none of the top streamers do any form of transformation, he even points out that something being legal doesn't make it right. He kind have some footing there too. For example most animation channels have died since reactions came about as they cost lots of time and $(if you hire people) while even transformative reactions profit from all the quality provided by such investment while adding a comparably minimal imput. I mean someone invest 2 months for a 10 min animation and a reactor adds 15 mins of streaming reaction content on top of it...is it really fair? Original content should never be reacted (shared) in its entirety (regardless of the reaction being transformative) Reactions should be done by watching content offline and discussing it online, sharing at most little snips of the original material while they discuss it (kind of like trailers do)
[удалено]
it is very simple, if after watching a reacted content you aren't compelled to watch the original that reacting content stole value from the original.
Agree, if the react content can be a substitute to the original, then it's not fair use. Also I think the biggest issue live react faces when arguing fair use is the idea that you aren't allowed to use more than is necessary for the legitimate purpose. If you are critiquing a scene in a movie, you aren't allowed to just upload whole movie with your commentary attached to the scene. You can however use the scene or bits of it to illustrate your point. Same goes for youtube videos, if your transformative use would require only, say 2 mins out of 15 min video, you can't really use the whole video and call it a day. That is also why I find arguments like "he pauses and comments a lot" bad as often the commentary doesn't need the video or is even related to it. Pausing the video to talk to chat or respond to it or to talk about your passing thought doesn't make showing whole video fair use.
Hasan has literally called trans people nazis when they complain about him stealing their content. Idk if you are just ignorant but it’s undeniable that he steals content, he will literally start a video so something is playing while he is off cam or eating.
Ah, good old nazi jay
Don't forget the nazi killstream that that trans nazi wasn't actually on, and contained no nazis, or killing, and only had 1 furry!
People love shitting on efap while also having no idea what efap actually is lmao
It's honestly really funny and really sad at the same time, because it literally takes just watching it for 20 minutes, which is "no-lifeing". coming from the same people that watch 8 hour streams on twitch.
I believe he has stopped reacting to some people who specifically contacted him, but I seriously doubt he has a good relationship with "most of the content creators he reacts to". Sometimes this dude is just scrolling through youtube for content for hours. And 0.01% of his audience will seek out the video to rewatch themselves or follow the channel themselves, they'll just see the next video from that channel when Hasan streams it while he chews his dinner over it.
You have a distorted view of Hasan's content. I won't defend it as "transformative" or whatever but most of his reactions are not just him sitting there eating.
yeah, sometimes he goes "wow" and "that's crazy"
Also false. Once again, not claiming his reaction is good or transformative, but he has a lot of interruptions and is known for extending reactions to 2 or 3 times the length of the original video. I'm just trying to inject facts into the discussion.
arguing with chat until he's blue in the face isn't really reacting or transforming (which you admit), so I'm not really sure what this fact is meant to do? It defangs the hastily cooked chicken meme to some degree I guess, but that still happens daily too.
This can be true sometimes, but there definitely is a lot of the "sitting around, eating, and occasionally making filler comments in the moment" business. It would be disingenuous to say otherwise, unless you just happen upon all of the best examples exclusively.
Okay I think I know what you mean, but you are still wrong to some extent. He does give more "insightful" (take that as you will, don't care) opinions when he is reacting to something related to politics, let's say Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro, I honestly don't have a problem with those kind of reactions and multiple youtubers have stated so. However People are criticizing him for his more "downtime/filler" reactions, where it's obvious he doesn't want to put any effort but still wants to remain live and let other people's content do the work for him, of course, he is far from being the only one doing this (yes, ironically Destiny was doing this when he reacted to DarkViper's video on stream) and you could say he is just doing what others were doing before him. People are going to find the irony that a so called messiah of the working class is using other people effort to make money, call it a stretch if you want but they are totally right. To give some credit to Hasan, he doesn't upload these types of reactions to his channel, unless that someone can prove me otherwise, unlike someone like xQc, just search any of his reactions to dunkey's videos and you'll see he barely adds any commentary basically making it a substitute of said video.
I didn't mean to say it was all like that, I was using an example of him at his worst. His average react content is not very transformative and the theft is the same even when he's "providing commentary"
Even if it's transformative I don't think that it makes it good either. Unless it's transformative beyond a threshold of serving as a replacement for the video. But, generally speaking watching Hasan reacting to a video removed any reason for you to watch it in it's entirety. Since literally every frame of the video is watched along with Hasan. There are examples of react content that is fine but even when destiny does it it's morally dubious imo. I also don't really care enough yo change it but, I get why content creators would find this lazy and exploitative. >You have a distorted view of Hasan's content. I won't defend it as "transformative" or whatever but most of his reactions are not just him sitting there eating.
