Twitch reactors are killing youtube. Okay, can i be honest, dude guys, because i'm gon na be honest, guys, um uh, i don't wan na on anybody. Okay, ahead of time i don't wan na. I don't wan na discredit them, but i think this is just clickbait, because i know for a fact that they know that people on youtube have three million subscribers or any sort of good amount of travelers.

They know the game, they know the algorithms and they know how works, and they know for a fact that this is impossible and the impact is negligible. I'm still waiting for this day to somebody who shows up with analytics that show that this is even close to a free, uh uh, genuine is it that makes sense. I think something like analytics guys, the only set of analytics that people came out and came up with the pattern in the past. What did you debunk then? I have a second okay, we'll watch both okay yeah, i mean i'll, give it a try i'll give it a try i'll give it a try, and if this is just rambling, i'll stop it, but we could give it a try on a video right now.

Oh yeah gta and everything, and specifically the older games, i'm actually going through like a nostalgic fest. I actually have a few ideas in my mind that are not escaping me. So unless i sit down and make videos on them, i'm actually going to go insane now. In the middle of this, i've been doing something for that video where i've basically been.

You know capturing a bunch of things. Commentating on a bunch of things. Wait do, you think, is the dmc. If i react to this thing because if he says this is a problem, i have to watch it first to see if it's a problem or not.

So i like um porting, a bunch of things looking over some old websites and actually what's really driving me insane by the way, is trying to make a retro emulated gaming, computer. Okay, let me tell you something about windows: 98. In fact, it drives me so insane you're gon na get a whole video. Now i'm gon na pop something but anyways.

I wanted to talk about something that you know really just gets me right in the fields now, obviously to make youtube videos. It takes a lot of time, one of my favorite videos that i ever made was. Did this cult infiltrate and break 4chan? Where i talked about the synchronicity, like you know, experiments that were going on 4chan. It is a 50 minute long video.

Now this video was scripted before i had my appendix blow up on me and once i got that surgery and i came back, i was like this is what i'm actually crafting and making. This was my return video now to understand it takes time to make content. Okay to script, it out source things out to create it. A 15-minute video will take you like somewhere around 20.

Maybe 25 hours of you know proper content to do it if you're like truly efficient, when you're doing like crypto investigations triple the time on that one. So obviously, 75 hours put into it for a 50 minute video that may make you you know whatever amounts of revenue you can. This, i remember, was actually uh demonetized because i put 4chan under the title, but at some point i just don't really care too much about like the monetization aspect, because money is not important to me as much as making a banger youtube. Video is now sometimes in in recent memories.

Okay, i've started to notice a a resurgence of reactions. Yeah he's not he's not camping, guys he's not capping. Okay, he's not getting okay, having good videos that do well and having good amount of subscribers that in the videos that have gained traction; okay, the immediate the immediate return of money immediately now for somebody who has a good amount of money stick about stacked up already. Okay means that more power equals more money in the end, having good videos that do well on the algorithm.

Having a lot of trouble is power. Therefore, you can translate and use power to gain money later on and overall, so one video doesn't do well. It doesn't impact them that much and that's what you're trying to say about this now again, i'm not coming at this from like some weird, like you know, hate stance. If you will i'm going to be talking about some people, some people who i'm con, i consider myself to be good friends, people that i respect people that i look up to, but you know i think, that's what allows us to criticize and talk about each other When we see something a little bit, you know not cool.

If we will now to understand okay reaction. Meta on twitch is massive: okay, it's less easier to load up a stream for 12 hours a day, 13 14 15. How many hours you need and then effectively just react to? Okay, all you have to do is put on a youtube. Video react to it and statistically you will retain viewership over a several, like you know course, of hours that you're streaming now, of course, if you're streaming and you spend 12 hours playing video games like gta role, playing or like rainbow six siege or something that requires You to put in a hundred percent more energy than you would ever have to do just sitting back watching a youtube video that obviously takes way more effort.

I would say all right like streaming already, is kind of a lazy venture in my opinion, because hey it's easy for me to fire up, i'm best guys. I'm amazing guys, you guys yeah, select you guys. Ah, since my rp is so dog, i don't need an rp. I just kind of play myself as like a more twisted person in the game.

