5 ms·

This isn't at all how that channel works. Flagrant dismissal of a body of work is explicitly against the Hacker News guidelines. I suggest you review them at th

by junon 4y ago

This isn't at all how that channel works. Flagrant dismissal of a body of work is explicitly against the Hacker News guidelines. I suggest you review them at the bottom of this page.

busterarm 4y ago
- junon 4y ago
  You've not done a lot of research on this channel, have you?
  - busterarm 4y ago
    I'm not the first nor the last person to levy the exact same criticism. Most of them from his own fucking subreddit.
- _bohm 4y ago
  On the contrary, I find most of his videos to be deeply humanizing of their subjects, who would probably be ignored or brushed aside in a normal day-to-day interaction by the typical viewer of the channel. Also, speaking personally as someone who has a family member who suffers from addiction, I have found it valuable to listen to people speak candidly about their struggles to someone uninvested in their lives, in a way that my family member could never speak to me.
  - busterarm 4y ago
    Separate how viewing the content makes you feel from understanding the subject's ability to completely understand and consent to a contractual arrangement to have their story recorded, broadcast and sold. When an addict-relative sells all of your valuables, are they in a proper state of mind or is their addiction ruling their life? Do they fully comprehend the outcome of their actions? Most of these people are not in any proper state of mind to be able to sign on to appear on a show like this.
    - _bohm 4y ago
      Ok, so what kinds of things should a person in that state be considered capable of consenting to? My experience is that treating addicts as ineligible to exercise their own agency only serves to further alienate them and fuel their abuse.
    - Test0129 4y ago
      > Most of these people are not in any proper state of mind to be able to sign on to appear on a show like this. They are telling their story not making porn. You could gather the same information going to your local skid row and asking people to tell you how they got there. I don't know the details of the demonetization but I've watched the channel several times. It's enlightening and sad like all good documentaries should be. If you have information on the agreement they sign that no one else does here post it. Otherwise this seems like pure speculation and strawmanning of the motives of the guy who runs the channel.
- bitcharmer 4y ago
  > Mark is on some weird white savior bullshit What does Mark's race has to do with it? Would it be ok if he was black?
- Test0129 4y ago
  > some weird white savior bullshit Pesky white people at it again! When will they stop? Seriously though if your first response is to make a bigoted remark about the guy's skin color you need to seek professional help.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
meltyness 4y ago
I wouldn't call the dismissal too far off. I mean, compare to something like Vice, where - facts are regularly presented, - multiple viewpoints are solicited and presented SWB strips all that away. I'd go as far as to call it docxploitation, but I suppose "My 600 lb Life" has gotten away with parading the vulnerable around. This likely isn't really targeted, or about content at its core, and is instead for the express purpose of boosting YouTube's revenue. YouTube ads are currently more vulgar than this content.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  Ew dude, no. Vice knowingly smeared RMS, inexcusably. THey refused to acknowledge this or apologise for their role. They burned McAfee with an iPhone picture with location metadata. They're anti-journalism. I don't know SWU, but people have pointed out that 100% of the profits go to ending poverty. Doesn't sound like something a docxploiter would do.
  - SpelingBeeChamp 4y ago
    > people have pointed out that 100% of the profits go to ending poverty As far as I know, there is no evidence of that beyond the creator's claims. What happened to skepticism? The creator has enormous economic incentives to lie. If he is truly putting all of his channel's revenue "back into the communities that I shoot in" (whatever that means), why wouldn't he be proudly transparent about what that means. How much money? Where has it gone? Can anyone verify it? I would love to be wrong about this, but as far as I know the answers are: Nobody knows. Nobody knows. No.
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      > The creator has enormous economic incentives to lie. Not really. People don't watch his channel to fund communities. > Nobody knows. Nobody knows. No. Have you asked him? > why wouldn't he be proudly transparent about what that means. Why do people need to provide receipts on the internet for their good deeds? It's not like he's using the donated profits line as his main marketing device.

by junon 4y ago

This isn't at all how that channel works. Flagrant dismissal of a body of work is explicitly against the Hacker News guidelines. I suggest you review them at the bottom of this page.

busterarm 4y ago

junon 4y ago
You've not done a lot of research on this channel, have you?
- busterarm 4y ago
  I'm not the first nor the last person to levy the exact same criticism. Most of them from his own fucking subreddit.
_bohm 4y ago
On the contrary, I find most of his videos to be deeply humanizing of their subjects, who would probably be ignored or brushed aside in a normal day-to-day interaction by the typical viewer of the channel. Also, speaking personally as someone who has a family member who suffers from addiction, I have found it valuable to listen to people speak candidly about their struggles to someone uninvested in their lives, in a way that my family member could never speak to me.
- busterarm 4y ago
  Separate how viewing the content makes you feel from understanding the subject's ability to completely understand and consent to a contractual arrangement to have their story recorded, broadcast and sold. When an addict-relative sells all of your valuables, are they in a proper state of mind or is their addiction ruling their life? Do they fully comprehend the outcome of their actions? Most of these people are not in any proper state of mind to be able to sign on to appear on a show like this.
  - _bohm 4y ago
    Ok, so what kinds of things should a person in that state be considered capable of consenting to? My experience is that treating addicts as ineligible to exercise their own agency only serves to further alienate them and fuel their abuse.
  - Test0129 4y ago
    > Most of these people are not in any proper state of mind to be able to sign on to appear on a show like this. They are telling their story not making porn. You could gather the same information going to your local skid row and asking people to tell you how they got there. I don't know the details of the demonetization but I've watched the channel several times. It's enlightening and sad like all good documentaries should be. If you have information on the agreement they sign that no one else does here post it. Otherwise this seems like pure speculation and strawmanning of the motives of the guy who runs the channel.
bitcharmer 4y ago
> Mark is on some weird white savior bullshit What does Mark's race has to do with it? Would it be ok if he was black?
Test0129 4y ago
> some weird white savior bullshit Pesky white people at it again! When will they stop? Seriously though if your first response is to make a bigoted remark about the guy's skin color you need to seek professional help.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

meltyness 4y ago

I wouldn't call the dismissal too far off. I mean, compare to something like Vice, where - facts are regularly presented, - multiple viewpoints are solicited and presented SWB strips all that away. I'd go as far as to call it docxploitation, but I suppose "My 600 lb Life" has gotten away with parading the vulnerable around. This likely isn't really targeted, or about content at its core, and is instead for the express purpose of boosting YouTube's revenue. YouTube ads are currently more vulgar than this content.

mandmandam 4y ago
Ew dude, no. Vice knowingly smeared RMS, inexcusably. THey refused to acknowledge this or apologise for their role. They burned McAfee with an iPhone picture with location metadata. They're anti-journalism. I don't know SWU, but people have pointed out that 100% of the profits go to ending poverty. Doesn't sound like something a docxploiter would do.
- SpelingBeeChamp 4y ago
  > people have pointed out that 100% of the profits go to ending poverty As far as I know, there is no evidence of that beyond the creator's claims. What happened to skepticism? The creator has enormous economic incentives to lie. If he is truly putting all of his channel's revenue "back into the communities that I shoot in" (whatever that means), why wouldn't he be proudly transparent about what that means. How much money? Where has it gone? Can anyone verify it? I would love to be wrong about this, but as far as I know the answers are: Nobody knows. Nobody knows. No.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    > The creator has enormous economic incentives to lie. Not really. People don't watch his channel to fund communities. > Nobody knows. Nobody knows. No. Have you asked him? > why wouldn't he be proudly transparent about what that means. Why do people need to provide receipts on the internet for their good deeds? It's not like he's using the donated profits line as his main marketing device.