13 ms·

What I find interesting is that many of these youtubers have created personas to appeal to their audience, like true entertainers. However loyal viewers are foo

What I find interesting is that many of these youtubers have created personas to appeal to their audience, like true entertainers. However loyal viewers are fooled into this false sense of reality, where they are friends with content creator and this is not a persona at all, he's my friend. Over time, the content creator and the audience share so many moments together, it becomes an emotional bond and a substitute for people's social needs. People grow attached to this persona, sometimes obsessively. I think it could create of a scary pattern of disassociation, has it already? Another thought: If the content creator chooses to optimize the money-making persona, it eventually leads to sensationalized content to generate the maximum possible number of views. I think there is some sadness in that: no matter what form of art, so much of it is influenced (disrupted?) by money -- it almost seems inevitable.

snek 8y ago
this is what the paul brothers already do for a living
- lihaciudaniel 8y ago
  Want to mention that jake Paul said he wanted to be the youngest billionaire in h3h3 podcast (vice video:https://youtu.be/5ZV2x2fpdpg https://youtu.be/5ZV2x2fpdpg
buzzy_hacker 8y ago
> Over time, the content creator and the audience share so many moments together, it becomes an emotional bond and a substitute for people's social needs. I've wondered about this for podcasts too. I noticed a scary habit where I would play podcasts when I was feeling lonely. Over time, you feel like you're pals with the hosts and something about the audio format checks the social needs box in your brain, thinking that you're hanging out with another human. I don't want to unconsciously sate my social needs with podcasts so I've been more intentional about my listening. As for people growing attached to the persona, here's an interesting case: https://youtu.be/VJJ90qpzark?t=458 https://youtu.be/VJJ90qpzark?t=458
- tootie 8y ago
  I do this with The Office. Playing The Office on Netflix feels a bit like having friends over.
- mikeortman 8y ago
  There is a good reason why the Kardashians are incredibly successful. They are able to convince their viewers they are part of the family with their shows. I think its because you feel included since most of the show is back-and-forth gossip on family issues where its common for the people in the scene to try and find a solution to a problem where the problem person is excluded from the conversation. As a result, I think the viewer feels more welcome than even one of their family members. Once hooked, the kardashians make bank because they can sell their fans laxative teas or hair growth gummy bears on instagram through huge ad endorsements
  - kartan 8y ago
    > I think its because you feel included since most of the show is back-and-forth gossip on family issues where its common for the people in the scene to try and find a solution to a problem where the problem person is excluded from the conversation. Yes. I see this kind of shows as social pornography. But meanwhile pornography is seen as something that you see in private and you are kind of ashamed to recognize that you see it publicly. This social pornography is widely accepted and even children watch it with, usually, their mothers. Society needs to create a taboo about this kind of shows. It maybe OK to watch them on your own if you need it. But not to include children and not to make it the center of your life.
    - jow2 8y ago
      You are underestimating their power. These are just the initial iterations of how influence in a hyper connected society works. What happens next we are yet to see. Naturally most people don't think anything good. Reality TV produced Trump. People forget it(what passes for news+social media news) also produced Obama. Remember he was hailed as the first social media President. After that every single politician, religious and social figure in every country was suddenly broadcasting their daily activities. Just another avatar of what Reality TV hit upon. So now the mechanics exist for an enterprising person to exert influence on a large numbers of people like never before. Across all kinds of geographic/social/cultural boundaries. Traditionally such influence has taken decades for famous people to acquire. So the textbook on how to use that influence has been very thin. The outcomes produced were much more based on pure luck than by design. With big data and thousands of psychological experiments going on, how to use influence vast numbers if peoples lives, for good, is going to increase.
jetrink 8y ago
This was described in 1956 by Horton and Whol in the paper Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction. > One of the striking characteristics of the new mass media - radio, television, and the movies - is that they give the illusion of face-to-face relationship with the performer. [...] The most remote and illustrious men are met as if they were in the circle of one's peers; the same is true of a character in a story who comes to life in these media in an especially vivid and arresting way. We propose to call this seeming face-to-face relationship between spectator and performer a para-social relationship. They even use your term 'persona' to refer to the individual behind the glass. > But of particular interest is the creation by these media of a new type of performer: quizmasters, announcers, 'interviewers' in a new 'show-business' world - in brief, a special category of 'personalities' whose existence is a function of the media themselves. [...] Lacking an appropriate name for these performers, we shall call them personae. http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/horton_and_wohl_1956.html http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/horton_and...