It actually kind of lays like it's it's less effort than reacting in that sense. So for most people he's right. He's right, though, hit start streaming and just entertain for hours on end, it's actually more economically viable. I don't like doing it because i still have a liking for making proper traditional youtube content.

I think i like making good banger videos and calling it a day, at least that's how it works. For me, i treat youtube very much like a personal diary, very much like a post for me and i just post whatever i like to do. The randomness is always something that i appreciate now, of course, getting back to the topic over here when it comes to you know streaming obviously so far, i can't agree with this guy. I think we went up on the menu, but this one's an easy endeavor, but it becomes even easier when all you have to do is slip on somebody else's youtube.

Video watch it and do whatever you can now. Of course, i'm not so bent out of it when somebody on twitch watches a video from a youtuber, whether it be me or one of my peers and uh, you know that's all it is the story ends over there. I think that idea of cross-site promotion is actually pretty cool. Okay, there's a lot of people on twitch that would probably never touch youtube to potentially try youtube for once watching.

Somebody's content, where i start to get like a little weirded out, is when, like the twitch channels, will then all of a sudden not only stream the entire video raking in massive profits from subs and whatnot over on twitch and then re-upload it on an official youtube Channel run by them or a team and then double dip into the situation. Now it's not even the revenue that wilds me out too much about that too. It's really what the effect on the youtube algorithm guys. You know this is me guys.

I don't agree with the point, though guys i don't. I don't find offense in this right, but um. I don't think this. I don't think this is bad i'll, explain why later okay, but i think i think i think it's not.

I wouldn't call it double dipping because i don't, i think you create a new sauce, so you're not dipping in the same sauce. I think you're creating another sauce right and you're dipping in your own sauce. That kind of refers to the other one that they made. I don't really see as double dipping and explaining i'll explain why later rhythm ends up being now dark, viper, okay, a prominent figure.

You know somebody that i've had like a little run in with the passed over. We had a little disagreement, but dark viper is a really good content creator. He creates a lot of good gta, 5 content and in the last few weeks, what really inspired me to touch this topic again. This is just a primer, video level, but he made a video like a series of videos where he was reacting to all the takes that various twitch streamers had about him specifically when it came to him writing a 14 page document about twitch reactions.

Now, of course, dark viper was a little heavy handed in criticism, use a lot of extreme examples, one of them regarding consent and whatnot, but uh. You know. At the end of the day when i read his document, i almost sat down and just said where's, the lie: dark viper is not wrong. When people on twitch react to a video and then just re-upload it onto youtube, it will kill the growth of any small channel.

Now there are exceptions. Okay, there are plenty of channels that do gain benefits from having some level of you know shout out from various twitch communities. I think sunny v2 is a pretty decent example, but i also think sony v2 was growing long before he was ever shot in by twitch. You know yeah, i don't i don't really.

I don't really agree with that. I i just i just said we disagree with that and uh a lot of it was him creating actual content that people would search. I would search 90 of the videos, sunnyv2 makes and i think that's the mark of a good youtube channel when you can cover things succinctly properly and send them out to people that would watch them right. I think that's a big aspect of it.

I'm not talking about necessarily every form of reaction content on youtube. Obviously, people create reaction, videos and different standards. I think one of my golden standards of react content is probably the original h3h3 videos in terms of let's take an actual. You know video, let's show pieces of it and then let's fill it up with a lot of our own commentary and a lot of our own skits.

I think that's a definition of proper transformative content, quite literally as it's one in a court case. But in a lot of cases, when it's literally somebody watching an entire video on youtube, that becomes a pretty good standard for a market substitute. Well, people don't understand about fair use law, which is, you know, coming out of like a copy. Well, well, um guys! This is tough because he did win the court case right because it was transformative right.

So then you would have to argue past the court case. What is the limit of saying being transformative and what is not? And that's like incredibly difficult, it's like a line that i don't think a lot of people know about right. It's why i think it's. Why, generally, i think, whenever i got striked by by uh uh the olympics right.

