7 ms·

I don't know who's to blame. But somewhere along the line we let people's outrage have more control than it probably should. I don't know who Logan is but read

• eastWestMath 9y ago
  The market did handle it, there was enough bad press for YouTube so that it was no longer a good business decision to continue their partnership with Paul.
  • mc32 9y ago
    I think that depends on how you define "market". Is it the viewers, the concerned culture watchdogs who obviously speak for everyone, one gigantic internet medium with outsized influence?
    • eastWestMath 9y ago
      Should viewers have decided whether or not Weinstein should still be producing movies? There’s clearly a point where the press around someone becomes too toxic to have a close business relationship with them.
      • mc32 9y ago
        You know, I don't like the guy. Because I don't like the guy, I like that the mob contributed to his fall. But, to answer your question, I don't have an answer. Do I not listen to music because the musicians are not my politics, or do I not read an author because they have horrible views or they belong to the Church of Scientology? When I look at it from that prism, I'm not sure. Then there is the irony of Hollywood, the most misogynistic and misandristic, sexist, exploitative group of people lecturing the rest of the country on what proper conduct is.
        • eastWestMath 9y ago
          Well if you’re not aware of an artists politics you can easily find yourself consuming propaganda. It’d be foolish not to exercise any restraint in that regard.
          • mc32 9y ago
            Sometimes we have to learn to enjoy things as they are without thinking about the meta context. I think Reagan, like him or loathe him, you know, liked Springsteen's "Born in the USA", despite it being a protest song. Beside, propaganda is not in and of itself bad. Maybe propaganda has made me more of a conservationist or environmentalist. Should I have disregarded those readings because of the inherent propaganda?
    • Turing_Machine 9y ago
      Yes. There is an unstated assumption that giving in to a screeching outrage machine is somehow "better for business" than standing up for free expression (even if that expression is offensive). That assumption is...unwarranted. The actual percentage of neopuritan busybodies (from whatever political perspective they claim to be from) is significantly lower than an estimate based on volume would lead you to believe.
• notatoad 9y ago
  >But the market should have naturally handled it. But youtube is the market. YouTube is a private enterprise that's declining to continue their business relationship with him. That's market forces in action.
  • jnordwick 9y ago
    There are many markets. And YouTube is part of a larger market that you ate talking about. However, I think he is talking about the market that makes up the viewers of YT content which I think is a might be a better market to look at since it is closer to the infraction. However, I think YT is well within reason to axe the guy. They are similar to a channel getting rid of a talk show host in this instance.
  • jsemrau 9y ago
    Adding to this, his show is similar to the MTV format "Jackass" modeled around shock value. So I believe the market would have actually encouraged and rewarded such behavior.
    • philipov 9y ago
      Sounds like you don't agree on who participates in a market. It's not the audience. An easy rule of thumb: the demand side of a market is the side that pays the money.
      • ucaetano 9y ago
        > An easy rule of thumb: the demand side of a market is the side that pays the money. Not necessarily, especially when you're talking about multi-sided markets, like YT. There are 3 demand components: - Ads - Content - Cash And 4 participants: - YT - Creators - Advertisers - Audience Ads flow from Advertisers to Audience, content from Creators to Audience, Cash from Audience to Advertisers, and Cash from Advertisers to YT and Creators.
        • jsemrau 9y ago
• mc32 9y ago
  You can see some of the extremes of this public shaming culture in S Korea[1]. Not sure if it's gotten better or worse. I think it's also prevalent in S Africa. [1]https://www.dailydot.com/society/ladygate-korean-women-public-shaming-online/ https://www.dailydot.com/society/ladygate-korean-women-publi...
• csydas 9y ago
  > But the market should have naturally handled it. It did. Advertisers don't want to be associated with such content and made it clear to Youtube they want a sanitized landscape to advertise on. Youtube in response has cut Paul off from the Guaranteed Revenue Stream for now. The business partners involved in this situation spoke a long time ago on what they did and did not want, and Youtube made a business decision. From the article, the viewers who think what Paul did was deplorable are calling out for more punishment, which Youtube has not done, so they are in-fact resisting the will of the masses here. > I think there is a second problem that actually might be bigger. Intolerance for mistakes. I do get what you're saying, but per the article and per Logan Paul's history with his videos and audience, his fame comes from constantly pushing the envelope with outlandish behavior. It's part of his character and also what attracts people to him, but it should be expected that he also sets his own limits and boundaries. There's not really a way in light of his popularity and work with Youtube that he could have not known about the policy on such video content, and even if he did, ignorance is not an excuse in this case. Logan Paul is receiving a penalty for bad judgement and violating Youtube rules; he's not the victim of mob mentality, he's the victim of Advertisers wanting a sanitized advertising platform. If he made a mistake in earnest, then I hope he learns well from it and grows as a video maker, using this as a learning experience from which he recovers. Nothing Youtube has said so far though has made it out to be that this is some irreparable situation, it's a penalty for violating the Youtube Guidelines. If Logan Paul is contrite, he will recover.
