React Streamers Are Destroying YouTube? (tldr; MoistCr1TiKaL & DarkViperAU drama)

dont attack darkviperau or moistcritikal bc of this video. you would be trash for doing so. thanks.
00:00 intro
00:51 tldr on the penguinz0 darkviperau drama
05:03 impressions
06:57 consent to react
07:55 react streamers would s*xually a**ault you
08:56 the scarcity mindset
14:03 going over DarkViperAU last response
32:00 conclusion
DarkViperAU 14 PAGE essay: docs.google.com/document/d/15...
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
☆ 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐞 ☆
patreon ♡ / gabibelle
twitch ♡ / gabistreams​
instagram ♡ / itsgabibelle
twitter ♡ / itsgabibelle
tik tok ♡ / itsgabibelle
discord server ♡ / discord
spotify ♡ sptfy.com/gabibelle
music channel ♡ / channel
other music platforms ♡ biglink.to/gabi
tags: #darkviperau #moistcr1tikal #reaction

[@GamingintheAM0801]

I wouldn't personally consider Danny Gonzalez and Kurtis Connor "reaction" KZbinrs. Their stuff is more scripted comedy that is reviewing a piece of media, and I feel like that's transformative enough to be a different category than just the "literally leave the entire video playing and occasionally say something about it" channels. You can't really lump those under the same umbrella.

[@itsgabibelle]

I agree with you definitely I wouldn't personally throw them under that category either, though using DV's definition of "reactor", has them potentially fall under this umbrella, as there is no way for us, the viewers, to police if they script the videos behind the scenes or "watch them blindly on camera without knowing if they have anything of value to add" (though we can make an educated guess that danny & kurtis specifically do script them) ex. Jarvis Johnson Gold would fall under this definition of unscripted reactor, yet he always has a lot to say about a subject and is very entertaining and transformative. I think the definition is flawed in itself lending to a shaky argument to begin with on his end

[@peneficial1643]

Commentary is different from react

[@morphi9983]

@@itsgabibelle that's not true at all, his definition of react content is someone who watches a video live before knowing if they'll have anything of value to add to it.

[@morphi9983]

@@itsgabibelle furthermore you argue that watching a KZbin video won't negatively affect that KZbinr and could be positive for that person, but dark viper argues this too. He never states that someone Who's being reacted to is being harmed. He says you're taking impressions from all other content that would Have NATURALLY recieved that view. Which is true because if you're watchung a streamer you're not going to Netflix to watch that new show or to KZbin to watch your favorite KZbinr.

[@ashegrey3042]

they’re commentary channels not react channels (:

[@XiarelGC]

i watch charlie for him, not what hes talking about. he consistenly ads his own opinions and contributions to things. And i know most of his fans feels the same way. not to mention all the insane work he puts into original content

[@nintari6587]

Ngl, even the people who he has reacted too, good and bad just love the guy. 😂 even those who disagree with him like the Detroit action hero I forget his name 😂 but they got together to make a video! And it’s honestly wholesome in its very own way. And neither of their careers were hurt. The way I see it, criticisms or even negative react vids are a sign that your content got attention but needs work. So it’s a chance to improve with a promise of possibly gaining an audience to see it! Honestly there are probably ways react channels help that I’m forgetting, despite it being easy to make, it’s much harder to have it entertaining. And like you said and Gabi, an audience is there to see the reactor bot the vid and hear their opinions in the vid. It’s a shame this was even made

[@richardhobbs7360]

while yes, thats right for most cases, he admitted that there are some videos that he just ripped off as he didn't have anything to add, and as such, didnt, for the whole vid

[@alphabetsoup6837]

And he’s hilarious

[@pieofchart]

Love Charlie, I mean, a lot of his takes aren't anything new, not to mention his terrible "Why Can't Games Just Be Fun" vid, but he's still fun to listen to and he's in general just a cool, lovable and funny guy.

[@XiarelGC]

@@richardhobbs7360 don’t agree with copying individuals but when it comes to doing popular trends and not adding much to them, I’d still prefer to see him do it over the others just because it’s him

[@wassuphomeboy6643]

Matt is just objectively right about this. Unless you are reacting to something and genuinely adding a new layer of content, whether it be a well thought out, solid opinion, or some kind of planned out meaningful comedy surrounding the content, you are just stealing. You are taking views away from the original creator. I am not personally sure how you can possibly say DarkViperAU is wrong. He is objectively correct about the fundamental basis of the situation, being that reaction content in general is theft and only benefits the subsequent creators at the expense of literally anyone else.

[@SlackFX.channel]

It's fascinating to watch people act as apologist for reactors, completely ignoring their negative impacts, and completely unwilling to entertain the possibility that what they are doing could be bad. I like [insert reactor name], so it doesn't matter that what they do is able to be characterized as theft/content theft, that can be ignored because i enjoy the video's and that is all the basis i need to argue against all of Matt's points.

[@scarpekka]

@@SlackFX.channelHoly sh!t I can’t tell you how many people I’ve seen do that

[@pwl2992]

True

[@callbettersaul]

@@RealJackBolt Hyperbole?

[@Pilgrimetro]

@@SlackFX.channelif you look into the extreme sides of things, just because you like the content they produce, doesn’t mean they are good people, like rice gum for example, terrible person, scammed many kids for money and was cancelled for it but he still had many apologists because so many still liked his content despite him being a terrible person overall and did way more harm to his audience than good

[@cjwebb1185]

Matt is unable to be wrong in this situation. If you don't add actual content and just talking about a video while playing a video, you are literally stealing content.

[@richardwilkins1283]

He compared what he deems content theft to slipping a drug into a girls drink at a party and sexually assaulting her. Even if I agreed with his point fully, delivering it in a 14 page manifesto where he paints it to be the largest problem facing the online community is, say it with me now cause its Matt's favorite word, disingenuous. However, Matt doesn't make a distinction between the very fine line of just watching something or making a transformative piece of content with existing content. He got butthurt because Asmongold is a long time hater of his and he ripped off a lot of his content, so he declared war against everybody in the vague category of "react channels" with zero nuance. If any other community was called out like this, for example fanfic writers for stealing and changing copyrighted characters, people would be looking at it critically. But since everybody hates react channels since the early days of youtube clout chasing it's perfectly fine to generalize.

[@trevorcampbell9294]

@@richardwilkins1283 your very first sentence is inaccurate. He did not compare react cunts to date raping women. He used the date rape line as another example of why ASKING FOR CONSENT AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED THE ACT ISN'T HOW LIFE WORKS.

[@EthanDurant]

​@@richardwilkins1283 No. No he did not compare react content to rape. He used it as an analogy for misunderstanding consent. Someone who steals content and says "I'll take it down if you ask me to" is assuming consent before it is given. In a similar, but far more extreme way, drugging and or sleeping with someone before they consent but using the excuse "but they didn't say no!". It's crazy to me how you can misunderstand such a basic sentence that badly, or maybe you didn't even read the statement and instead are regurgitating this information from other peoples videos who also grossly misunderstood the essay.

[@richardwilkins1283]

@@trevorcampbell9294 Ok buddy, stan for the guy who compares react content to date rape. You just replaced the word compare with "as another example" but tell me how he's not comparing the two.

[@richardwilkins1283]

@@EthanDurant I can see my reply ruffled some feathers, it's almost as if in certain circumstances reacting to content is a way to expand upon the points established in a video like we're doing right her right now in this comment section.

[@AnaRamirez-ng1tj]

There’s a difference between reaction and commentary. Curtis, Danny and Drew make commentary, Hassan, Pokimane do reaction content. Both are valid if it is transformative.

[@ofthewilderwoods]

Hasan’s reactions aren’t always transformative though, there are some creators who complain that he just leaves a video on stream while doing something else, which isn’t transformative at all. In some, if not most, of his reaction content he is engaged with the video and does discuss it, but not always.

[@AnaRamirez-ng1tj]

@@ofthewilderwoods He does comment all the time, but his critics always point the moments he goes to the bathroom or to reach some food lol, the man streams 8 hours a day give him a break 🤣

[@ofthewilderwoods]

@@AnaRamirez-ng1tj if he isn’t actively reacting to the video, he shouldn’t have it on the stream. If he needs to leave, turn it off. It’s not fair to the content creator.

[@royalpeaches7183]

@@AnaRamirez-ng1tj if he needs a break thats fine, putting on someone elses content while taking a break is literally stealing their content

[@AnaRamirez-ng1tj]

@@ofthewilderwoods he literally goes for minutes at the time. And doesn’t pause the video to avoid interrupting the flow of the stream.

[@hollowempty6086]

How is Kurtis Conner comparable to pokimane, xqc or hasan? He doesn't just leave videos playing while doing whatever else or eat and occasionally say something. Not every "reactor" belongs in the same category that viper criticises.

[@nevaehparis4829]

Then Viper should've clarified that- Commentary is reacting. It's a different type but it IS reaction content. If he doesn't want what to be misconstrued maybe, he should've made his 14 PAGE essay more clear 💀

[@woody_you_want]

Bro, they are live for 8 hours a day? Are they just not supposed eat or go to the bathroom?

[@zinc_magnesium]

@@nevaehparis4829 it’s funny how people will just straight up not read something and then complain it was unclear or poorly written

[@ergoth154]

@@woody_you_want It's called the pause button dummy

[@jello7380]

@@nevaehparis4829 He did clarify. Multiple times. What?

[@jadenrobertshaw3545]

Anyone else just here to read the comments😂

[@fazzbear0302]

just a tad late me tho

[@sybrenschuuring1276]

Yes even now

[@SkateBake4Life]

@@sybrenschuuring1276bro these folks are going CRAZY

[@Proletariat12]

This was the worst take ever from Gabi. Absolutely self-centered interpretation and doesn't address any of the problems with react content.

[@SkateBake4Life]

@@Proletariat12 it’s also a 2-3 year old video, I’m sure she’s not the same person considering she’s clearly young asf

[@asnodt42]

I've never seen anyone be so wrong and so proud at the same time, congrats gabi

[@Silver..]

𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 breed

[@SomeBlackGuyWithABigD]

I wish KZbin NEVER removed the dislike button.

[@Silver..]

@@SomeBlackGuyWithABigD its still there, its just the creator that can see how bad she messed up when making it

[@owenoreilly_20]

ummmmmm welll actually because the weird australian guy just made a reaction this video got a spike in views!!!! Must be beneficial to the small creator!!! (I’m on Darks side)

[@unknownusrname]

@@SomeBlackGuyWithABigD it's 16k like to 1.5k dislikes

[@aven7580]

Theres one thing that I wish people paid more attention to, reaction content and commentary content is not the same. They both stem from the same concept which is watching things and reacting/commenting on them but there is a notable difference between the react channels that just say stuff like "What's that?" or pointing out the obvious and the well constructed jokes of commentary channels.

[@maxp2305]

I have little issue with commentary channels because they actually add to the viewing experience. Pure reactors are the scum of the earth because they really do just watch the video, add nothing to the viewing experience and make money off of someone who really worked hard by doing nothing

[@lolnyny]

I feel like you and many others are unaware that there are reaction channels, i.e., people watching things for the first time on camers, that actually add valuable commentary that goes beyond what you're hinting at here. We all agree that reactors who add little to nothing are bad, but some people are commenting when reacting and they're being shamed here.

[@krome4284]

@@lolnyny The problem is that they replay the WHOLE video while doing it. I don't see how it's so hard to figure out the obvious problem this has.

[@xenoliferttv9803]

Yeah but both still steal the views from the original creators. Just because i love watching Jubilee videos with CodyKo and he adds value, i cant sit here and pretend that my views are not going exclusively to CodyKo and Jubilee is seeing none of it. Without CodyKo i would never watch a Jubilee video. Even if Jubilee is benefitting in any other way through exposure, it doesnt take away from the simple fact that Jubilee is not getting my views. Id like to see a way to distribute the income when another creators content being shown from beginning to end. I think Linus also suggested something like this. I dont think people want "commentator content" as you put it to go away, they are fun. Its just not fair.