I think you could be wrong about this. If i'm wrong, if i did go to court or i i wouldn't have to go to court, maybe just a position uh. If i, if i did follow through with the and they they found, they thought the counter the counter claim or whatever right um. It would be massive, it would mess it because then it would say is is watching if you don't stream and commenting about it, is that enough transformative transformation, then that would that would have been from like the 70s, which i think is absurd by the way for It to stand in the test of time for new missions of like new mediums of transmission, but the general idea is even when it comes to fair use.

You could technically use you saying uh, not really. No, no! No. I said it, i didn't, ask you, it would have been the court, it would have been it wouldn't be, it would have been whatever your opinion is, and mine is irrelevant about this show an entire video, but are you a market substitute? If so? Well then, it's not really fair use. Are you critiquing the whole video? Are you criticizing it? Are you using it to make points? Are there moments of your video where it's completely dead air? If you have to ask yourself the question, have i done enough fair use? You probably haven't done enough fair use when it comes to anything on youtube.

I think for people who are primarily youtubers who make content specifically commentary or edited content, the amount of clips that we use and the amount that we show. We have to really judge and properly give the right amount of context and the right amount of commentary. Otherwise, even if we use like a second or two wrong in our youtube videos, we open ourselves up to a fair use issue. So again, it's kind of wild that on youtube, literally entire videos, can be hijacked then completely re-uploaded and there's not an issue with dmca happening.

There's not even like a problem with anything like this is not fair use. If the commentary or you're sorry your reaction yeah it if the person's a problem, they can either again reach out or do the vmc or whatever right and then and we'll do the correct action. I think most of the people, though, just don't give a because somebody's video you've created a market substitute and it would be really difficult for you to argue actual fair use. Two weeks ago i made this one video, where i talked about just 160 million dollar nft disaster as a whole.

Yes, the reality is. If i had to ask somebody if i could watch a video on stream right, i would assume that 99.9 of the people right would literally agree beforehand. I mean i, i could do it yeah you're right. It would take a bit more effort.

I agree with that, but when it comes down to it uh the reality is: is that most people that everyone wants to do? They would say yes because they don't like worse uh other verse, uh nf, nfd stuff, where, like 160 million bucks were burnt in ethereum, of course, underneath it asman gold reacted to it basically taking the title of the video and just also hijacking the search algorithms of This now, of course, i don't mind too much being a larger channel myself. I can weather the storm and my videos always usually are the number one viewed on that topic, even amongst any reaction out there. But, of course, where it starts to get a little hazier is when you have smaller channels who basically rely on youtube growth, to make anything going forward for a lot of people who have over a million subscribers. You can weather the storm pretty easily, because the way that youtube and those people would get helped a lot by the new eyes being put on their video by somebody, who's, bigger or getting more traction by its right algorithm is mostly centered around.

Is the idea of watch time by definition longer videos like 15 minutes 20 minute videos, maybe hour long videos? Sometimes i go that far. What will happen is you'll build an insane amount of watch time. The more watch time you have, the more youtube is likely of recommending you in the algorithm. So of course, when you're a larger channel - and you may get a reaction to your video here and there - it's not going to hurt you as much as it hurts.

Somebody would say: 50 000 subscribers, that's consistently trying to make absolute banger content. The problem with that person's growth is when all of a sudden, their videos have been basically reacted to and now youtube's entire search algorithm is filled with their video and various other reactions which sometimes because of the reactor size may actually outrank their own video. All of a sudden, their growth diminishes now, of course, if you're, a smaller creator and all of a sudden you're like hey, i feel great that a larger creator is reacting to me right in a lot of senses. It's cool right, it's a cool thing to see being acknowledged by the upper echelon of you know the communities, but it's one thing to do that and it's another thing to understand when you've actually been taken advantage of in the system and all of a sudden, your Channel health and longevity is put at risk by somebody who basically has taken your content and instead of working that day, just reacted to it, re-uploaded it within the hour and wash their hands and wipe the way, that's pretty much what it gets down to now.

You, okay, yeah, there's no sense um. I would reach them to see if you see from for a more analytical standpoint, uh the algorithm of this, and this is how it does and how linked it is with this video with that one, how much they interact with each other. I feel like a lot of times. These are very, very distant from one another when it comes down to algorithm wise, but maybe i'm wrong.