- tcmb 8y ago
  'Persona' is the mask you put on, originally from the masks worn in ancient graeco-roman theater: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Etymology
- ryen 8y ago
  >'personalities' whose existence is a function of the media themselves. These could be today's satirists
hindsightbias 8y ago
Considering the politician with the best understanding of exploiting a major social media platform is President now, imagine where these youtubers will go.
peterlk 8y ago
Yes, but there is a bright side too. Mr. Rogers developed a personal relationship with many of his viewers in the way that you are talking about, and I think he did a great service to the world
- anonymous5133 8y ago
  Mr. Rogers was different because he was using his influence for social good and to teach positive characteristics/skills/traits etc. The other personalities, do not specifically cater to this. They're more interested in creating a following and creating something that keeps people coming back for more.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    Ironically, Mr. Rogers created a following and something that kept people coming back for more.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Are you saying Mr. Rogers did all of his work for free out of the goodness of his heart? He was a TV personality and totally reliant on ratings to pay the bills. I don't see how YouTube is any different.
    - attende_domine 8y ago
      Of course Fred had bills to pay as well, but on the whole his motivations were certainly overwhelmingly altruistic. Read his Wikipedia page[1] to get an idea of what drove him to produce Mr. Rogers. Here's an excerpt: >Trained and ordained as a minister, Rogers was displeased with the way television addressed children. He began to write and perform local Pittsburgh-area shows for youth. In 1968, Eastern Educational Television Network began nationwide distribution of Rogers's new show on WQED. Over the course of three decades, Rogers became a television icon of children's entertainment and education. >Rogers advocated various public causes. In the Betamax case, the U.S. Supreme Court cited Rogers's prior testimony before a lower court in favor of fair-use television show recording (now called time shifting). Rogers also testified before a U.S. Senate committee to advocate for government funding of children's television. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers
golemotron 8y ago
> However loyal viewers are fooled into this false sense of reality, where they are friends with content creator and this is not a persona at all, he's my friend. Just like Mister Roger's Neighborhood in the 1970s.
- eikenberry 8y ago
  Or Johnny Carson for 30 years.
- MrMember 8y ago
  By all accounts Mr. Rogers wasn't a persona, though, that was the real him. He really did want to be everybody's friend, not for fame or fortune, but because he wanted to make the world a better place.
jow2 8y ago
If you dig deeper Politics, Sports, Religion, Movies/TV all do the same thing. They contribute to a "sense" of well being. What contributes to "actual" well being of the follower is another matter entirely. Though in the age of big data, despite all the pessimism we are surrounded by, it is possible more and more for the celeb class to influence "actual" well being (in terms of mental health/purpose/financial stability etc) of their followers. The next George Lucas or Stan Lee could push psychological buttons in ways no one ever has before.
manmal 8y ago
Pewdiepie definitely diverges strongly from Felix‘ IRL persona. Pewdiepie is an outgoing personality with misogynistic tendencies, playing with racial slurs every now and then, appealing to his Reddit/4chanish/incel followers (whom he now calls army of 9 year olds). IRL he seems to be awkward around other people, soft (nice), and obviously a bit depressed.
- anonymous5133 8y ago
  I've watched pewdiepie vids and think they're completely retarded but pewdiepie as a person is a genius because he knows the largest demographic on youtube are immature youngsters who have tons of time to watch youtube. So he creates content to cater to that demographic's quirks.
  - zxczxc111 8y ago
    clap clap meme review
- matteuan 8y ago
  I think Pewdiepie's main reason for success is the opposite of what you just said. Differently from other youtubers, he seems real and honest, not built artificially to target a specific audience.
  - manmal 8y ago
    Have you ever watched Meme Review or You Laugh You Lose? Nobody is like that IRL, these videos are made on lots of energy drink. He has a lot of honest videos too, but those are not where most of his revenue comes from. He also admitted that he used "forced positivity" for a long time to gain subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyGI1uHyyws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyGI1uHyyws
    - matteuan 8y ago
      Maybe I'm biased because I'm a fan. But there is a large difference between forced positivity and "misogynistic tendencies, playing with racial slurs". I'm not saying he's not partly performing, but he's not the misogynistic/racist character you were suggesting.
kartan 8y ago