[@rubbykibress7808]

@@xenoliferttv9803 but you've just perfectly illustrated the difference between "commentary" and "reaction" as they have been defined in the KZbin zeitgeist (the two of which Gabi has quite blatantly conflated). Most commentary videos are constructive and provide an experience fundamentally different from the original, thus making something that would otherwise be uninteresting to you interesting through the perspective of the commentator (you would NOT have otherwise clicked on the Jubilee video that Cody commentated on). Most reaction videos are not constructive and provide an experience that is basically the same as the original, thus making something that would otherwise be interesting to you uninteresting because you have, for all intents and purposes, already seen the video (you WOULD have otherwise clicked on the Gabi Belle video that Cr1TiKaL reacted to).

[@finyan9786]

IDK why people struggle so much to comprehend what DarkViper is actually saying, it seems to me that everyone got butthurt at the idea of not being able to make lazy content anymore. For those confused "fair use" is totally okay, and DarkViper says this many times. The whole point was stop stealing peoples hard work. If you wanna make a "response" video where you look at points, pause say your piece, and continue or cut ahead that's totally fine as it fair use. He's not saying nobody can ever show somebody else's video on their channel. Just that it should be transformative in some significant way. Idk about the rape analogy, it makes sense but it is a bit insensetive. sorry for the rant but this response felt very bias'd and poorly researched.

[@ltbrowne]

I think a big part of it is that he came across quite badly (first by making the mistake of releasing an unfinished script, and then his angry, wide-eyed, ranty response video) and it was many people's first impression of him, whereas they already knew/liked Charlie so immediately sided with him. I was already familiar with DarkViperAU and was therefore happy to hear him out, even when I didn't agree with everything he was saying, but if my first impression of him was that dodgy analogy followed by an angry rant then I may have dismissed what he was saying pretty quickly too, unfortunately. I think him being so angry in the rsponse video also led to a lot of people thinking he was just upset that his videos weren't doing as well as he thought they should or something. Whereas, in reality, his channel's doing great and I believe he was genuinely looking out for the smaller channels who he believes aren't getting the exposure they deserve because the majority of viewers are being funneled towards a handful of larger channels who in many cases are putting in the least amount of effort, yet reaping almost all of the rewards.

[@tyr573]

Cause they can't be bothered to read properly

[@GargleMeElmo]

In hind sight matt should have found a better way to relay his ideas on consent and taking what you want regardless of other people. He used a buzzword I don’t think he realized would derail his point. In a nutshell, he’s comparing the idea of reactors caring only for their desire and want for whatever it is they want(easy money,fame, what have you) and are willing to disregard the people it impacts or the ethics, morals or laws to get what they want or achieve their goal, the same way a rapist would disregard the exact same things to get what they want from their victim. The point is there, but he did take a gamble thinking people would look deeper than what’s written to see it. I don’t blame people for getting upset over it.

[@tyr573]

@@GargleMeElmo they didn't even read anything LMAO how is this his fault 💀

[@quintonheimann]

I think the whole comparing it to rape thing comes from a cultural difference as in Australia jokes about sexual assaults is alot more acceptable compared to other western countries

[@LeoPeridot]

I think it’s unfair that KZbinrs who just sit there and react get more support than KZbinrs who actually put hard work into their videos. Now I’m seeing more reacting KZbinrs and it’s getting annoying lol it’s just the same stuff but different person.

[@superdash_]

Good job twisting vipers point to be "if you make any video resembling commentary or talk about anything trending then you're evil"

[@JosephMichael]

He starts his tweet with "All reactors are bad people." Kinda see where thats the take away from his points.

[@superdash_]

@@JosephMichael It all depends on what "reactor" means. If you take reactor to mean 'anybody that makes a video about anything else', as Gabi did (she named Danny Gonzalez for example), then it's easy to make vipers point seem outrageous and incorrect. Viper has written and talked at length about this topic, and has clearly shown that his problems are mainly with people who stream themselves watching something, and then reupload that straight to KZbin to make easy AdSense. Gabi claims to have read and watched all of this content, so either she somehow forgot what his entire argument was while scripting this video, or she's purposefully misrepresented his point to make him seem objectively in the wrong.

[@JosephMichael]

@@superdash_ In my opinion, these days ‘reactor’ doesn’t just mean the classic “watch a trailer/make faces/don’t say anything/get paid” reactor. It’s evolved to include a lot the commentary genre as their commentary is a direct “reaction” of something else. It comes off to me knowingly misleading to say such an aggressive blanket statement as he did at the top of the tweet and basically use peoples reaction rage to lead into his article instead of making a more clear point and drawing interest in his views that way.

[@superdash_]

@@JosephMichael @JosephMichael that's fair enough if it's your definition, but viper clearly gave the definition he was using to make his argument, so it's not fair to take his words out of context and use that as ammunition. Just like how if you were to say 'I like to eat apples', you'd be assuming apples are green or red fruit from trees, and it'd be unfair for me to say 'well I define apples as brown waste substances out of an animal' and turn around and tell everyone you like to eat faeces. Also the original tweet and document were only seen at first by a few of viper's close followers. This wasn't meant to be a thing anyone even talked about until Charlie made his video, so I don't think it's fair to say he was trying to bait reactions. As for the title, yeah it's a bit dramatic but I think he justifies it in the document.

[@JosephMichael]

@@superdash_ I haven’t read Viper’s piece. For what it’s worth, people who just watch things and don’t truly add something to it even if it’s their humor or personality I agree make lazy content that isn’t really full of substance. My main point I suppose is, as a channel with 1 Mil+ he has a responsibility to be careful with the shit he posts. You’re right that he has less followers on Twitter so the reach is not there but regardless to say something so bold and not offer even a little context in the tweet for people who skim feels to me kind of shitty.

[@baconaterlover5399]

There’s a tricky balance between watching content and reacting to it, but Critikal is someone who I think does it well. Sure, there are some “react” channels that don’t add anything to the source, but he is not one of them.

[@caradanellemcclintock8178]

I watch Critikal not really the others but I find his reactions and comments definitely adds something to what he is watching Iv seen a lot of people react like you would to your phone as your browsing the internet with a blank expression and a chuckle here and there. I agree not all reaction KZbinrs are the same.

[@aphsychopath7690]

He is, he is just one of the better ones.

[@baconaterlover5399]

@@tearsofseasons nah man he’s better than jinx. Watching his streams he does let the video play out for periods of time, but almost always has something to say about it at regular intervals. Plus with it being in a livestream format the chat has some interaction as well. When it comes to KZbin uploads, he does a more general reaction shtick. I wouldn’t say Critikal is the best reaction channel out there, but he is nowhere jinx tier commentary. I do wish he’d stream games more often, that’s where he’s the best.

[@nobodyaltyt103]

@@tearsofseasons nah he is way better

[@andrewhood8952]

Aba and Preach are the only ones I watch.

[@sirfuttbucker6067]

The amount of fallacies you present whilst acting righteous speaks volumes on your persona. The falsification of evidence and malicious deformation shouldn't go unpunished.

[@Guzmarkk]

youre here after watching that dark viper video, niceee

[@deleteyourself217]

@@GuzmarkkYes? its a good video

[@sirfuttbucker6067]

@@Guzmarkk it's a well thought out and thorough rebuttal. Using logic and reson. Shame this video shares none.

[@rapisidro4821]

Great video. 1hr25mins though. Which means Gabi and her followers will be like "too long, didn't watch" and they'll still reply with ignorant confidence.

[@sirfuttbucker6067]

@rapisidro4821 probably siphoning through his twitter to try find shit on him lol the importance of debate and discourse can not be ignored. Especially by her.

[@Lololsans]

I have a genuine question for you - if I sit through an entire video of XQC reacting, in full, to another youtuber's video, barely adding anything except occasionally saying a sentence and pausing the video, why would I watch the video he reacts to? There is literally no reason for me to, I have already seen it in full. Even if it appeared in my KZbin sidebar, there's no reason for me to watch it now.

[@10sansari]

i've seen so many reactors reacting to the crime psychology videos and I've never watched the videos on their original channel. That should tell everything that needs to be known about react content lol.

[@pnkdrmz]

this is one of the most important things gabi misses - she clicks on a reaction video and then sees the original video on the recommendations on the right. at no point does it occur to her that when you watch a reaction video to something that is presented in full and unaltered within that reaction video, it's a market substitute. the vast majority of youtube videos are viewed exactly once by the vast majority of its viewers. if the video in question is reproduced within a reaction video, the vast majority of viewers will not watch it a second time on the channel of the original creator. i also think that the reason why so many big youtubers have spoken on this topic and defended reactors is because they are often part of the lucky few to have profited from the exposure of reactors, they've become big in their own right and amassed an audience. meanwhile, youtubers that never made it big after being reacted to and don't have a big audience, their voices largely go unheard. survivorship bias.

[@alkrolyd]

The issue with this whole debate is that very few people fucking read the 14 page essay Matt posted in the first place. Gabi tries to frame it like everyone read it (30 people viewing the document is NOT a lot in the scope of the internet) but very few did, and she certainly didn't either! People are only following what other content creators are saying about it. And since they haven't read it in full, they've only looked at small parts and thus do not understand the full argument. Matt examines the issue as a whole. Gabi and others keep thinking this issue works on a two person basis: the reactor, and the persons content they're reacting to. But Matt is looking at the entire market. A react video is not an original video, but it takes away views from other original videos that someone would otherwise have watched if not for said video. It's not just that the original video is unlikely to have good watch time or engagement from the reaction, but it's a problem that it draws from a finite pool of impressions, essentially redirecting views from other KZbinrs onto that video. Gabi does not seem to understand this.

[@LettuceGoblin]

She essentially made the argument that reactors are doing the same thing as content creators, but just better, and if they weren't doing it better they wouldn't be getting more views. Just entirely missing any point made. She's either intentionally trying to misinterpret what's being said or she really just is that dumb.

[@nemesisnidhoggr1468]

dont need to go that far. You can just turn your stream on. Then open stream of XQC. And just talk over it. This is literally exactly the same, that streamers do to youtube videos. But oh boi, re-streaming other people's stream, without their permission (consent), is against the rules of twitch. jeez, i wonder why... Maybe because you stealing viewers from him?

[@S1ngefou]

It’d be nice if KZbin had an embed feature. So the reactor doesnt just screen record the video but imbeds the video allowing each KZbinr to share the revenue

[@zuggernaut618]

I know what you mean but in that case, reactors would be literally giving the creators they react to revenue, which would basically make for lots of sponsored reactions and also the inability to critique creators who have done bad things without also paying them for use.

[@nagashtheundyingking4404]

@@zuggernaut618 well if its an optional feature or maybe if you link the vids together both get views? feel there are experimentation that can be done.

[@rachaelchatham9949]

I think that’s actually a good idea. Why can’t both videos get revenue other than KZbin being cheap? Online articles as an example usually source information via links or a title, name, ect. A lot of reactors do credit the original, but embedding would ensure both get revenue.

[@Financiallyfreeauthor]

@@nagashtheundyingking4404 Many years ago you used to be able to post a video reaction under the original video. I really liked that but there must have been problems with it since they got rid of that feature.

[@somesalmon5694]

You could also just download the video

[@MiadasSchaf]

You should look into Jay Exci's similar situation that happened when Hasan "reacted" to their video while leaving for long moments and barely chiming in. I think this was a much better example of the failures of react streamers who will often use KZbin content as a way to entertain their audience. And when like Hasan did, they don't even link or call our to their chat the name of the channel they got it from, that's where it feels pretty scammy

[@jilliansmaniotto2326]

agreed. exci gave a really nuanced analysis of it, and also called out the major flaws in darkviper’s diatribe.