Jasmine gold is one of the reactors in this initially and i just want to say to start off with aspen gold's. Video is 39 minutes in length compared to my theory, is that these littles don't cannibalize at all? It's almost almost zero. The main points try to make chat is that one would be cannibalizing as it's growing right and once the candles is enough, and it goes past them in the algorithm it. It eats everything that this one can't it.

Then this one gets starved to my 17 minute. Video, this actually will showcase that aspen gold has put a considerable amount of commentary into the entire video, but when it comes to the idea of fair use, we have to talk about market substitutions because there's four pillars when it comes to this kind of stuff and One of them is the amount and substantiality that it's actually used in this case law from the university of miami law school. We actually look directly into this paragraph that actually really speaks about how much you can and cannot use in fair use. So again, when we're talking about market subsidies, when you basically take somebody's entire piece of content, it's very difficult to prove any form of fair use in a court law, but even if you use very little, this is an interesting excerpt.

You should read, however: the orthodox loss is not always reliable to predict case outcomes accurately. The analysis must focus on the likelihood of substitution when evaluating the amount copied by focusing merely on the amount copy. The usual understanding of the third factor fails to account adequately. For many of the case, holdings in iowa state, for instance, the defendant telecast only two and one half minutes of the plaintiff's 28-minute film, the defendant, claimed that the amount copied was quantitatively insignificant.

The court's implicit reasoning, however, was that, since the defendant's secondary use could substitute for the sales the secondary use infringed, the supreme court has applied an analysis similar to the iowa state analysis of the third factor, for instance in harper and roe, the court denied the defendant's Fair use claim, although the amount copied was quantitatively insignificant, quoting a mere 300 words from the plaintiff's large book, very small, the defendant published its own version of president gerald ford's. If it's quantitatively irrelevant, then it becomes the wild west. Then anything can be can be again. Anything can explode memoirs despite the minimal copying the supreme court held against the defendant, stating that the qualitative importance of the material taken must also be considered.

The courts noted that the defendant copied what was essentially the heart of the original work. So, even if you use very very hard of the word, which is the heart of the original work, basically some could consider it the you know, meat of the original product. You know, basically the one reason people watch the original video you would basically be infringing. So again, it's very dependent.

So if i make an hour video about about star wars - and i use a four second clip of the ending since it's it's the hard - the work and the story, then i they would actually go for for full suppliers are paid. Big bucks to look at this very specifically now. Obviously, this is an incredibly beneficial practice for asthma gold. As frankly, in a matter of a few hours, he can upload 50-minute 47-minute videos that absolutely do well in the watch time literally all about the johnny depp amber her trial, which is all the rage in terms of twitch, streamers and some youtubers right now, i'm not Really that much of an expert on it, i'm just using this necessarily an example for what is the reaction stuff? I do think it's a little different, however, reacting to court stuff, simply because i don't believe there's a copyright domain on that.

So this is well within the rights. Well now there is there. Is that with the person who is in the court case, the business was in court who's, filming who's material? Who is uh digital material, that that is their material? Their abs within the right to dmc, 100 percent and people have been dimciated by the lady or the other people who do um law and crime network uh. I think they do it.

They do it more manually. Yep. Yes, yes, apps, 100. Yes, they have the mca.

100, of course, when it comes to a youtuber, things start to change, because youtubers are not big giant media organizations that uh have a lot of money to deal with in the first place. A lot of it can be a losing game, especially if you're a newer person at the start and when you're being it's public domain, but it's their pictures based on the algorithm by somebody far larger than you. That's probably the one thing that may not make you succeed in the long term and obviously you know the lazy content is definitely very rewarded on youtube, as asmin gold's up there with like it's their pictures, 91 million views for the last 30 days. Obviously, this is incredibly beneficial to be on the platform.

In this case, the youtube algorithm seems to reward this level of you know. I guess you could say guys guys guys the olympics were held on public on on the public public place right. You were outside whatever, and people were getting dmcad personally by the olympics by just filming towards it and being around it literally having nothing to do with it just being outside and and looking around on public property which, by the way you're allowed to recruit around you. They were getting dmca'd literally because they're pictures of it yeah.