> If the content creator chooses to optimize the money-making persona, it eventually leads to sensationalized content to generate the maximum possible number of views. In the past brand prestige protected the media from this to happen. A backslash on a TV will make all advertisers to flee. YouTube does not suffer from this. They host radical, xenophobic, and misogynistic content without consequences. Because they label themselves as a tech company, a middleman that has no responsibility on their own content. But are they? Meanwhile we buy what YouTube advertisements show they have no reason to stop. When you optimize society to generate money instead of generate value you get to this weird situation.
lucianoci 8y ago
More interestingly this mechanic functions in every kind of social relationship. Everybody who isn't a total shut-in has at least a few different audiences they cater to. Also very common to become too attached to a persona that, say, pleased one's parents but doesn't quite work out at work and suffer for it. And if anything given the prevalent expectation for consistency, such dissociation is rather freeing.
barry-cotter 8y ago
This is just watching tv. I can make my wife laugh with our injokes based on our own life and stories but also based on Modern Family and Fresh Off the Boat episodes we’ve both watched.
anonymous5133 8y ago
My GF is an elementary school teacher and she says the amount of kids who are developing anti-social behaviors is increasing pretty rapidly. Kids these days have computers and are basically simply "escaping" to the internet to live in a fantasy world that is disconnected from reality. Some even display active addictions to computer games, like minecraft, while others say they only have friends online in the games or with these youtube personalities like you say. These kids literally do not know how to make friends or interact with other kids because they are so used to just sitting in front of a game or computer basically having a "friend" entertain them with only one-direction of interaction. They think this is normal relationship for a friend. They don't understand that in the real world in order to get friends you need to talk to other kids and interact with them. They literally do not know how to do this because they've learned it is not necessary... Parents need to take it very seriously and limit the amount of time the child uses the computer...otherwise these behaviors continue into adulthood. If you are socially incompetent then it will hold you back in terms of jobs and so on. Very troublesome is that parents are basically using computers to babysit the kids or to keep them occupied...which only helps to reinforce the lack of social skills they get. How many times do you see a kid in a shopping cart holding a tablet watching some movie or whatever? Very common.
- alan_wade 8y ago
  Computers, internet, youtube, games - these things are a part of a real world. I mean, they aren't a hallucination, they don't exist on a separate plane of reality. Experiences are real, joy they bring is real, and for many people, it's far better than what the "real" world around them has to offer. If people are tempted to escape into a virtual world, it might be because the real world around them sucks.
  - andai 8y ago
    Technology is designed as a hyperstimulus. The real world (suffering aside) sucks the same way fruit sucks compared with candy.
    - alan_wade 8y ago
alan_wade 8y ago
You're putting a dark twist on it, but personally, I do feel like many of my favorite youtubers are my friends. I might not be their friend, but I love them, they have taught me a lot, and helped me to get through tough times. If I'm sad I can always watch their videos and feel happy and connected to other people. I like people who create awesome stuff, I can relate to them a lot more than to the people I meet in real life. I don't think these feelings are invalid. If people watch someone's content, and learn things, and feel connected, and that makes them feel good and happy - I think that's wonderful. Besides, it's not like real life people are amazing at being real, everyone has a fake persona they're trying to project. What you can't fake is being funny, insightful, educational, likable, charismatic, talented, inspiring, etc. If you're creating something good, people will like you. Nothing wrong with that.
- angersock 8y ago
  What an incredibly sad way of living and defining friendship.
  - alan_wade 8y ago
    Well, it works for me. Keep your snap judgements to yourself.
- simmanian 8y ago
  Junk food will make you full too, but over time make you sick. I fear you're substituting real human connection with cheap alternatives. Cooking healthy food can be annoying and it often makes a mess, but is necessary in the long run. Dismissing real life people as "not amazing at being real" is ironic to me because people have been the way they are since maybe even before the dawn of homo sapiens. That's just what real is. Not everyone is this charismatic, funny, inspiring character. You still welcome them into your life just as they welcome you into their lives.
campbellmorgan 8y ago