  • ghostcluster 9y ago
    > Logan Paul is receiving a penalty for bad judgement and violating Youtube rules; he's not the victim of mob mentality, He's receiving punishment because of the mob mentality. The platform had the video in question on their highly curated Trending page before he pulled it. Whether some accountability was necessary is secondary to the fact that he is now in the sights of a huge morally righteous outrage mob. And I'm with the OP that it seems like society runs in a mode now where mob retribution is not satisfied until it the retribution is absolute.
    • csydas 9y ago
• Red_Tarsius 9y ago
  > I think it is going to make shitty society to live in if you will be judged in perpetually for the worst moments of your public life. Not perpetually, but the crew needs a reality check. He treated the streets of Japan like his own theme park. He repeatedly disrespected its people. He also recorded, edited and posted his childish reaction to the hanging corpse of a man. Making that vlog took several hours and was reviewed by multiple people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vtpEwGgdf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vtpEwGgdf4
• nperez 9y ago
  Who exactly is in this role of deciding how loud and powerful people can be? At what point does a person get bucketed into the category of "the offended"? Clearly you think his actions were disgusting, yet you speak as if you're in a position of superiority over these people. I wonder where that line is drawn. People don't want to support this stuff, or buy products associated with it. That's a show-stopper for this business model.
• toomanybeersies 9y ago
  There's loose judgement and making mistakes; and there's filming the corpse of someone who has committed suicide and making jokes about it, then somehow deciding that it's a good idea to put it online. The market doesn't handle morality. Especially in this kind of case, he was more likely to get views from the outrage, even just from people disgusted in him. There are cases where yes, I think that maybe the voice of the offended gets magnified too much. But trivialising suicide to millions of (mostly quite young) people and in such a crass and uncouth manner is not one of those cases.
• kjullien 9y ago
  I'm 100% biased but I've been following the "Logang" for a while now and you need to understand that this is not his first time doing things like this... To me this is actually one of the better "goofs" he has done. Here is a list of stuff that I remember from a number of different sources accusing him of : - asking to underaged fan for nude pictures on social media (multiple sources) - asking to underaged fans on social media to come visit their "logang house" and soliciting for sexual acts (multiple sources) - (this one might not be as bad, but simply reveals alot about his personality) when he had a girlfriend, he would tell her to wait on the first floor of the house watching tv or doing something, then he would take one of the fans mentioned in the point above and proceed to smash them in his bedroom loud and clear while his girlfriend would be downstairs listening (source: the girl in question) - set fire to stuff in his pool (he lives in LA in the hills, everybody knows how much of a fire hazard this zone is, he could've actually killed someone doing this) - and add to that the utter and complete lack of respect for human life, namely the japan incident. These are only the things that shocked me enough that I remembered them and this is ONLY what we know about... To finish I would like to point out that (and this is obviously my opinion and nothing more) he shows signs of general lack of empathy for human beings and a complete lack of remorse while being very good at acting emotions in front of a camera if needed. I call that a psychopath/sociopath, but that's just what I think, I spent my life growing up around one so I might be seeing stuff where there is none. It's sad to have an entire generation of 12-13 year olds (because that is his target demographic, just watch the comments on his videos and video responses, and he is one of the most popular youtube celebrities of the moment, if not the most) be brainwashed by a dumb guy who rose to fame simply because we were to busy telling ourselves that it's going to be fine, eventually things will resolve themselves, let somebody else do it. 12-13 year olds obviously don't know any better, it's up to us (or Youtube, but since they don't ever do shit we need to "loby" them into doing stuff) to make things right, or at least that is the way I see it. PS: his channel has grown more over the past weeks than over the entire 2017 year. Surely the "market" fixed it. kek