[@Kyrridwen420]

Yes I just commented the same thing, it's so much more comprehensive, entertaining and in good faith too, Jay is a gem 💕

[@Jane-oz7pp]

Honestly getting really pissed off at all the people acting like DarkViper is even relevant to the conversation. He just jumped on the bandwagon to bait views. Hasan even avoided showing her channel name on the youtube page he's that slimy about it.

[@richardhobbs7360]

@@Jane-oz7pp You realise he's been doing this for like 2 years now, its not new that hes against reaction streamers

[@SoFarSoGoodSoWhat14]

Bit different in a livestream context tho, like you can't reasonably expect the dude to sit at his PC for the entire day without getting up for food/bathroom break/etc

[@rontemo5061]

Video essays, critiques, etc. shouldn't be treated the same as reactions. The former are transformative, the latter mostly aren't.

[@10ua1]

DarkViper never said they are reacton videos, she says that, even though he clarified multiple times his definition of reaction content, Gabi ignores that and creates a massive broad term for it and makes it as if he said that. Honestly I don't think she did more than 20 minutes of research or even watched his videos.

[@Zinz778]

Considering the fact that by Gabi's made up version of darkviper's defintions would make darkviper a reactor in his respons videos... that's exactly what he thinks too.

[@Arasaka_Denier]

Imagine binging half of someone's library of videos, thinking they were pretty neat, and then watching DarkViperAU tear them apart using actual facts and logic. Bruh.

[@heroinabuser5980]

Word bro I fucked with her singing too 😢. This prob just a rare L tho and a lane that she should stay clear of, hopefully she apolgizes and doesn’t try clap back cuz matts gonna fucking dunk on her

[@Selenielka]

my experience exactly, I've been watching some of Gabi's videos here and there for the last few months then suddenly got smacked in the face with the image of her and Matt in the same thumbnail popping into my recommended, had me doing a double take of monstrous proportions 😭

[@alkrolyd]

Honestly I don't think Gabi is a bad person, but I think she doesn't really understand Matt's points and her bias towards Charlie affected her judgement massively in this video. I cannot say for certain if she maliciously misconstrued and misrepresented him, but she certainly lacks understanding of it. She doesn't understand the difference between reaction and commentary, and she thinks free speech is a factor in this when it is not. And she also thinks there isn't a finite pool of impressions, when even Charlie agrees there is. I think the rest of her content is good, but this video is a massive L.

[@mystyss]

@@alkrolyd im not sure if the malice was on purpose but there is definitely malice intent. there are several phrases where yes, she adds the entire paragraph, but then highlights the portion that she believes supports her point, leaves it on screen without enough time to properly read it without pausing, and continues with her bias. I've noticed with all of her videos, she's always negatively biased towards the party that she's against, whether deserving of it or not. being biased in the first 30 seconds of the video is not a good way to start as it will almost always negatively impacts the views of the people watching unless the viewer is aware. if you need a disclaimer of your bias, don't post it.

[@flamingburritto]

@@heroinabuser5980 she wont apologise. she never does. and her content has always been like this. anyone she doesnt like that she is reacting to she will misrepresent them.

[@TDMHeyzeus]

Try not lying in your videos

[@anapple.4338]

Glad to see you here

[@Lil_B_Fan47]

Did not expect to see you here lol

[@jockin]

Chad

[@bambi_2606]

aussies unite

[@inthelittlelightning]

​@@bambi_2606 i'm not an aussie just an average DarkViperAU enjoyer.

[@Zeboki]

Gabi: “I’m coming from a factual objective standpoint.” Also Gabi: “After all it’s just my opinion.”

[@idontpaytaxes6682]

“And that’s JUST an opinion, a Gabi opinion. Thanks for watching”

[@UnsafeTuna]

Bruh she was making a joke about how you can't be objective with this argument cause it is very heavily based on opinion. But I guess you watched his response and took it at face value so I shouldn't be surprised the joke went right over your head.

[@idrkginaf4204]

​@@UnsafeTunaW

[@Zeboki]

@@UnsafeTuna My G ya dumb or something?

[@RianFender1958]

Did you not hear the obvious joking tone in her voice?

[@user-pq5cn2gq5b]

DarkViperAU is not wrong though. You just misrepresented him and ranted about whatever misrepresentation figure you drawn.

[@maxbracegirdle9990]

Tbh, I don't think DV was actually angry at react channels (as much as it seemed like.) I think he just used this as a way to release the anger he had at the time that he wasn't dealing with, you could see it in his videos at the time. I don't think he knew how to properly sort out the issues he was going through but used this as a conduit, releasing the anger through this.

[@user-pq5cn2gq5b]

@@maxbracegirdle9990 that is the most absurd thing I've seen. So you actually think that people specifically argue against one harmful practice, write 14 pages and make hours of videos explaining in greatest details what impact this practice has on people, creators and pllatform and why this is bad, not because he's disliking this practice, but because he just wanted to let some frustrations off? Wow.

[@user-pq5cn2gq5b]

@@maxbracegirdle9990 try to think about: what if it's not anger first, reaction series later, but the opposite? He clearly stated several times that making this series and people's backlash to this series makes him angry, people's stupidness and ignorance is really frustrating.

[@maxbracegirdle9990]

@@user-pq5cn2gq5b It's not though. I assume you're a DV watcher?? Just before all this came out, he was always super angry in streams and such. He would even shut off streams when he just got too bad RNG in prologue out of frustration. He took a week or two off a few months before this came out to deal with his mental health, but came back to pretty much the same after a few weeks of speed running. I think he just needed a way to get everything out and he found a target. That's why it's so full of rambles and incorrect/odd statements. It's kinda like how if you're angry at someone, therapists will tell you to write a letter to that person, then not mail it. It just gets the anger out of you and onto the paper. I'm a qualified mental health worker, but even in this field some things can be up for interpretation, so keep in mind that this is just my opinion of what I've seen and experienced watching him for a few years.

[@user-pq5cn2gq5b]

@@maxbracegirdle9990 sure you are, and I'm actually a head of psychiatry clinics, and I'm telling you're wrong lol People would make up anything to sound credible these days

[@GargleMeElmo]

I’m just gonna throw this out there, basically because it was the main focus that caught my ear, but free speech and fair use are different. They go hand in hand, but they are different. Fair use protects free speech. Free speech can be used to achieve fair use, but free speech does not achieve fair use alone. If someone uploads this exact video to their channel, but they added a 5 second clip in the video where they say something like “I do not agree with the views in this video.”, would not automatically make it fair use. It would not by default protect the person who stole your video from you claiming it. Even if through out your entire video if they repeated that same sentence once every minute would it by default be something protected. Your ability to speak freely does not give you the right to infringe on someone else’s work. Tons of people stand on free speech and fair use to post on KZbin, yourself included, which is why I find it hard to believe that you can stand behind reaction content, but not see how streaming some tv show or someone else’s video in it’s entirety while the streamer is eating for 25 minutes instead of practicing their free speech for 25 minutes and potentially reaching fair use. Most major streamers who do reaction watch parties add nothing inherently transformative to the original video. More often then not they aren’t even engaging with the video. This video I’m commenting on now, you’re practicing your right to free speech, and it falls under fair use, you’ve transformed Matt’s video and used the required pieces of his video to make your freely spoken opinions understood. Matt’s video practices free speech and fair use as well. Neither one of you should have any problem with each others videos. You know what you should have a problem with though? If Matt ripped this video and streamed it to his audience while he went grocery shopping. Reactors get the benefit of original content creators work. It’s just what it is. At 17:20 you showed Charlie’s reaction video and showed how the original video is right there next to his reaction on the recommended, but what is clearly shown but not mentioned is the reaction video has over 3.2 million views and the original is sitting at 332,000. What Matt’s been saying for ages at this point is that if that reaction video did not exist those 3.2 million views would have either gone to the original creator or somewhere else. Where does not matter because with no reaction content they would all either be given to the original creator, another original creator, or the views wouldn’t exist because someone decided to do something else with their time that does not relate to directly watching a KZbin video. The subscribers gained from the video is not equal per se to the difference in views or any monetary gain that comes with it. People are subscribed to tons of people, and with how much content is pumped out on KZbin it is inevitable that people will simply forget they subscribed to someone because they are constantly overwhelmed with new things to watch. Subscribing to someone with how much content there is ultimately means nothing for the viewer unless they religiously go and watch that specific creator to feed them into the algorithm as a creator you actively watch. I’m not trying to be mean so I’m really sorry if this comes off that way, but this idea that copyright and ownership suddenly means nothing if you slap a “reaction” stamp to it now is really frustrating. Reaction content is inherently stolen content unless you actually practice fair use. It’s just that simple. If I eat cheerios while I watch this video and put it up on KZbin, you personally, the original creator, may not care that I did it, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t steal your content and got paid for it and all I had to do was eat cheerios. There’s a reason that jinx got ran off the platform by the people who understood free speech and fair use and rightful compensation for work done, but now no one has to work, practice fair use to even practice free speech anymore, because they can react and get the same results at a faster pace and even paint their room while someone else’s work is getting them paid. Watching your coworker do their job doesn’t mean you get a piece of their paycheck. I don’t know how many other analogies have to be presented to get the idea through to people.

[@GargleMeElmo]

@@Judaisan367then what’s the point in telling me?

[@cuntasaurus3651]

@@Judaisan367 I did.

[@eesbeesvees]

@@Judaisan367 I did

[@CR0WBS]

​@@Judaisan367I did! You should too

[@HetIsLennertWeer]

​@@Judaisan367hypocrisy

[@MichaelGallagher97]

Imagine this. You're a graphic designer. You spend lets say even 8hrs on a project for client who's taking applications Someone then copies your work and throws in a new bit here and there. This takes them 1 hour and significantly less talent as you've done 99% of the work already. They then pitch this to the client and they take the money. Don't worry tho they shout you out. They then find another piece of graphic desgin work someone has completed and do the same thing. Again takes them one hour. They sell it and get the money. In 8 hours they have 8 pieces of work of equal value in the time it's taken you to make 1. Would you be happy about this? Going around claiming it's free advertising for your graphic design work? Or would you be pissed and file a copyright lawsuit?

[@MichaelGallagher97]

To further add you saying it's a "woe is me" argument is kinda dumb. Reactors like XqCan'tspeak and Charlie react to enjoyable, high quality content from creators smaller and bigger than themselves. Often creators who have a level of knowledge or that have put time into researching topics. 1) most of these creators are far more talented than any twitch reactor 2)No one from that stream/VOD is then going to back to youtube and re-watch the video they just watched and the OP's channel. I really don't know how you can defend any of this.

[@Maddie_rae_1999]

Well said

[@MichaelGallagher97]

Edited my many typos, but let's take a moment to appreciate the fact I commented this 4 days before Matto uploaded his response.

[@Maddie_rae_1999]

@@MichaelGallagher97 🤣🤣🤣 i didnt even notice timed that well to be fair

[@Aaronn-je8cx]

Charlie isn’t really a reactor. He does so much more than that. Also he actually adds very good and funny commentary. Also without him reacting to “Red Dress” , I would’ve never been recommended your version of the song.

[@richardhobbs7360]

I'm not just a murderer, I'm also a child molester, don't remember me just as a murderer. He still does react content, and while most of it is fine, he admitted himself that sometimes he doesnt react, meaningfully at least

[@Chloelol]

@@richardhobbs7360 what the fuck????? what the fuck kind of comparison is that?????