I think this is the essence of most modern entertainment. I once produced a pilot children's animation and had written a "bible" - the text that sets out what you plan to do for a series - and was told by a senior commissioner in no uncertain terms that modern children's tv series "must take place in the same place with the same characters so kids can come home and watch the show at the same time every day and feel like they have a family while their parents are doing something else. That way they buy into the brand and parents buy all the merchandise". As you mention, it's the inevitable consequence of optimisation and why there should always be a space for government-funded programming and art.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  > there should always be a space for government-funded programming and art Government funded art doesn't make it pure art, it makes it art that serves the political aims of the bureaucrats charged with doling out the money.
  - campbellmorgan 8y ago
    Absolutely. But I for one would rather live in a world that had the diversity of both private and state-funded art, each with their own biases. Surely that's better than the single influence of the market?
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      Consider the explosion of music that's available. AFAIK, none of it is funded by the government, yet there's music for every conceivable taste. Almost no two people have the same taste in art, and what they're willing to pay for. I doubt you'd be living in a world that doesn't have art you like if the government didn't fund it.
      - dagw 8y ago
        AFAIK, none of it is funded by the government Virtually all governments all over the world have various arts funding schemes that covers music. That being said I have no strong opinion either way on if that's a good thing or if the music funded this wouldn't have been funded some other way if those schemes hadn't existed
WalterBright 8y ago
> art, so much of it is influenced (disrupted?) by money Are you saying that if art pleases people so much they're willing to pay money to experience it, that makes it not art?
gronne 8y ago
Great comment. I have some thoughs on the matter: - I dont think you need the money motive though (its def. sufficient but not necessary). - The relationship between money and art is as old as civilization itself - in fact I believe the coupling is looser today than in ages past. - Some would argue that the term art is not applicable to most popular youtube channels.
Djvacto 8y ago
Here is a (somewhat related) instance of what you are talking about: A New Mexico Resident drove for 11 hours to break into the home of Gavin Free and Meg Turney, with intentions to kill Free [0]. It seems he became obsessed with Turney and wanted Free to die "alone and without children". Obviously there were other mental health factors at play and it wasn't just "youtube fame did this", but it is a case of this largely one-sided relationship-dynamic. [0]- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-mexico-man-dead-after-breaking-youtube-stars-gavin-free-n847971 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-mexico-man-dead-aft...
Spooky23 8y ago
This is a feature of this type of medium. Radio has similar properties, which is one of the reasons it is such a popular medium for certain types of demagoguery. Modern TV is different, but many people had similar feelings of attachment to soap opera characters, etc.
ryanmercer 8y ago
>People grow attached to this persona, sometimes obsessively. I think it could create of a scary pattern of disassociation, has it already? I know Jenna and Julien have had people show up to their previous address, it seemed like mostly parents driving/flying their kids across the country to show up at their rental house to meet them... I follow some vloggers that I find entertaining as well as have listened to podcasts for a decade now. I will readily admit I have more of a perceived familiarity with a lot of these people than I do with people I know in the real world for example: - Adam Carolla and crew, 5 days a week times many years. I know about Adam's kids, his nanny, his wife, his business endeavors, his high school antics, his childhood, falling out with his friends, his genital warts test... - A guy in Germany named Pierre who does a couple of few vlogs a week on his YouTube that I've supported via patreon and am Facebook friends with now - Jenna and Julien, I've basically been watching both of their channels the entirety of their relationship - The hosts of Geek Radio Daily, which I'm friends with on facebook. I've been listening to them a decade, I've been writing and calling in to the podcast the entirety of that time, I occasionally shoot memes to Flynn and we've been playing Words With Friends for several years, yet he and his wife know virtually nothing about me and I feel like they are old very good friends as I've been listening to them sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, for a decade. - Mike Luoma, I discovered him on podibooks a decade or so ago. Listened to him narrate his stories. Found his podcast. Listened to it. Hired him to do an intro to my podcast that lasted a few episodes. Been friends on Facebook for years, have introduced him to other podcasters, will be on his 500th episode in a couple of weeks, I feel like I know so much about Mike yet I bet he knows virtually nothing about me. It's certainly an interesting world we are building. Celebrity worship has been a thing as long as there have been celebrities but never before have we had such levels of exposure to given individuals. Such access to their lives through their video or audio, through their social media, through their patron-only content. I find it fascinating and addictive but I absolutely recognize there is real danger in a society that is moving towards this sort of exchange, especially for individuals that do turn to obsessive behavior and even idol-worship.

