>I'll sound pretty heartless but the post sounds entitled. There is no grantee of riches just because you're "famous". I don't recognize any of these people. I

>I'll sound pretty heartless but the post sounds entitled. There is no grantee of riches just because you're "famous". I don't recognize any of these people. I think calling them famous is a stretch. Having impressive youtube numbers, well, isn't that impressive outside of youtube. I see millions of views on crap like cat videos or terrible comedy or whatever. If someone is getting regular high numbers that means he or she is competitive with a cat yawning video or someone doing tasteless race comedy (two things recently forwarded to me). I think these people need to realize that things are much more competitive outside their little worlds and they simply aren't talented enough to make it outside of their little echo chambers. Also, a pet peeve of mine is the phrase "internet famous." These people are best sub-sub-genre famous or whatever. There is no singular internet culture. Its a lot of different cultures connected by tcp/ip. There's something about entertainment that's just awful. The unbelievable egos involved, the entitlement, the lack of criticism, the fanboys/girls telling them they're awesome, etc. I imagine this all leads to some pretty sour attitudes like the one quoted. From a financial perspective 70k followers isn't a lot. Its not going to pay out. Even if each of those people gave you a dollar, which they wont - hell they're probably running ad block, its a measly $70k. For "real" famous people that's a rounding error.