[@skalty9868]

@@richardhobbs7360 are you insane

[@richardhobbs7360]

@@Chloelol a comparison that makes sense, literally anything could work “I’m not just a businessman, I’m a father, don’t forget about that”

[@imdyinginside1919]

That’s what a reaction channel does The thing is that most of the time he got more view then the guy who put sumacs afford into their video just to get “stolen” by someone and get shit ton of view

[@rapisidro4821]

🎉 Congratulations Gabi! You've got a response from DarkViperAU!!! Too bad it's a 1hr25mins long well-thoughtout response that you'll probably don't understand anyway. But Congrats!

[@Stickyz]

This is funny because you made a typo while insulting her intelligence 💀 I literally already explained that I was just saying it's funny not that this person isn't intelligent because they made a typo. You can stop replying thinking you're the first person to do so now.

[@user-mf7jy3on3z]

@@Stickyz didn't know spelling was linked to intelligence ☠☠

[@rapisidro4821]

@@Stickyz Care to point out what exactly that typo is? 🤓

[@bobleonheart9600]

@@rapisidro4821 "that you'll probably don't understand anyway" Took me a few seconds to see it too. Honestly though I wouldn't worry about it. It's very easy to end up with something like that in your comments. I'd wager it's probably because you started out with "You'll never understand it" and then changed it to what you eventually ended up with.

[@rapisidro4821]

@@bobleonheart9600 Ah. So slightly weird phrasing.

[@jakedizzle]

17:16 never happens with me. Every reaction video I’ve ever watched I do not see the original video recommended. I just get recommended more reaction videos from the same channel.

[@teejayburger2136]

EXACTLY, in fact this is one of DarkViper's point in the series he did explaining his issues with react content.

[@farlonmuentes6004]

@@teejayburger2136 and most of the time the reaction channels hogs the views that a certain video could potentially have because they will swarm into it an hour after the video was posted

[@elvickRULES]

KZbin had a reply section for videos many moons ago. Something like it should return but it was abused by spam and people just posting their original stuff on popular videos hoping to be seen. Like video games or movies, KZbin should have a way to tag the original video and have it shown prominently like a movie or game is shown. That would be something better than what we have now. Annotations we’re good but they didn’t want to update apps to support them so got rid of them.

[@TheGrimHHH]

Yeah, her argument fell flat for me there. I also never get the original video recommended to me on the reaction video's recommendations.

[@blacksapphire3168]

I member youtube recommending me some Asmongold clip and after I watched it I was SHOWERED with other Asmongold reaction clips. Needless to say it was all reaction content. Thing is, the videos were interesting, and unless I was aware about issues with reaction contect I would probably keep watching. Previous to that I was getting recommended original content exclusively, and only after I manually forbid Asmon clips channels to be recommended my usual videos came back.

[@JuliusBriggs]

If I were a company that has hired you in the past I'd feel embarrassed for being involved with someone who is either this stupid or this purposefully malicious and mischievous

[@ineffable11]

lmao

[@10sansari]

hey don't be rude, Matto would not condone that. Be as real as you want, but don't spread hate!

[@JuliusBriggs]

@@10sansari ? these are just my honest thoughts on someone who uses their influence over 400k people to lie about someone else and misrepresent them as someone who equates reaction content to sexual assault, uses ADHD as a potential scapegoat for justified criticism and talks with such ego and confidence whilst clearly having no clue about the necessary topics and subject matter at hand I'm also not mattos lap dog; no offense to him but I could care less what he would and wouldn't condone as I am my own person so yes indeed I will call someone who is a shitty person a shitty person deal with it

[@JuliusBriggs]

​@@lackofoxygen5663 oh no worries I do understand that the timeframe of my comment could bring forth people who will perceive what I wrote as hate and that's perfectly fine, since, as you've also correctly identified already, I couldn't care less about a few random strangers' opinions online I merely don't mind clarifying my stance once to avoid further misunderstanding of what I may have written originally anyone who still misunderstands it beyond that point has to come to terms with it on their own

[@JuliusBriggs]

@@lackofoxygen5663 You too. I hope you have a pleasant weekend ahead.

[@Randoplants]

This seems strange to me because I thought Danny Gonzales’ genre was ‘commentary,’ and that a ‘react’ video would be more “i’m gonna sit down and watch this with the audience” instead of “I will watch the media, write a script of all my thoughts on it, then film myself performing the script alongside clips of the media.” Like how Jarvis Johnson will post Twitch streams where he watches Beyond Belief and Dharr Mann videos with the audience. While the amount of the content he shows could be argued about, he definitely adds value by making commentary and also creating games that he plays with the chat. As far as content like that goes, I did look up the Beyond Belief show to watch it in full. Did not look up Dharr Mann because I am absolutely not interested

[@ChaosPootato]

How about this for an example. You're a graphic designer, you went to school and shit for it. You create a sick artwork to put in your public portfolio. I, John McReacton, press right click, copy, paste it in Photoshop, add my signature, put it in MY public portfolio. How d'you feel about that ?

[@salamandra1983]

Great example, hope she understands now (if she happens to see your comment).

[@Davies2710]

That’s not even the same thing.

[@ChaosPootato]

​@@Davies2710 How is it different?

[@inthelittlelightning]

@@Davies2710 Says it's not the same thing. Refuses to elaborate. Leaves. Way to get your argument across there bud.

[@ChaosPootato]

@@cleturousWell yeah, close enough in my book. Reaction content is literally take someone else's work, show it to the same pool of people as the original content's potential audience with very minor contributions (like 98% of the value in reaction content is the base material) and reap the benefits with very little effort on your part. Plagiarism isn't a perfect fit but it's very fucking close. Also I chose this example because of her broken-ass argument about graphic designers

[@leafyishereisdumbnameakath4259]

"I think we can all agree that react channels that do nothing while videos play are bad." No twitch streamers don't agree. That's literally the issue.

[@Redman8086]

This. I feel like everybody is missing the point Dark Viper is making lol.

[@WildWillex]

No, I think we do agree

[@pedrotoledo8186]

Idk, personally i think that dviper has a very strong and good point, maybe bad expressed on those videos but clear on the other saga

[@Zinz778]

DarkVipers own videos do a fantastic job of providing his own view on things, it's when you watch any of the idiotic responses to him that everything becomes so murky.

[@Zinz778]

@SteveshiClayxui "Swampert, use "Idiotic response"!"

[@HallyIsMe]

this video poorly conveys his point

[@SeanTheOriginal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "rebroadcasting a video without adding anything" considered Copyright Infringement? It's literally providing an alternate way to view someone's 'original' work without transforming it enough to make it fair use.

[@AfromanRants]

I literally cannot imagine using your mental illness as an excuse to misrepresent someone’s ideas. As someone who HAS ADHD, how dare you equate all of us to your low standards?

[@jeremycook5836]

Agreed, I found that to be particularly disgusting

[@flamingburritto]

Classic victim move. I'm surprised she didn't take the race route. Cuz that's what these people do when shit comes down on them, they play the victim. I have adhd too, and i know many people who do too, but we dont make that our personality or let it impede us in our lives, is it difficult, yeah, but we march on. Only those who want to play the victim use it as an excuse.

[@offthew4ll]

​@@flamingburrittothis is a really weird comment, cut out the talk about race

[@Soccera0]

@@offthew4ll it's justified as race is often used by non-white morons. I don't hate non-white people but the people that use race in a context where race is not a factor are fucking stupid.

[@codymarshall587]

@@offthew4llnah, it’s accurate

[@novelezra]

There is no ethical reason to use someone elses work in its entirely to prop up your own wealth. If you believe a millionaire watching a smaller creators art and profiting off it; whilst also reducing exposure from the original creator is unethical, then I dont know what to say. Except that you are a bad person and you should feel bad.

[@LilR12]

But doesn't prop up the smaller creator too?

[@CrazyTom_]

​@LilR12 Darkviper's series talking about react videos on his channel goes over this in much more detail, but in short, no, it doesn't. There's very little evidence to suggest that the person whose video was reacted to gets anything but a meager amount of views on that one specific video when said reaction happens.

[@Gotenblitzem]

u̶n̶e̶t̶h̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ----> ethical but yeah facts

[@LilR12]

@@CrazyTom_ ohh okay

[@Iono123]

It genuinely baffles me how somebody can lie so confidently.

[@kp1657]

I'm not sure if she's really stupid or really disingenuous with no shame

[@football9958]

Fake it till you make it

[@mrincorrect848]

I feel bad for her boyfriend

[@RiftedShard]

Damn I was scrolling through the comments to see people shit on her for her bad takes but this comment, needs an award. 🥇

[@kenta3350]

Me when i’m a DV meat rider

[@Itsabhayx]

Matt’s video though a “reaction video “on Charlie’s response,is not really a reaction.Matto clearly says that watching someone else’s content without basically adding nothing to it is bad,if you only use small clips,and actually add some effort,it isn’t as bad.Matto adds quite a lot,and only used clips from Charlie’s response.

[@bungiecrimes7247]

She literally does the same thing so I don't know why this chunk of brain rot even used it as an argument 🤣

[@esotericVideos]

Gabi got a lot of things just objectively wrong in this. And calling an essay by somebody you disagree with "a manifesto" just screams out the gate bad faith. Gabi is an ok channel for hearing her thoughts on unserious things, but here she seems unwilling or unable to engage with the actual arguments being made accurately and in good faith.

[@CarlolucaS]

Don't know about this one chief. To quote yourself: "It really comes across that you have no idea how any of this works." You are surely not the first or last person to completely miss the point by equating "I will watch this thing without saying anything" and "I will actively add something to this content to give it further context and make something new" One is what I would like to be called from now on as lazy socially acceptable intelectual theft and the other one should be called response video. Also, would unlist this video or add a pin comment to the video. Just an idea though. PS: You should have also done more research on the sausage guy. His channel was growing in views and subs before crit and the trajectory didn't signifiantly change after he stole the content. Also, also you have this suggestion cause you you serched it up. Again to quote you: "It really comes across that you have no idea how any of this works." I would highly recommed to unlist this video.

[@turnwaiter5766]

the problem is, no one needs to watch your video if they can just watch it on a reaction channel. A lot of these people title the video with the same title of the original video. Hasan does this a lot, with minimal commentary. People work their asses off making long form scripted videos so some reaction douche can stream it to thousands of people.

[@lolnyny]

You're talking about one type of reaction that everyone agrees is bad. No one is arguing about that. No one. People do actively go watch, en masse, the original video after or before watching a reaction video, oftentimes you'll see comments, even top comments, saying "I came here from xyz channel". Reuploading and reaction is 2 different things. And "reactions" that add nothing is something everyone agrees is bad here. What we're saying is dont group all reactors under the same umbrella when tons of them actually put work, effort and valuable commentary to it, even encouraging their audience to go watch the original creator.

[@basilez]

@@lolnyny Telling your audience to go watch someone's channel after stealing their videos doesn't make it magically ethical... Besides, 1 streamer watching a video with thousands of people will NEVER lead to long term viewership on the original creator's channel. Reaction content is reaction content. Once you start watching a video on stream FOR THE FIRST TIME, not knowing what you're going to say but merely REACTING to what happens in the video, while pausing here and there to say what you think, that is not fair use. It doesn't matter if you pause and speak for 10, 20, 30 minutes; if the entirety of the original is shown, then the reaction video becomes a substitute of the original and that's not only unethical but also not fair use. The right way of making a resxponse video is watching the video before hand and knowing what you want to say, constituting points and arguments while showing clips and snippets of the original video. ALL streamers listed by DarkViperAU are doing the same exact thing: -viewer suggests random video -streamer starts watching it -streamer pauses it every so often to give his thoughts on what he just saw. Some just let the video play and others desperately try to talk about it extensively with no often no particular research on the topic. Once again, it doesn't matter how often or how long the streamer pauses, it ultimately will still be a substitute for the original content and therefore not constitute fair use.

[@RealFaodail]

@@lolnynyThat’s why Matto makes it extremely clear what reactors are bad….

[@D0Y0u3v3r]

​@@basilezSo your solution is either to Dilute Reaction Content so much to the point where it might as well not exist. Or not do it at all?