snek 8y ago

this is what the paul brothers already do for a living

lihaciudaniel 8y ago
Want to mention that jake Paul said he wanted to be the youngest billionaire in h3h3 podcast (vice video:https://youtu.be/5ZV2x2fpdpg https://youtu.be/5ZV2x2fpdpg

buzzy_hacker 8y ago

> Over time, the content creator and the audience share so many moments together, it becomes an emotional bond and a substitute for people's social needs. I've wondered about this for podcasts too. I noticed a scary habit where I would play podcasts when I was feeling lonely. Over time, you feel like you're pals with the hosts and something about the audio format checks the social needs box in your brain, thinking that you're hanging out with another human. I don't want to unconsciously sate my social needs with podcasts so I've been more intentional about my listening. As for people growing attached to the persona, here's an interesting case: https://youtu.be/VJJ90qpzark?t=458 https://youtu.be/VJJ90qpzark?t=458

tootie 8y ago
I do this with The Office. Playing The Office on Netflix feels a bit like having friends over.
mikeortman 8y ago
There is a good reason why the Kardashians are incredibly successful. They are able to convince their viewers they are part of the family with their shows. I think its because you feel included since most of the show is back-and-forth gossip on family issues where its common for the people in the scene to try and find a solution to a problem where the problem person is excluded from the conversation. As a result, I think the viewer feels more welcome than even one of their family members. Once hooked, the kardashians make bank because they can sell their fans laxative teas or hair growth gummy bears on instagram through huge ad endorsements
- kartan 8y ago
  > I think its because you feel included since most of the show is back-and-forth gossip on family issues where its common for the people in the scene to try and find a solution to a problem where the problem person is excluded from the conversation. Yes. I see this kind of shows as social pornography. But meanwhile pornography is seen as something that you see in private and you are kind of ashamed to recognize that you see it publicly. This social pornography is widely accepted and even children watch it with, usually, their mothers. Society needs to create a taboo about this kind of shows. It maybe OK to watch them on your own if you need it. But not to include children and not to make it the center of your life.
  - jow2 8y ago
    You are underestimating their power. These are just the initial iterations of how influence in a hyper connected society works. What happens next we are yet to see. Naturally most people don't think anything good. Reality TV produced Trump. People forget it(what passes for news+social media news) also produced Obama. Remember he was hailed as the first social media President. After that every single politician, religious and social figure in every country was suddenly broadcasting their daily activities. Just another avatar of what Reality TV hit upon. So now the mechanics exist for an enterprising person to exert influence on a large numbers of people like never before. Across all kinds of geographic/social/cultural boundaries. Traditionally such influence has taken decades for famous people to acquire. So the textbook on how to use that influence has been very thin. The outcomes produced were much more based on pure luck than by design. With big data and thousands of psychological experiments going on, how to use influence vast numbers if peoples lives, for good, is going to increase.

jetrink 8y ago

This was described in 1956 by Horton and Whol in the paper Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction. > One of the striking characteristics of the new mass media - radio, television, and the movies - is that they give the illusion of face-to-face relationship with the performer. [...] The most remote and illustrious men are met as if they were in the circle of one's peers; the same is true of a character in a story who comes to life in these media in an especially vivid and arresting way. We propose to call this seeming face-to-face relationship between spectator and performer a para-social relationship. They even use your term 'persona' to refer to the individual behind the glass. > But of particular interest is the creation by these media of a new type of performer: quizmasters, announcers, 'interviewers' in a new 'show-business' world - in brief, a special category of 'personalities' whose existence is a function of the media themselves. [...] Lacking an appropriate name for these performers, we shall call them personae. http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/horton_and_wohl_1956.html http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/horton_and...