What about into your content? Even people like xqc, who absolutely uploads a lot of content regarding gta role, play plays games as well spent several hours reacting to stuff and sometimes re-uploads it onto his channel. Now before anybody brings me that, like super like weird take of hey, but if this streamer has to stream for 12 hours, i'm streaming for like 11 hours a day right, therefore, you know, if i'm doing 11 hours of playing a video game. Don't i get an hour to just watch some videos, you know wind down. No, and it's not the purge because you live, they lost there's all even is dumb.

I mean i agree with him doesn't mean you get a whole day to commit whatever crime you want. That doesn't make any sense. Okay, not. I would love to see that brought up in a court by the way too, and also just as a wild shock having as many hours as you can.

That's, basically your ticket to growth you're one ticket. Then, if you don't have the content to stream or the energy to stream without like basically like leaving a video on and walking away, maybe and here's a real wild shocking take, maybe stream less. I don't know yeah agreement, maybe i'm speaking too much. Maybe it's! Maybe it's a real hot take on this one guys you guys get it guys guys i don't want to.

I don't want. I get it guys, you guys. This is gon na be reply to me. Okay, i don't want to stream less and i like watching videos.

If anything i would. I would increase the amount of them that i watch videos, because i i like him so much completely some some games sometimes, but what about it? I don't know now. This is a little less egregious to me, because what xqc will do is not straight up steal. The title like asmongold, had done in the original reaction stuff too, but yeah, because i think asthma, gold uh goes straight up.

He does like algona algorithm optimizing it. So it does, it does cannibalize. I think that's the whole point of it. I'm not going to call it asthma gold about it, but i think he knows for a fact that their tactics are are cannibalistic but in nature, and this is almost the objective of it right where my editors, they care.

But i don't think that's like stunned by daily dose of internet now, daily dose of internet is a very large creator who uploads you know, videos that are two minutes long people watch it. It's a daily dose of the internet. Now, of course, in this video, when you get into direct market substitutes, the idea of putting your webcam in the corner and just having like the entire video, basically play this, my friends would be a direct market substitute now. I don't know whether to be shocked or stunned by these videos, so i'm going to quickly click one random, okay, compared to like jinx, you know somebody that was you know was directly called out for doing this kind of stuff.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we directly called out jinx here on the right years ago, when this was happening, but now that it's researched with you know, people like xqc on the left, there's a few people that are staying quiet. But i might ask you, ladies and gentlemen, what's the difference like i said in the beginning of the video, i really have no ill will against anybody here. Look, i'm friendly with a lot of these people, i'm on good terms with them, but this is something that i've noticed for several months on youtube. It's something that's been hitting my recommendations like crazy and one of the only one of the only things that i can do is when you see it on your homepage.

The only thing you can ever take care of is basically like going on to the actual channel clicking those three buttons and hitting don't recommend it's about. The only thing that i can say for anybody. That's primarily has become some sort of a reaction. Andy on the internet, because, yes, this space is finite.

People's time is finite. Okay and if you're somebody's, whose videos is getting constantly, reacted to and you're pushed out of the algorithm. But people are watching your videos, even if it's by proxy, that will ultimately harm you in the long run. I think when people hear the word exposure, they think wow i'm going to get a lot of benefit out of just a reaction and it's oftentimes like a hit or miss depending on how good it does.

I will say most of the times it does not do very well. If a video chad, i think i think sometimes on this one, you need to be careful. I think if, if the point is react harder, then things become weird and i i think things become kind of weird mine gets reacted to. I very minimally see the tiniest of spikes on a video analytic and you can actually see the same thing with creators like jxe, whose videos reacted to where they got like a whopping.

I think, like 100 views period on their channel like just in a time frame, but even beyond that shirt, while this is depending on like there's many, you saying that it's actually a natural argument in court. I don't think this point hasn't been discussed in court. I think yet there was only the case of hra trade and they they won their case. So if anything uh, it would be more of an uphill battle to prove your point and prove the opposite factors that go into it.