[@basilez]

@@D0Y0u3v3r In an ideal world reaction content would not exist leaving all the online impressions to original content. But unfrotunately, greed will never dissappear and people will always take the easy route by stealing the work of others to get more money and recognition easily.

[@papaaquchala8460]

Example: you're in a college writing class. Your class is told to write an essay, due at the end of the week. You spend four days between researching, planning, writing, editing, finalizing. You have a great essay Now comes along your friend. They copy your whole essay, add a couple sentences throughout it, change your name to theirs, and submits the essay as their own. That took them MAYBE an hour That's plagiarism Now change essay to youtube video. You spend four days between researching, planning, recording, editing, finalizing. You have a great KZbin video Now comes along your friend. They copy your whole video, add a couple sentences throughout it, change your name to theirs, and submit it as their own. That took them MAYBE an hour. That's react content

[@MateoByrd-kg9rf]

Except there’s a big difference between an assignment and a KZbin video no one’s out here assigning these people to make a KZbin video and using it to evaluate how well you understood what they taught you

[@bobleonheart9600]

It's not about asking people to react to their content. Anyone is free to do that whenever they want. We tend to call them reviews. It is on the other hand about asking people if you can display their content while you react to it. What you can do is use clips of someones content to highlight points that you are making while you review their content but that's not what reaction content creators do. Most of the time they tend to show the entire thing only stopping now and again to add their opinions. This leads to huge swathes of content being displayed where there is no reaction and only particular small sections where there is some kind of reaction.

[@adrianrr18]

Gabi, it's a shame to find out you made this video. I had seen some of your videos a while ago about Gordon Ramsey and a few other random topics so I liked you, but this is extremely disappointing. I would have never thought you would defend stealing content.

[@pierrealexander8183]

Ya I've watched some of their stuff for a while. The Spotify shuffle video was really interesting in particular, so seeing this is a real bummer.

[@Silver..]

its almost like humans want the easy way of doing things

[@mooncalf_4534]

Her Kitchen Nightmares video was trash too. The idea it was a failure for saving 25% of dying restaurants is patently absurd because restaurants have a single digit percentage success rate and the ones in the sample size are all doomed to fail without Gordon. Her entire premise is just stupid and completely unresearched, as, it seems, is the norm for the channel as a whole.

[@mlag8858]

@@Silver.. we all do but when it comes at the expense of others...

[@mr-anfosh827]

@@mlag8858ut my FREEDOM of speech, your telling me I can’t steal things wow you must be a communist

[@morphi9983]

I don't think you really understood his points or didn't watch his video? You bring up that they'll leave the site and consume other content, but he already acknowledged that argument. Saying that even if they leave the site they're still going to consume (any) other content that actually deserves the impression, rather than watching a streamer who is keeping those impressions lazily and isn't doing anything to earn those viewers on stream

[@nutyyyy]

Which is even further missing the point that you shouldn't be able to just take someone's content and use it and get all the revenue from it. That's not how it works in any other industry...

[@alveraan1]

Since I'm rambling. I actually discovered your channel after Moist reacted to the Red Dress video and KZbin recommended your version of that to me. If it wasn't for Moist's reaction,, I would have never been able to sub to your channel and enjoy your content.

[@sharajill]

Same lol

[@mattpotter7441]

Same

[@GamerSloth-ik8hl]

Same 👍

[@Tcoaal_is_Peak]

Same

[@thebootycat]

I'm in the above comment, and I love it.

[@EthanDurant]

It was really hard to sit through this whole video lmao. Crazy how much bias can affect ones ability to look at a situation objectively and admit fault... React content is objectively left.

[@10sansari]

At least you watched the whole video before forming an opinion! I also agree with you, react content is lazy theft.

[@TheGreatKingChiba]

Crazy how you came after daddy viper coaxed you into harassment.

[@10sansari]

@@TheGreatKingChiba I don't condone harassment to anyone, especially as a subscriber of both Matt and Gabbi.

[@EthanDurant]

@@TheGreatKingChiba I saw Mat uploaded a video on the topic and, like every other time he has done so, I sought out the original work before watching his response. I'm only about half way through his video as we speak lol, so not sure when he coaxed me into "harassment". Not to mention this is simply my comments on the video. Just because you disagree with someone / something and want to voice your opinion does not mean you are harassing them. That's a really weird outlook on life. By you logic Gabby was harassing Mat by making this video. See how that thought process quickly starts to fall apart...? do better.

[@unknownegghead3105]

@@TheGreatKingChiba i am subbed to both Gabi and Matt, love them both, but the dude has clearly destroyed her with good research, well thought arguments and a damn good video.

[@astin_sixtus5411]

She went up against someone who was way too qualified for the level of argument she made and then called the misleading and debunking video as her opinion on the same thing.

[@deivytrajan]

DarkViperAU is really intelligent, well educated man who also has a good heart and oh boy it was fun to watch Gabi getting roasted

[@Neremworld]

@@deivytrajanI like DarkViper but I'm not so sure that is how I would describe him.

[@lobocharity]

React channels literally steal from people I don't understand what's so hard to get ? Also next time use facts please and thank you.

[@Davies2710]

Stealing hypothetical views and money they don’t actually have? Right sure

[@lobocharity]

@@Davies2710 don't have because they keep being pushed to watch the reactor rather than have the algorithm show them content they would watch on their own.

[@bungiecrimes7247]

@@Davies2710 the child is back.

[@adamdrumonde1664]

I've followed a bit of DarkViper's drama with xqc specifically and idk, the dude has a point. Maybe not every single point in his 14 page rant, but such a huge chunk of react content is lazy and is stealing revenue from actual content creators because copyright laws are messed up. He initially got bent out of shape because his own content was being lazily reacted to a bunch. Dude is definitely unhinged tho. I think implying smaller content creators are uneffected because no one would be watching them anyway is a bad take and dishonest. If there was a lot less shite react content out there, then people would obviously be watching something else and I'm sure a percentage of that would be smaller content creator's content.

[@paritoshd]

I must correct you there. Darkviperau never got reacted to before he released that script, and that was not what caused him to make it. It was Jay Exci getting reacted to by Hasan that made him want to make a video.

[@sfbno6430]

How is he unhinged? he has a right to be as annoyed as he is, reactors are literal scum of the earth

[@TheWheelsMaster]

Calling someone unhinged because of his undying passion for justice to all content creators, is crazy.

[@None-lx8kj]

The only reason anyone knows or cares who he is is because he records and streams himself playing a video game that other people spent tens-of-thousands of hours and millions of dollars making. I guess Fair Use only matters when it's other people doing it, right?

[@adamdrumonde1664]

@@None-lx8kj lol not even close to the same thing. Video games are versatile media and they can be enjoyed and explored in different ways. Watching react content for games doesn't make you feel like you don't need to play the game because you've gotten the same thing from it, whereas react content to video does.

[@michaelcorcoran8768]

Suggesting a reactor is akin to a much more skilled freelance graphic designer -- Even though in this comparison someone would be stealing the graphic designs whole cloth -- has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard in a long time.

[@zach23ize]

As a Logo/Graphic designer I about pissed my pants when she said that. Her lack of understanding of what Matt said is arguably the funniest opinion I've seen on this platform in a long while.

[@Hardjumper225]

​@@zach23ize I'm kinda jealous how you can just find sh*t like this funny and laugh about it... I got so mad watching this braindead video...

[@mystyss]

yeah and a couple of payment situations I've been in I have gotten the set amount, and more based on video revenue. so if someone reacted to a video my graphic is in, and doesn't compensate the original video creator, i'm also losing money!

[@urmyt00b]

Yeah but if you take your tastiest crayon and scribble "Gabi" on top of a graphic design then it's transformed into right to free speech which is cool.

[@resettheneutral]

Ah yes mizkif is a very good person to be standing behind, atleast when he’s not covering up SA☠️

[@dak8390]

He's also been exposed for beating one of his employees if I'm not mistaken.

[@bavicampos2375]

So it's bad because darkviper used that comparison but its okay for people to actually stand behind and cover SA in her eyes? Lol

[@antirookie1300]

They didn’t know this at the time though.

[@willthompson1585]

This video came out a year ago. People in the comment section keep complaining about her "lying" and "misunderstanding" what he said when she literally shows him saying those exact things and this his braindead fanbase goes and says stupid shit like this

[@bavicampos2375]

@willthompson1585 I apologize you are completely right. So mind linking me the video where she talked about the Mizkif situation after it was exposed? Thanks in advance

[@something_different7632]

This is a topic that I have strong feelings about, and I agree with DarkViperAU

[@majorbajor]

Based.

[@ZOZOYOYO11]

​based.

[@AUG_XZABER]

Based.

[@RudiWasTakenn]

Based.

[@jeja6801]

me when i lie

[@brocksells197]

I know this is an old argument at this point, but you seemed to misunderstand what Matt considers "reaction" creators to be. When he's saying "react" content, he's referring to people like Asmongold or Jynx who would sit there saying nothing with no idea if they will even have an opinion on what they are watching and are practically reuploading other people's content. It confuses me how you misunderstood this when you showed the screenshot at 29:12 where he says that people like Kurtis Connor, Danny, or even you are not "reactors".

[@pnkdrmz]

i'm a fan of both you and darkviper, but i missed this video when it came out because i only started watching you some time after, but i'm honestly disappointed. the confidence with which you argue incoherent, invalid and outright harmful points is baffling. i want to highlight the part starting at 9:10 where you try to make the argument that a reactor is akin to someone doing the same job as a creator of original content, but better. i don't think you realize how slimy you come across as. an original content creator and a reactor to that original content competing in the market are not both doing the same job with the reactor just being able to do that job in less time. the reactor isn't actually trying to do a job at all. the reactor takes the finished product made by the creator without consent or compensation, makes tiny modifications (at best) and then redistributes it on their own, larger platform, with 100% of the profit of the redistribution going to them. without the original creator, the reactor would not have anything to distribute at all. they are dependent on the labor of other people, and use it for their own profit. and you are figuratively tripping over yourself defending the reactor in this scenario. you are arguing for exploitation.

[@billie7745]

I like how much you misinterpreted or just lie so it fits your narrative 😊

[@torphurus]

Wow how convenient I accidentally cropped out 90% of darkviperau’s tweet and essay! Silly me!

[@Snake_619]

​@@torphurusmust have been the adhd

[@seilakkkk5252]

How is she lying ???

[@billie7745]

@@seilakkkk5252 the other dude made a video about what she claims in this video

[@giovannatotino]

i think Charlie actually adds content to the videos he’s reacting too, i often get annoyed because he pauses the video way too often, but that’s what makes it special and new content

[@bearthezooescapee2439]

Charlie? Pause video? Idk what vids you're watching but he always talks over the video which is still in agreement with your point but way more annoying still love him though

[@stevewalker9870]

And in his videos DarkviperAU does say that Charlie isn't as bad as most of the bunch

[@johnross5098]

Not really. He doesn't even edit his stuff

[@HipixOFFICIAL]

You don't have to defend him. It's okay to admit that your favorite KZbinrs are sometimes in the wrong.

[@fate8007]

@@HipixOFFICIAL tell that to viper fanboys. He has a infantile knowledge on Marxism and Labor theory of value

[@janis7077]

"There is not a finite amount of impressions" Yes, there is. There is a finite amount of KZbin users with a finite amount of time.

[@janis7077]

Also comparing reaction videos to free speech is stupid. I can exercise my free speech to call the most recent Spider-Man movie shit, that does not mean I have the right to watch the whole movie while occasionally pausing it and then say it's shit at the end of that video.

[@alkrolyd]

she seems to confuse "there is a finite pool of impressions" with "there is a finite amount of impressions a single video can get". Obviously, the latter is largely untrue. But the former IS true. While there is potentially no limit to how many impressions a video can get (or at least the limit is very, very high), the source of said impressions is NOT infinite. It's basic supply and demand. There won't be demand if there's nobody to watch.