tcmb 8y ago
'Persona' is the mask you put on, originally from the masks worn in ancient graeco-roman theater: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Etymology
ryen 8y ago
>'personalities' whose existence is a function of the media themselves. These could be today's satirists

hindsightbias 8y ago

Considering the politician with the best understanding of exploiting a major social media platform is President now, imagine where these youtubers will go.

peterlk 8y ago

Yes, but there is a bright side too. Mr. Rogers developed a personal relationship with many of his viewers in the way that you are talking about, and I think he did a great service to the world

anonymous5133 8y ago
Mr. Rogers was different because he was using his influence for social good and to teach positive characteristics/skills/traits etc. The other personalities, do not specifically cater to this. They're more interested in creating a following and creating something that keeps people coming back for more.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Ironically, Mr. Rogers created a following and something that kept people coming back for more.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Are you saying Mr. Rogers did all of his work for free out of the goodness of his heart? He was a TV personality and totally reliant on ratings to pay the bills. I don't see how YouTube is any different.
  - attende_domine 8y ago
    Of course Fred had bills to pay as well, but on the whole his motivations were certainly overwhelmingly altruistic. Read his Wikipedia page[1] to get an idea of what drove him to produce Mr. Rogers. Here's an excerpt: >Trained and ordained as a minister, Rogers was displeased with the way television addressed children. He began to write and perform local Pittsburgh-area shows for youth. In 1968, Eastern Educational Television Network began nationwide distribution of Rogers's new show on WQED. Over the course of three decades, Rogers became a television icon of children's entertainment and education. >Rogers advocated various public causes. In the Betamax case, the U.S. Supreme Court cited Rogers's prior testimony before a lower court in favor of fair-use television show recording (now called time shifting). Rogers also testified before a U.S. Senate committee to advocate for government funding of children's television. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers

golemotron 8y ago

> However loyal viewers are fooled into this false sense of reality, where they are friends with content creator and this is not a persona at all, he's my friend. Just like Mister Roger's Neighborhood in the 1970s.

eikenberry 8y ago
Or Johnny Carson for 30 years.
MrMember 8y ago
By all accounts Mr. Rogers wasn't a persona, though, that was the real him. He really did want to be everybody's friend, not for fame or fortune, but because he wanted to make the world a better place.

jow2 8y ago

If you dig deeper Politics, Sports, Religion, Movies/TV all do the same thing. They contribute to a "sense" of well being. What contributes to "actual" well being of the follower is another matter entirely. Though in the age of big data, despite all the pessimism we are surrounded by, it is possible more and more for the celeb class to influence "actual" well being (in terms of mental health/purpose/financial stability etc) of their followers. The next George Lucas or Stan Lee could push psychological buttons in ways no one ever has before.

manmal 8y ago

Pewdiepie definitely diverges strongly from Felix‘ IRL persona. Pewdiepie is an outgoing personality with misogynistic tendencies, playing with racial slurs every now and then, appealing to his Reddit/4chanish/incel followers (whom he now calls army of 9 year olds). IRL he seems to be awkward around other people, soft (nice), and obviously a bit depressed.

anonymous5133 8y ago
I've watched pewdiepie vids and think they're completely retarded but pewdiepie as a person is a genius because he knows the largest demographic on youtube are immature youngsters who have tons of time to watch youtube. So he creates content to cater to that demographic's quirks.
- zxczxc111 8y ago
  clap clap meme review
matteuan 8y ago
I think Pewdiepie's main reason for success is the opposite of what you just said. Differently from other youtubers, he seems real and honest, not built artificially to target a specific audience.
- manmal 8y ago
  Have you ever watched Meme Review or You Laugh You Lose? Nobody is like that IRL, these videos are made on lots of energy drink. He has a lot of honest videos too, but those are not where most of his revenue comes from. He also admitted that he used "forced positivity" for a long time to gain subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyGI1uHyyws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyGI1uHyyws
  - matteuan 8y ago
    Maybe I'm biased because I'm a fan. But there is a large difference between forced positivity and "misogynistic tendencies, playing with racial slurs". I'm not saying he's not partly performing, but he's not the misogynistic/racist character you were suggesting.

