8 ms·

How is someone with 128k subs a 'sensation'? I mean, he might become one now that he's got the Guardian plugging him, but still...

• paranoidrobot 6y ago
  Reddit frontpage several times, and I'm sure other places too.
• grecy 6y ago
  I've already been sent links to him twice, and reddit from page, etc. To be honest, I'm kind of shocked he only has 128k subs... surely this article will help, but I would have thought he'd be pushing a million by now.
  • samplatt 6y ago
    Why bother subbing on a platform well-known for mistreating its content creators, when everyone shares the living fuck out of his videos on facebook anyway?
    • grecy 6y ago
      The same reason you tip a waiter in North America even when they work for a crappy boss.
• PudgePacket 6y ago
  650k subscribers on FB too, with nearly 10m views on some of his facebook videos. That's where it's really taken off.
• Jommi 6y ago
  Subscribers aren't really a merit on YT anymore. It's all about AVG views on high cadence content.
  • hi5eyes 6y ago
    exactly viewers and engagement are the true metric of any social media/youtube. anyone can buy subs/followers
• tomhoward 6y ago
  His videos get shared like crazy on FB. Take a look at his view counts in just the past month: 3.6M 5.8M 7.6M 6.8M https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqssylubr7y503k/nats-what-i-reckon-view-counts.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqssylubr7y503k/nats-what-i-reckon...
  • fouc 6y ago
    That's interesting, he's only got about 300k-600k views for the same videos on YT.
    • tomhoward 6y ago
      Yep, it's the shareability that makes it work so well on FB. YouTube views are driven more by people seeking a particular personality or topic (e.g., Joe Rogan), and algorithmic recommendations, but Nat hasn't been a big deal long enough to get so much of that kind of traffic.
• jotm 6y ago
  "Rising star" maybe?