[@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917]

​@@alkrolyd It's just a weird concept to explain. It's basically saying that, yes, the impressions on a video on June 12, 2015 ARE infinite... Until the day is over, then they become finite. Like, there was absolutely no limit on the amount of impressions on that day until the day ended, basically.

[@getajobmate1281]

Nuh-uh 😡

[@jack-a-lopium]

@@janis7077 Doesn't she say that 'SOME reaction content IS lazy'... and even brings up the posting of anime being illegal. Do people ever actually watch the video they comment on? You know that YOU'RE reacting to somebody's video... without watching it. You might have some undiagnosed trauma you're repressing there.

[@Meese12]

ALTERNATE TITLE: Gabi Belle Accidentally Propogates the Capitalist Myths of Infinite Growth and Trickle Down Economics

[@elliebmb803]

Same person who posts Conservative cringe react content too. We are meant to believe this grifter is some moral pillar too

[@TheMessiahOfThe99Percent]

I hate socialism

[@deva4229]

@@asinglefrenchfry meese is talking specifically about two contradictions in the capitalist way of thinking. 1: businesses must always grow, to generate more profit. the problem with this is that it is literally impossible for a business to never stop growing. in the same way, gabi saying that impressions are infinite is wrong. 2: gabi is saying that react creators help smaller channels by "trickling down" their viewers" (she just said it in different words). this is also false. in capitalism, it is false because the rich use tax cuts to hoard their wealth and give as little of it as possible to everyone else. in youtube, react channels don't generally give channels more views (there are a few exceptions, but they are not the rule), and they take and hoard views from the wider creator community. not sure if i explained this well at all, its 3 am. hope i helped.

[@1lukarioz]

@@TheMessiahOfThe99Percent and i hate eggplants. whats your point?

[@emismith4655]

@@asinglefrenchfryKZbin engagement turns to Adsense which turns to money.

[@whyiwakeup6460]

Either double down (despite being wrong) or provide an apology in the comment section, etc. You have been thoroughly debunked by Matto and this video has no point

[@abithapa9099]

Or just ignore everything because, like Matt said himself, she probably just doesn't fucking care

[@dipdip907]

​@abithapa9099 what's the fun in that?

[@alwaysalone8057]

​@@dipdip907 There is no fun when you're a bad selfish self centered person like she is lmao

[@raptorface2810]

Bro literally compared react content to rape, are you ok?

[@liltest9744]

“Facts and logic” and “that’s just my opinion” kinda contradict each other 🤷‍♂️

[@Gameferret16191]

Girl thinks she's ben shapiro

[@Cuunke]

I have to agree with Darkviper to some degree it’s not as dramatic as he makes it seem but there is a change to the algorithm due to reaction content hell if you try searching for some videos you’re likely going to see reactions to that video instead of the original video itself which is wild and it does take away some revenue because I watched someone react to something why tf would I watch it again

[@BeSk9991]

PS. If we applied your definition of free speech, I can just download a movie, put it on my stream and pause it once in a while and say "hahaha that'S funny I like that guy"... because free speech doesn't allow you to just steal someone's work and add nothing to it. That's why we have copyright and Fair use.

[@erickshunn8498]

No not really. She literally spoke out against that type of content in the beginning and said it wasn't fair use. Did you even watch the video? She's talking about react content that adds commentary and transforms the original content. You're doing exactly what Dark Viper did. You're lumping in all react content with lazy reactions that don't actually transform the content. If you actually watched the video you would see that she specifically agrees that the example you used isn't fair use. The vast majority of reactors aren't making content like that.

[@BeSk9991]

@@erickshunn8498 She then claims "reacting to some podcast / drama" would be forbidden if they needed consent, but that falls under fair use so DVAU doesn't have a problem with that. And also she uses "free speech" when she means Fair use. You can react to stuff (response in DVAU essay) if you transform it, but you shouldn't just let it play and let your chair watch:)

[@erickshunn8498]

@@BeSk9991 if you needed permission to react, then yes, if you want to make a negative reaction then nobody would let you. If they know your reaction is going to be making fun of them they absolutely will refuse to let you react. That's precisely why fair use is a thing. So that you don't need consent. That's the entire reason behind fair use laws. You have no understanding of this subject. And fair use IS free speech. That's why she uses it interchangeably. Again you can look this up, the entire reason fair use laws were put forth is so that copyright holders can't infringe on your first amendment right. It is a first amendment right to transform somebody else's work. You don't need consent. Just like you don't need consent to make a parody of a song. It's the same principle. Again, nobody disagrees that watching a reaction without adding anything (letting your chair watch) 8snynfair use. You're having an argument that nobody disagrees with. Jesus Christ dude get all of the facts right before you form an opinion.

[@BeSk9991]

@@erickshunn8498 Did you even read my comment? Nobody is saying "negative response to someone's video" shouldn't be allowed, you are allowed to do a review of a racist video and react negatively, say why it is bad etc. thanks to Fair Use. But if you want to watch some video on livestream, without knowing first if you have anything to add, then you should try to get permission.

[@erickshunn8498]

@@BeSk9991 yes I read it. You're saying that you should ask consent before making a reaction video. No content creator is going to give you consent to make a reaction video that makes fun of them. Why do you think H3H3 got sued? He made a react video that was negative and the original creator didn't like it. So he sued him to try to get it removed. If you had to ask consent then no creator would allow you to make a negative reaction. It isn't hard. This is the entire point of fair use. So you don't have to ask consent. And again, reaction content that is transformative is fair use. You don't need consent. Consent is not part of the equation. Even if you've never seen the video before, you can still add transformative content. The viewers are not there to see the original content. They're there to see the reactor. That in and of itself is transformative.

[@the_viriathus5719]

You know why Matt is right about react content? Recently Charlie made a vid about the Oompaville thing where he got scammed for a truckload of money and then made a vid about it. Charlie doesn't actually REACT to Oompa's vid in his own or even shows a single frame from it, he actually asks his audience to go check it out themselves and links it in the description If react content brings in so much exposure to small creators and is so much of a quid-pro-quo thing why wouldn't Charlie do that to his friend in need?

[@AlexandruCarjan]

22:35 I find this part the most ironic part of the video. You say your sister is an expert in impressions and marketing for 10 years and knows exactly how it works, and then after she gives you an answer you IMMEDIATELY say she's wrong :)))

[@NeonIcyWings]

I think there's been a weird mixing on Reaction content and Response content lately. Because the vast majority of Reaction content is the same lazy junk that has been around since the days of Jinx getting mocked by Jacksfilms for reacting to Jack's content and hardly adding anything. I personally refute the idea that Reaction content lifts up the content that is reacted to, because the vast majority, especially the more famous and popular channels, only really react to already viral or popular content. Because hoards of fifteen year olds watching Pokimane watching Avatar is totally going to bring Avatar into the public consciousness, of which it has NEVER been a part of before. Sure, SOME of the content might see a boost in one way or another, like a handful of pennies being thrown into your face, but most Reaction content are flying in the original content's slipstream, hardly ever contributing back anything meaningful. It is a pretty obvious fact that of plain and pure Reaction content, a fairly generous estimate of 85% of it could be DMCA'd off the planet with no leg to stand on. Because again, Reaction content has not substantially changed since the days of Jinx, it just seems people fail to have eyes and can't differentiate between critically analyzing content and watching content with your brain switched off.

[@DukeUncanny]

But the original content still still sees mores views and exposure . She claims to be an example and I only found her through Critical. Where is your actual evidence?

[@jotunn30]

@@DukeUncanny there's none...this whole point of the argument is literally "source:dude just trust me" from people that don't like the creators this Darkviper dude accuses

[@some_one]

One thing, no one gives a fuck about the law if the majority don't like it or enforce it, it's about how it's bad, there is a video by darkviper (a new one) that explains in great deatail how this harms KZbin CREATORS not meme channels not music channels but specifically KZbinrs, it's a bit long but you will understand that even if s person gets a fuckton of subscribers it won't help them, but if you do not care about the above statement just let me tell you, no one here is gonna defend Viacom because their content is being reacted to we do not care about Viacom we care about youtubers and bigger influencers being lazy and taking everything for themselves without working.

[@DukeUncanny]

@@some_one Unfortunately I won't be giving darkviper any clicks over this controversy so I won't fully understand your claim. I have seen a few graphs on smaller youtubers getting the spotlight and while the boost doesn't last typically they get more viewers than they previously had per video after it evens out and it's still good exposure. The fact of the matter is as long as it's transformative content it's fair use and it's free speech. From what I see darkviper is guilty of throwing his mob of viewers around like he accused moist of.

[@DukeUncanny]

If we're talking about the huge streamers streaming copyrighted content then yes obviously I agree they shouldn't do that and they should have their channel taken down over it but I don't think that's what were talking about here. There's a huge difference between content that has a pay wall and content from a public site. One of these you get to see full context from and again if you're not just streaming it but also adding commentary this falls under fair use.

[@araluen4109]

Nine times out of ten when I watch react videos, it's because I've already consumed all the original media that I can, and I want to see someone else enjoy the same media that I do, and I want to be able to see someone else see it for the first time. It's like sharing a video with a friend, I know what's coming, I know it's good, and I'm excited to see someone else get to experience it. React content has a time and a place, and, like Gabi said, what's "good" content is highly subjective.

[@sxndr.a]

Yes same!!

[@thatpersonsmusic]

I know often after I watch Ghibli movies, I watch various channels react to it just to see them enjoy it too. Some add a good amount to the content, like the channel Cinema Therapy, while others simply just show their emotions upon watching it. I think it’s a very valid form of media, they don’t steal the experience of watching the movies, but they just add a bit of extra experience which is added on to my enjoyment

[@mesbahfam]

I ate a sandwich today therefore world hunger doesn't exist

[@teodorradovic1254]

Me to but most reactors like xqc etc. get more views on their videos than the original, which shows that most people don't see the original video. This proves that it's still very unethical

[@infinitecrayons]

Although I sometimes share the same desires to see people's reactions to content I enjoyed for various reasons - it doesn't take away from the fact that it is theft of the content to just play it through and "react" to it. If someone watches the reaction video before the original, they have no reason to watch the original because they just saw it. The first time I saw this was the Fallout 76 video from Internet Historian. I loved it, and watched some reactions of it. Then I thought "huh, if someone watched one of these streamers copies before the original - they would have no reason to go watch it". When you can do that with multiple videos a day, every day - it's like a cheat code. The only effort you have to give is the time to watch the video and someone (usually an editor) to get it on youtube.

[@fyre.]

so if i reacted to this vid made more money and views u wouldnt feel anything?? mind u i didnt even apply an hour of effort?

[@squin6959]

I mean that would be silly but go off ig

[@fyre.]