kartan 8y ago

> If the content creator chooses to optimize the money-making persona, it eventually leads to sensationalized content to generate the maximum possible number of views. In the past brand prestige protected the media from this to happen. A backslash on a TV will make all advertisers to flee. YouTube does not suffer from this. They host radical, xenophobic, and misogynistic content without consequences. Because they label themselves as a tech company, a middleman that has no responsibility on their own content. But are they? Meanwhile we buy what YouTube advertisements show they have no reason to stop. When you optimize society to generate money instead of generate value you get to this weird situation.

lucianoci 8y ago

More interestingly this mechanic functions in every kind of social relationship. Everybody who isn't a total shut-in has at least a few different audiences they cater to. Also very common to become too attached to a persona that, say, pleased one's parents but doesn't quite work out at work and suffer for it. And if anything given the prevalent expectation for consistency, such dissociation is rather freeing.

barry-cotter 8y ago

This is just watching tv. I can make my wife laugh with our injokes based on our own life and stories but also based on Modern Family and Fresh Off the Boat episodes we’ve both watched.

anonymous5133 8y ago

My GF is an elementary school teacher and she says the amount of kids who are developing anti-social behaviors is increasing pretty rapidly. Kids these days have computers and are basically simply "escaping" to the internet to live in a fantasy world that is disconnected from reality. Some even display active addictions to computer games, like minecraft, while others say they only have friends online in the games or with these youtube personalities like you say. These kids literally do not know how to make friends or interact with other kids because they are so used to just sitting in front of a game or computer basically having a "friend" entertain them with only one-direction of interaction. They think this is normal relationship for a friend. They don't understand that in the real world in order to get friends you need to talk to other kids and interact with them. They literally do not know how to do this because they've learned it is not necessary... Parents need to take it very seriously and limit the amount of time the child uses the computer...otherwise these behaviors continue into adulthood. If you are socially incompetent then it will hold you back in terms of jobs and so on. Very troublesome is that parents are basically using computers to babysit the kids or to keep them occupied...which only helps to reinforce the lack of social skills they get. How many times do you see a kid in a shopping cart holding a tablet watching some movie or whatever? Very common.

alan_wade 8y ago
Computers, internet, youtube, games - these things are a part of a real world. I mean, they aren't a hallucination, they don't exist on a separate plane of reality. Experiences are real, joy they bring is real, and for many people, it's far better than what the "real" world around them has to offer. If people are tempted to escape into a virtual world, it might be because the real world around them sucks.
- andai 8y ago
  Technology is designed as a hyperstimulus. The real world (suffering aside) sucks the same way fruit sucks compared with candy.
  - alan_wade 8y ago

alan_wade 8y ago

You're putting a dark twist on it, but personally, I do feel like many of my favorite youtubers are my friends. I might not be their friend, but I love them, they have taught me a lot, and helped me to get through tough times. If I'm sad I can always watch their videos and feel happy and connected to other people. I like people who create awesome stuff, I can relate to them a lot more than to the people I meet in real life. I don't think these feelings are invalid. If people watch someone's content, and learn things, and feel connected, and that makes them feel good and happy - I think that's wonderful. Besides, it's not like real life people are amazing at being real, everyone has a fake persona they're trying to project. What you can't fake is being funny, insightful, educational, likable, charismatic, talented, inspiring, etc. If you're creating something good, people will like you. Nothing wrong with that.

angersock 8y ago
What an incredibly sad way of living and defining friendship.
- alan_wade 8y ago
  Well, it works for me. Keep your snap judgements to yourself.
simmanian 8y ago
Junk food will make you full too, but over time make you sick. I fear you're substituting real human connection with cheap alternatives. Cooking healthy food can be annoying and it often makes a mess, but is necessary in the long run. Dismissing real life people as "not amazing at being real" is ironic to me because people have been the way they are since maybe even before the dawn of homo sapiens. That's just what real is. Not everyone is this charismatic, funny, inspiring character. You still welcome them into your life just as they welcome you into their lives.

campbellmorgan 8y ago

I think this is the essence of most modern entertainment. I once produced a pilot children's animation and had written a "bible" - the text that sets out what you plan to do for a series - and was told by a senior commissioner in no uncertain terms that modern children's tv series "must take place in the same place with the same characters so kids can come home and watch the show at the same time every day and feel like they have a family while their parents are doing something else. That way they buy into the brand and parents buy all the merchandise". As you mention, it's the inevitable consequence of optimisation and why there should always be a space for government-funded programming and art.