Exposure ultimately, is not going to pay. The bills, you can't go into a bank account and deposit exposure to pay for your mortgage. Okay, if you are genuinely on youtube - and you want to turn this into a career, then you need to make sure the algorithm is favoring you and not the person. Who is reacting to your content and uploading it entirely on theirs? Because if you look at it from a long-term perspective, you might get that viral video, but the whole idea of making youtube your career is to make a viral video and then another one.

You know what and another i'm gon na say then i feel like i know this is not. This is a bad solution, but i think a band-aid solution. If, if there was a tag or a thing, you could use on youtube that you they can check when you're uploading videos. It says this is a reaction of somebody else's content, so so in the and then you post the main thing you watched under it and it made the changing the algorithm that would be dank.

That would be you check something. It says this is a reaction of what video and you copied the link you put it in there. So, whenever you are going to promote a video to somebody else that isn't familiar to both any of the content and they get their video first before mine, i'd be okay with that 100, because why? Because i don't give a i'm trying to get some of these suckers to watch my videos. Okay, the one with the for youtube initially was for the people that, like and care about, the content to watch somewhere else in a more condensed manner and they can follow through without having to watch the whole broadcast.

That was the main point early on and still is the philosophy behind having a youtube video of the youtube channel. So i don't give a if i don't gain anybody out of it. The whole point is to get somebody give it somebody that doesn't have time viral video. The more you do, this, the more your channel is recommended to numerous people and the more you become.

Why would youtube care? Because youtube should care, because the stem of the content is much more much more important because because youtube want to keep and protect the stem of the content, not the branches, because without the stem there's no branches, part of that upper echelon. That's initially reacting to you! So again, remember that going forward, especially if you're a small time youtube creator. That said, though, i'm going to end it on this note, because i find this whole general practice of turning into react, dandies and basically turning entire channels. You know into this really lazy practice on the internet because it is lazy, it's very easy to fire up.

A stream react to like 10 videos and all of a sudden, you have 10 days of content to upload or in certain cases, 10 videos for that data, and then all in mass and all that are going to absolutely dominate the algorithm. Because you have an established fan base anyways. That said, though, i'm sure this is a polarizing topic to a few people yeah, and you know at the end of the year it's just gon na roast me guys. I know it's lazy.

I i literally know that it's lazy, but i enjoy it, and people enjoy it, and that's that's how that is how much my brain goes to in in these in these mental hoops man that it stops, i'm going to leave it where it's at, because i've got Some real content to work on and we all can't sit down and react to a video every once in a while. So that being said, if you like what you saw please like comment and subscribe dislike, if you dislike it check out a gta video tomorrow and if you're, a smaller youtuber that relies on a certain view, count to hit a sponsor target or you need ad revenue Because this is your daily, like form of revenue, somebody just steals your content and uploads it entirely. Youtube does have built-in features that literally, let you claim videos based on how much percentage of a video is copied if they steal 100 of your video. You should probably be entitled to a little bit of ad revenue if you want to use those systems in youtube feel free to, and if you feel like that's going to step on some toes of people that might not look too favorably on you reclaiming a little Bit of your content, you know, writes back to you, then them all right, because at the end of the day, all right you're, the one that worked hard, don't be abused on the system.

Don't be taken advantage of simple, as that. True, not true. True guys, you guys think haha less income guys, because i know you guys don't like five for ten years. I know you guys will say.

Oh dude you're, like you're just lying. The reality is because i i i don't want to sound like i'm out of touch idiots, guys the youtube income. I i don't. I generally don't really care about it.

Okay, the the point of the youtube: that's not what it! What it is it's like in the things that can give juice - it's not at the it's, not even near the top of the thing that that are priority right. So if i, if i, if i can focus on things that people want more than what i get out of it, then that's the fallacy behind it. Man. What about it? Yes, kurz said that early on, i affirmationed it and said yeah you can upload our videos, but then they retracted their consent and we stopped uploading their videos and the story.

It was a normal gender interaction. They were kind of upset at first and i was like you know: dude okay, cool man, and then we stopped doing it and then there was no problem behind it. There was no problem tonight. You.