@@squin6959 youtube is a competion react from many streamers is just one of the cheats you can use to stay on top w/o the time it takes to create content from scratch the "shoutout" is deffo not gonna help ur channel grow like dat, cant change a mind thats not open 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@billieeisenhower406]

​@@squin6959 How would it be silly she's advocating for it to happen

[@justfitz08]

It seems like you didn't read/understand the essay or watch his videos on the topic. He specifically defines react content as watching a video for the first time in full while recording yourself hitting the pause button occasionally and giving poorly thought-out, real time, often nonsensical ramblings on a video that will often address the very thing your talking about if you just let it play out. This type of content is almost never going to result in a high quality transformative reaction, nor is it really fair that they just play your video in full. It shouldn't be hard for them to watch it before hand, see if its worth reacting to, then editing out specific clips from it as needed. But with the way they're currently doing it, particularly on twitch and stream dumps on YT, they definitely need to be asking consent because IT IS NOT LEGAL. Thats right, look up the 4 major points of fair use, this type of content violates points 3 and 4 easily. Ask yourself, why is it wrong to do it with a show or movie, but cool to do it with someone's YT content? That content belongs to them. As for the argument that if this content didn't exist, then maybe people will just spend less time on KZbin.. Yea, fair enough. DarkViper does mention this briefly, and his response is that it doesn't really matter, and he's right. If you stop watching KZbin then you're very VERY likely to become a consumer of something else. Maybe you'll watch Netflix (then Netflix benefits), maybe you'll play a game (then the ecosystem of that game benefits, or you'll eventually beat that game and likely buy another game), maybe you read a book (and you eventually finish that book and buy a new book). Even if you argue something as ridiculous as- well.. maybe I'll play solitare with myself. First off, those cards had to come from somewhere, and I 110% guarantee you won't be able to sustain your entertainment needs on solitaire alone. You'll have to move on to something else, eventually becoming a consumer of something. Ideally something ethical, unlike this style of react content. Mind you, I'm only 8 minutes in your video and you already had a number of heavily flawed arguments. I would consider deleting this video. It's not very good.

[@LammonYT]

Throughout the first 8 minutes all that I can think is that she doesn't like the analogy that Matt used about SA compared to react content. I personally didn't like the analogy either but to make this big of a point about it is absurd. I watched every single video he made on the react drama when it first came out and about a month ago re-watched the entire thing because it got recommended to me again. Just because you can sit on your ass for 22 minutes to sit on your ass and watch a 20 minute video doesn't mean you should. It's unethical to watch something that has taken 100s of hours to create and uploading the entire thing in full on your KZbin channel to reap the rewards. Don't you think the person who invested time and money into a project should get those rewards? Some react videos will even get more views than the original therefore making more money than the original video that took 100s of hours to create. Some of Matt's points I disagree with but I do agree that when people are reacting they're being a bad person. About the impressions thing, a video that has 50k views from a channel with 10k subs could keep growing and grow the 10k sub channel with it or you could post a reaction video with no effort being put in and take money and success away from the 10k sub channel.

[@alienarea7518]

This comment sums it up perfectly. I just watched this video, and her misunderstanding of the points really was unlike I remember her. Sad to see.

[@something_different7632]

I have read the document and seen all of both DarkViperAU and Charlie's videos on the topic and I fully agree with your comment

[@justfitz08]

@@something_different7632 What's really sad is that it's often the original creator that will get smoke if they dare to copyright claim a reaction of this type, so creators are super reluctant to do it. But some of these videos definitely deserve to be claimed, and they have every right to do it.

[@IamAtTheBridge]

I love that things have come full circle with reaction videos.

[@andrea2kx]

Hearing reaction youtubers react to someone else react to something. Go too deep and you go into limbo.

[@IamAtTheBridge]

@@andrea2kx , yes, lol. It's amazing how common react videos used to be and everyone shat on them. All of a sudden they've made a come back? lol

[@andrea2kx]

@@IamAtTheBridge I do hate the "so and so reacts to music video" videos.

[@lolsoina]

I agree with matto and dont agree with gabi bellybutton

[@Lil_B_Fan47]

This is so childish, I love it

[@funkymonkey1958]

Bro destroyed her

[@MKhelobUltra]

Your argument of why it doesn't matter that it took the original creator of a video significantly more time to produce than it did a react streamer is done in such bad faith, too. Snapping back at DV's point with you saying that it can take a professional creator less time to produce something than an amateur is nonsensical when the person for whom it takes less time to put out the same product which often times is competing in the same space, is taking video of themselves watching something that took somebody else hours of research, editing, scripting, etc. to do, regardless of skill level, who now gets none of the ad revenue, or algorithmic rewards of getting the views from the video. If asmongold or mizkif (pedo, btw) watches the entirety of somebody's half hour long video essay, if the streamer's audience liked it, they have barely any incentive to seek out the original creator, and even less incentive to watch the video again.

[@ethrawn373]

How can you be a commentary KZbinr and not understand the situation 💀

[@pissbabygendermichael8211]

new to your channel and just learned from this video that you have adhd! me too :D i love finding creators with adhd bc i feel like i can follow their thought process easier, can’t wait to see what else you create!

[@Guzmarkk]

mf lied so much lmfao

[@suxe9021]

Hello Gabi, No one is attacking free speech, you know... Nobody said that you need to ask permission first to make a video about sb, except you? Eh Just try not to watch their entire video on stream. That's all... shortly speaking/=being a decent human and not copy the work of others.

[@matthewchurch7057]

It's so dumb how she claims Matt's essay was poorly written and dishonest, while she falsely equates Free Speech to Fair Use and makes the argument that all Free Speech is ethical

[@oscarburrows-rangel3302]

Is that the Roadrunner Coachella hat you're wearing at 33:00? I miss mine. Keep up the good work. :)

[@confirm_email1395]

KZbin needs to implement a system similar to TikTok duets, where a creator can watch a video or stream a video and both channels get views and ad revenue, that could totally solve the problem on KZbin even though twitch would still be a problem

[@1ndiasmusic]

I disagree with this because if you get things like Gabi is talking about, where react youtubers are talking about something really shitty that someone else has done, why would you want that person to get ad revenue when you are trying to show people how unethical that person is?

[@Wonkess_Chonkess]

​@@1ndiasmusic It's still the guy's content. Maybe people can set their video to free reaction or shared revenue reaction or something like that. Maybe make it so that you can only have for example a minute reaction time per 10 minutes in a video or something stupid like that anything better than this system.

[@richardhobbs7360]

@@1ndiasmusic Don't show the vid then, if you aren't okmwith them getting paid for their work, no matter how wrong it is, don't use their work

[@joesecord3066]

I'm curious if you have any updated views on the topic since DarkViper has actually made a more detailed and thorough video describing the problems with react streamers. A lot of things that were communicated poorly in the original essay are more clearly defined. A few examples... The definition of reactor not including reviews or opinion pieces on certain content. Like this video would not fall into the react category. Also, what impressions are. You were talking about impressions in regards to specific topics; however, DarkViper was talking about impressions in regards to the videos put in a person's recommended.

[@TomoGoody]

Doubtful she will ever comment on DVAU again

[@jack-a-lopium]

You know that people sometimes don't like other people, right? We don't all have to get along. Leave them kids alone. Dark Viper outed himself and his followers, what a fool.

[@kaungkhantkyaw4410]

@@jack-a-lopium Wtf are you yapping about? By that definition "Gabie outed herself and her audience" because of your comment. I assume you could be gabie's audience but I wouldn't say that cause I am not 100% sure. "You know that people sometimes don't like other people" and what tf does this relate to anything? No one here is trying to make world peace? The comments are just disagreements and discussions. And who's 'them kids'??? Creepy ahh mf though he was onto something💀

[@BIueUnknown]

Matt was right, this video was made lazily while at the same time lying even though you can be proven wrong by just reading the essay that he made

[@MaxDeaconVR]

There's always this one stinky video that makes me unsub

[@LiGohan]

I feel your pain! Same situation happened to me. I was really hoping she posted a follow-up or statement but I didn't see anything. Plus the video still being up like this (no notes, comments or edits that I can see) speaks volumes about her I'm afraid.

[@gadielphilip]

I've watched this video from beginning to end and my conclusions is that she jumped on a band wagon to get views and if she call someone unhinged for making a 47 min response video what does that say about her making a 35 min react video.

[@matthewchurch7057]

It's truly hilarious just how hypocritical she is. She defends react content and stands by it not being unethical, calls Matt's (Darkviperau) essay poorly written and lazy - when this video itself is infinitely worse written and lazier than anything Matt has written or filmed during this 'drama'. When the screen caps of his essay accidentally prove her own arguments to be lies and falsehoods and yet SHE tries to call his work lazy and dishonest is truly, astonishly arrogant

[@Lmpy]

Asking permission IS IMPORTANT. DON'T ever let this person tell you otherwise. No one should be allowed to lazily reuse content of yours and just react to it. Review and commenting on something is fine, but it is absolutely a big issue when someone lazily reacts and reuses the entirety of your content and reacts to it with no substance. That is a huge artistic issue that I would assume an artist like Gabi would understand. It felt so strange hearing her argue otherwise.

[@calumbrown5850]

This is such a biased analysis wow

[@5abiBeast]

It just sounds like she’s Charlie’s #1 fan, and to her Charlie can do/say no wrong 😂. Saying this as a fan of both Charlie and DarkViperAU myself, just unbiased unlike her

[@alexisaguirre5526]

Reaction content for the most part is personality based, but also can be useful when doctor/hairstylist react to or just being the medium to not engagge to content that you are curious but not gonna watch for whatever reason like a js video.

[@bungiecrimes7247]

How is reaction content helpful? Besides helpful for the reactor who is stealing and funneling the views to themselves.

[@alexisaguirre5526]

@@bungiecrimes7247 i already explain, it's kinda usefull to hear a chemist saying "no, paraffin does not get into your kidneys" while a crunchy content creator try to sell you some snake oil, why you don't want to give certain creator views or and entertaining some of them are genuinely entertaining

[@wooster0249]

The description to this video is extremely hypocritical with all the insults and jabs you threw at DV throughout the video

[@Laurenjoinsyoutube]

I’ve seen a few reaction channels and they literally just sit in the corner of the screen saying nothing until the end of the video

[@deshnashah518]

I literally found tuv because Charlie reacted to his content. I went and watched his videos and then subscribed. Like I wouldn’t have known about him without Charlie

[@rebeckasanderson2711]

in a way, i agree that reaction content is bad. it just is. but as comments here have pointed out and as many people that watch Charlie can point out too: he isn't Jinx. he doesn't just sit there and go "woah crazy". he will actually discuss with viewers and make jokes and his own narratives. he puts some effort into it. it's like watching something with a friend.

[@seaurchinwithahat7559]

The only really reaction content I watch is AVNJ, an ichthyologist who makes sure they have educational information to teach in response to the video they're reacting to.

[@rebeckasanderson2711]

@@seaurchinwithahat7559 yooo thanks for the recommendation, will for sure check them out

[@MichaelGallagher97]

His youtbe has effort yes. He's twitch not so much. Just because he doesn't then upload the VODs to youtube doesn't make him any less guilty. He's still benifiting from subs and donos given during his stream and thoes who are watching his tream aren't then going to rewatch the orginal video

[@cwahlb1]

@@seaurchinwithahat7559 AVNJ! love him. and love his educational videos

[@Flunksqk]

@@seaurchinwithahat7559 which is qualified commentary, and something that DarkViperAU excluded from his definition of "react channels" on the first pages of his essay, and anyone who actually read and/or understood the essay would've known that. He also excluded commentary channels from that definition, but Gabi must've missed it when she "read" the essay. Must've been too long for her or because of her ADHD as she so claims.

[@wrendsilva8387]

If people was react content because they like the reactor you say . Then it should not matter if the don’t create those lazy react videos anyway. you seem to be grouping all react videos in one category. How are you not getting this . Yours seems to be a perfect example of a good react video.

[@AyoSoma]

honestly its hard to believe you even read the essay or did any modicum of research. I would have been embarrassed to so brazenly be so wrong about a topic.

[@buck2817]

The fact that Danny Gonazales, someone who DEFINITELY DOES NOT make the react content Darkviper was addressing, is one of your primary arguments in this video, proves you don't actually know what you are talking about.

[@bungiecrimes7247]

She's another delusional commentary channel. Nothing new to see here.