WalterBright 8y ago
> there should always be a space for government-funded programming and art Government funded art doesn't make it pure art, it makes it art that serves the political aims of the bureaucrats charged with doling out the money.
- campbellmorgan 8y ago
  Absolutely. But I for one would rather live in a world that had the diversity of both private and state-funded art, each with their own biases. Surely that's better than the single influence of the market?
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    Consider the explosion of music that's available. AFAIK, none of it is funded by the government, yet there's music for every conceivable taste. Almost no two people have the same taste in art, and what they're willing to pay for. I doubt you'd be living in a world that doesn't have art you like if the government didn't fund it.
    - dagw 8y ago
      AFAIK, none of it is funded by the government Virtually all governments all over the world have various arts funding schemes that covers music. That being said I have no strong opinion either way on if that's a good thing or if the music funded this wouldn't have been funded some other way if those schemes hadn't existed

WalterBright 8y ago

> art, so much of it is influenced (disrupted?) by money Are you saying that if art pleases people so much they're willing to pay money to experience it, that makes it not art?

gronne 8y ago

Great comment. I have some thoughs on the matter: - I dont think you need the money motive though (its def. sufficient but not necessary). - The relationship between money and art is as old as civilization itself - in fact I believe the coupling is looser today than in ages past. - Some would argue that the term art is not applicable to most popular youtube channels.

Djvacto 8y ago

Here is a (somewhat related) instance of what you are talking about: A New Mexico Resident drove for 11 hours to break into the home of Gavin Free and Meg Turney, with intentions to kill Free [0]. It seems he became obsessed with Turney and wanted Free to die "alone and without children". Obviously there were other mental health factors at play and it wasn't just "youtube fame did this", but it is a case of this largely one-sided relationship-dynamic. [0]- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-mexico-man-dead-after-breaking-youtube-stars-gavin-free-n847971 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-mexico-man-dead-aft...

Spooky23 8y ago

This is a feature of this type of medium. Radio has similar properties, which is one of the reasons it is such a popular medium for certain types of demagoguery. Modern TV is different, but many people had similar feelings of attachment to soap opera characters, etc.

ryanmercer 8y ago

>People grow attached to this persona, sometimes obsessively. I think it could create of a scary pattern of disassociation, has it already? I know Jenna and Julien have had people show up to their previous address, it seemed like mostly parents driving/flying their kids across the country to show up at their rental house to meet them... I follow some vloggers that I find entertaining as well as have listened to podcasts for a decade now. I will readily admit I have more of a perceived familiarity with a lot of these people than I do with people I know in the real world for example: - Adam Carolla and crew, 5 days a week times many years. I know about Adam's kids, his nanny, his wife, his business endeavors, his high school antics, his childhood, falling out with his friends, his genital warts test... - A guy in Germany named Pierre who does a couple of few vlogs a week on his YouTube that I've supported via patreon and am Facebook friends with now - Jenna and Julien, I've basically been watching both of their channels the entirety of their relationship - The hosts of Geek Radio Daily, which I'm friends with on facebook. I've been listening to them a decade, I've been writing and calling in to the podcast the entirety of that time, I occasionally shoot memes to Flynn and we've been playing Words With Friends for several years, yet he and his wife know virtually nothing about me and I feel like they are old very good friends as I've been listening to them sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, for a decade. - Mike Luoma, I discovered him on podibooks a decade or so ago. Listened to him narrate his stories. Found his podcast. Listened to it. Hired him to do an intro to my podcast that lasted a few episodes. Been friends on Facebook for years, have introduced him to other podcasters, will be on his 500th episode in a couple of weeks, I feel like I know so much about Mike yet I bet he knows virtually nothing about me. It's certainly an interesting world we are building. Celebrity worship has been a thing as long as there have been celebrities but never before have we had such levels of exposure to given individuals. Such access to their lives through their video or audio, through their social media, through their patron-only content. I find it fascinating and addictive but I absolutely recognize there is real danger in a society that is moving towards this sort of exchange, especially for individuals that do turn to obsessive behavior and even idol-worship.