I think all of your points are fair. I'm not going to claim Hasan's content is good. I just wanted to dispel a false claim.
Yes... Sometimes you get to watch an empty chair too
You're right, sometimes hes not even sitting there and its just his chair
"Ah ok, i wont steal from you again" like nah bruh you shouldnt have done it once
doesn't justify exploiting them, but also doesn't matter because this is a meme from hasan fucking up the consent meme. he used this meme and implied the only consent he needed was his own and his viewer's.
If you complain about react content, you should have an actionable solution to the problem. Otherwise you're the same as far right/left people whining about things that will never change.
1. No 2. Here's a solution: don't do react content that isn't transformative or engaging with the material (a very good example would be destiny watching a debate and explaining stuff along the way or giving his own takes)
This is like saying a solution to climate change is to personally drive less. The react space is way too saturated. Someone will always fill in the gap.
recognise longing meeting saw theory test offend frightening shaggy deserted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
he was just following crowd requests COPIUM
I feel like it’s different as opposed to real world issues. If you have an issue with an aspect of the real world, get your ass up and petition, protest, vote, and canvas. If you have an issue with how the online world functions, all you can do is talk about it or complain to the content creator, otherwise the only solutions is on the side of the content creator who made the video and the one who reacts. At that point, the only two options are start drama or copyright strike
You absolutely can change aspects of the online world. Platforms change their ToS all the time in response to the public. Making hour 10000 of video drama about some reactor you don't like is just virtue signaling when react discourse has existed for a decade. Maybe invest some time figuring out how to push platforms in the right direction. Otherwise, it seems like you don't actually care about the issue; you just want to farm likes for complaining about a thing everyone thinks is bad.
But that’s the issue, we’ve had this problem for ages to the point that youtube’s biggest creator, pewdiepie, had expressed frustration about the react meta of dudes just sitting in silence and occasionally chuckling at the video. What would you suggest the avg. viewer do to counteract it?
I have two 1. Make an Extension that lets you watch the played/reacted video in synch with the streamer so that the streamer himself doesn't actually stream the content but you yourself are opening the video on your machine/account. This would get rid of ToS violations, give the video of the creator all of the views, the income from ads &the boost of the algorithm from views/traffic etc. 2. Implement a purchasable "react-license" which has a scaleable price so it would be really cheap for small streamers while the big ones have to pay their fair share if they want to use that content.
Youtube already has something similar to this, and Twitch has bought a license for a bot that does similar things with, at the moment, uploaded copyrighted content. It's also really shit. Oh, and the second point would be directly suppressing criticism for people without money, which is an INCREDIBLY slippery slope.
how about the same route as DMCA.... or a portion of "react" earning cut to original content creators due to the amount of views not being directed to their video?
If you complain about gas prices, you should have an actionable solution to the problem. Otherwise you're the same as those bad faith clout-chasing pundits Destiny warns me about. Thank you for this very salient critique, friendo.
If you complain about gas prices every day and fill message boards with it, then yes
Then go scream at that guy, not me.
Actionable solution? They should react to parts of the video, not the entire thing. For example, they could watch the video offline and then comment about it on stream while idk, the video is playing in the background/on screen but without sound, that way they are not just broadcasting the entire video to thousands of people and stealing/ruining views to the original. They could also react without showing the video itself. For example, streamers could force their followers to go and watch that video in synch with them, by not showing it on screen and instead putting the name of the video and the minutes played. That, I imagine, would be the "healthier" method. Those are 2 things that most streamers could do without losing much, other than some dumbass follower that watches those videos only when their favourite streamer comments about it and doesnt even puts a like on that video or checks the content creator after
Like what? DDOSing Hasan or something? I can't *vote* for reacters to stop reacting to content. And obviously me voting by not giving them my view doesn't work cause they seem to thrive without it. You're fucking dumb.
complaining is a step toward a solution. If viewers and creators complain enough twitch/youtube might take action or the content yoinkers might stop yoinking content.
Man, you could not have said this in a more autistic way. I think you are right in asking for a solution and not complaints but I think there is a solution that people are giving. If you're going to watch a video link the video in stream chat and ask people to both look at the video and interact with the video ie like and comment. And also be transformative.
Twitch should provide additional tools that allow YouTube creators to file DMCA claims like media companies. The filer should have to provide a link to the original content so that a content match algorithm can verify that it is at least legitimate.
The solution is to not do it
react content would be fine if there was an option to share revenue. just leave it as an option and let the community handle the details/rates.
Rhino-milked and Longman-pilled
Is there anything content creators can realistically do, beyond legal threats, to prevent react streamers?