[@Kuzey__]

you down so bad. just don't talk about things you have no idea again

[@purplegion]

Calling what big streamers do when using other people's content as their own _"reacting"_ is just a nice way of saying *stealing from smaller streamers.* They get all of the hype, all of the monetary gain, but put in *none of the work or effort.* *Then these same streamers will copystrike people who misuse their content 🥴* _Edit: of course asking for permission to react is a ridiculous concept. _*_Giving credit, with links to that person's socials_*_ is hardly a big task though, is it?_

[@-gemberkoekje-5547]

Most people wont click those links, and most original content creators dont want their videos stolen. Most cant voice this opinion however, because of fear of backlash. And just because a lot of people would just casually consent, doesnt mean you should act like all would consent. If 60 percent of people would always consent to being kissed by a stranger, is it then in your right to kiss every stranger without asking for consent because of that majority? Hell no.

[@purblepeenid6256]

@@-gemberkoekje-5547 i gotta disagree with the edit. i dont see why people think it's so absurd to ask permission. the default state shouldnt be 'we're allowed to steal as long as we give credit'. imagine anyone other than a content creator trying that, like a company doing that with an artist. these creators should ask before essentially stealing their content unless theyre gonna add substantial and transformative stuff to the video

[@samspeer393]

You clearly cannot separate the difference between response and react content, and clearly are not educated on this topic. You also seem to completely misunderstand what an analogy is, and what certain words mean. You misrepresent content to fit your narrative, realize it was wrong in the edit, try to justify it, and post it anyway. If you’d like to have any form of respect from fans and other creators, id suggest learning and changing your content, and apologizing for misrepresenting DarkViperAU’s points.

[@theeditaesthetic]

terrible take there gab

[@mystyss]

I will admit beforehand, I did watch the smallest sliver of DarkViperAU's newest video, which was posted just 11 hours ago at the time of writing this portion. I did not watch the entirety of his video, and the small portion that I DID watch may change my opinion of this video just slightly. I will be citing things from both the video and the original essay that this video is based on. TLDR, the entire video is extremely biased and she completely misunderstood everything DarkViperAU talked about. You start the video off by saying, "...but this one KZbinr took it *way too far.* " (0:12) Already dramatizing the extent of what the contents of the video are. I had to pause the video and laugh, not because it was funny, but because it was absurd. Something else within the first 30 seconds of the video, you "quote" a very small portion of the essay, obviously mocking...you then say that you'll deliver facts and logic. (0:22) First off, you use the clip of the essay without further context. Second, you would think the beginning of the video would be unbiased as you haven't even gone through anything about the drama yet, but...obviously not. This obvious bias STILL WITHIN THE FIRST 30 SECONDS OF THE VIDEO makes me want to either; doubt anything you say, or already dislike who this video is against, in this case, DarkViperAU. As a recent enjoyer of your content, I would like to say you have stayed away from bias in the introduction of the people and drama, but that would be a lie. After going back to several of your videos, you display bias, which may or may not be obvious, whether or not the situation is deserving of bias or not. There are definitely many ways to go about the intro of a video without including bias, which you do not do. Back to the quote I mentioned earlier, what you DIDN'T mention was the context. It was about how if a reaction channel reacted to 3 separate 20-minute videos, each consisting of about 500 hours of labor to create each video, the reaction channel is creating just as good quality content in 20 minutes, taking from the original creators' "finite pool of exposure," the more they take "the less there is for anyone else." (page 2). Some more context for that is how, for example, KZbin has specific places for exposure, such as on the recommended page. Several videos get recommended to you, and there is a finite amount of places for a video to be exposed to you, so how this video could be in a place where a different video could be. There is an analogy he uses, "...Like when you get a job, technically if you didn't take that job someone else would eventually get it, but that would be the case for anyone getting that job and another person shouldn't be more deserving than you to get that role."(page 2). Again, with the bias. (0:39). You may have stated that you are "passionate about this topic," (0:29), but that is no reason as to why you have to be biased about it, which, I know, is ironic, because there are times when I am clearly biased, but I am a mere chatter...you are a content creator with 300,000 views on a topic people are either interested or new to. But you know that. (0:43). If you know people new to the topic are going to interact, WHY BE BIASED? But at least you give a disclaimer, right? DarkViperAU does mention the scenario, saying, "They drew massive unwanted attention to the space, whose consequences may have yet to unfold, for literally no reason than for their own glorification. They have enough money to live the rest of their lives, so give no thought to how their actions impact others. They personally will be fine, so why care?" (page 7). But that's the only time he mentions the scenario in the entire 14 pages. The entire essay is about reaction channels as a whole, not because one event caused him to write a 5.5k word essay about how what Pokimane and Toast did was wrong. (1:40). You once again take something out of context, you do that a lot, DarkViperAU is upset (1:53) because, if you actually watched his video, you would see that he mentioned how Charlie didn't understand his point, and how it seemed like he only read half of a paragraph out of his 14 pages. He's mostly complaining about how people are forming an opinion of his essay before even reading it. (2:17). Just because he said that people have been prevented from careers doesn't mean that they were all small creators that they were stealing from, which is EXACTLY the point he made in the portion of the essay you used! The portion of the essay you used doesn't even support what you said! Does it mention small creators? Yes. But it says how reaction channels steal from big and small, and how they don't openly seek out small creators' content. Did you even read what it said? It actually contrasts your statement! (Part one (i know)

[@mystyss]

You say how he got tons of negative feedback but the majority of that was on Reddit and Twitter, which are the exact platforms that people criticize for being extremely toxic and hate-filled. (2:30). He mentioned streamers by name because they're the major reaction channels who take the content and spend 10-20 minutes watching them and spewing it out onto the internet, he's mentioning them because they're the people the essay is about... (2:36). He mentions SA because the general idea of how they go about it is the same, they use/do what they would like because they never said they couldn't do so in the first place. That's what an analogy is. (2:38). He mentions Fair Use in that same paragraph, which allows people to use portions of other people's work, not in its entirety. (2:42). The context necessary to understand why he mentioned slavery was stating "...what is legal is not necessarily good by any standard. Just because slavery was once legal it didn't make it good and certainly even if this labor exploitation was legal it still wouldn't make it any less exploitative or something that should be tolerated." (page 9). You constantly take things out of context and never actually explain the context for anything you use to support what you're saying. And in "and only a tiny amount of effort required on their part compared to the laborers they take from in their infinite unpaid labor pool. Content creators will pick the cotton for the reactor and the reactor doesn't even need to feed them." (page 3.) He is talking about unpaid labor. Content creators make the content and reactors will use it and not give the original creator anything in return. It's another analogy. (3:31). His video is nearly 50 minutes long because Charlie's video is nearly 25 minutes long. DarkViperAU is responding to his video, therefore, his response will be longer than the video he's responding to if he uses clips from the video, which he does. He's not making a reaction video, he's making a RESPONSE video. (3:15). He's responding to what Charlie said, just like Charlie making a response video to DarkViperAU's video. And just as mentioned before, Charlie didn't understand his point, and DarkViperAU is upset about how Charlie didn't read his essay before making a response about the essay. You can quote things without reading it in its entirety. (3:16). I'm doing that. But at least I'm actually taking the time to understand what he's saying. You say that you read it in it's entirety, but if you did, you would understand where he's coming from, and the points he made. (3:35). You would understand the context and meaning of the analogies he made in several portions of what you screenshotted and then highlighted the worse bits in. This video is so biased to the point where the best thing for you to do is to take down the video. But of course, you wouldn't do that, you would lose the monetization money that you gain from agreers and disagreers coming to share their opinion on your video. But of course, it was poorly written. Maybe it was just poorly read. Did you write a script for this video, or did you make everything up as you went? Everything that is clearly biased are all adjectives that could be removed ahead of time, or even as it is read. I have gone back and removed obviously biased statements that did not support what I am saying by any means. (3:52). The clip of the essay that you have at 4:00 is clearly explained. Reactors take money from content creators by reposting the content on their own channels. More popular and more profitable creators have a chance to support the creators that they are taking from because they get more views and money. The "like what is this even" is another piece of biased garbage that should have never been put in this video. The "doubling down" is as I explained earlier, they DON'T ask for consent. That's the whole point of the analogy. (4:04). A lot of the clips and images that you use in this portion are pieces that you've already used. The clip that you used is him explaining that he never said that reacters ARE people who would SA someone, just that how they go about consent for content similar in a way that someone that would SA someone would. Yes, another thing about bias. You say that DarkViperAU's second response video "isn't as long as the first, thank god." But had nothing to comment about how Charlie's second response video was 30 minutes long. (4:44). The whole point was that CONTENT CREATORS not MOVIE CREATORS would benefit from the removal of reaction content. Instead of the original creator getting the view, a reaction of a more preferable streamer or KZbinr would be getting the view. (5:59). And the whole point was so people MORE DESERVING of the view would get the view, like the original creator, not someone watching the video. No one is going to go from a reaction video that contains the entire video, to the original video because the viewer has nothing to gain from that experience. Videos are different from movies. People reacting to movies will not have the entire hour to two hours of a movie in the video, they'll only have specific clips, therefore the viewer actually has something to gain from watching the movie in its entirety. He's not talking about impressions, he's talking about views. (6:37). Every time someone views an ad on their channel, they get money. He's talking about how when the more people view your content, the more money they make, and therefore will be able to sustain content creation as an actual profitable job, rather than sinking in so many hours on a video only to then make less than a dollar on it. He also never mentioned big creators unless they were the reactors themself. (6:55). How is it moot? There have been several instances where original creators file a copyright claim because the reactor never asked to use or pay for the rights to use the clip or video. (6:57). Free speech does exist, yes, but consequences and laws also exist. You can use short clips as long as it follows the guidelines under the Fair Use Act, but the original creators of the clip have the right to be properly paid for the entirety of their videos, reactors included for said compensation. The reaction creators he talks about are the ones that use the entirety of the video without consent or proper compensation for the use of it, therefore not applying to the fair use act. (7:04). If you take small clips of an Alpha Male podcast then yes, you can use it, and you don't have to compensate or ask permission for the use of it. If you take the entirety of one of the podcast sessions without using it for an educational purpose or learning experience then it doesn't apply. On the topic of SA again (7:55-8:55), I find his analogies of reactors and reaction content to be a perfect analogy to support his point. But the way that you completely miss his point is not beneficial to your video in any way. You can't say you read his essay and then ignore everything he's talking about, it's absurd. I have someplace to say whether his SA analogy is good or bad because I've been SA'd. He's comparing the abuse of consent of content reactors to the abuse of consent of people who SA other people. In the text you have at 9:53, he also says, "...Videos that take 5 hours of labor to make, 50 hours of labor, 500 hours of labor, and so on..." Obviously taking into account that things can have different amounts of time put into them, but this is another fictional scenario that he uses to support his point. But you say that when you did freelance work (9:38), freelance is something entirely different than what he's talking about, as someone who's worked freelance. You get a specific amount of money per project, and that's all the money you get, depending on the circumstance. But I've also had circumstances where I get a specific amount of money per project, but then I get additional pay based on the revenue of the video. But he's talking about people who make the videos themselves, as he never mentioned freelance work. The revenue they make from their videos, and the people watching the video support the creator in other ways, are the only money they get for their project. If bigger creators are reacting to the entirety of their work, getting money, and not giving back to the original creator, that's money that the original creator could have gotten if the viewers of the reaction video actually watched the original video. The scarcity mindset (11:13) is different than what he's talking about...I've mentioned so many other times what he talks about that you can look at basically any other paragraph that I wrote. In summary; a reaction channel reacts to a video in full, not adding much to the video, taking any money the original creator would have gotten if the viewers of the reaction channel watched the original video themselves because they wouldn't have anything to add to their experience by watching the original video featured in a reaction video. (Part 2)

[@mystyss]

Drama channels talking about drama (11:31) is different than reaction channels watching the entirety of a video and posting it on their channels and watching it on streams. Drama channels add to the drama rather than just showing the entire video with very little comment. Not saying some people don't do that, but the majority of drama channels that I see actually add to the topic they're talking about. Danny and Kurtis are part of this category. Danny is an actually decent reaction content creator because according to DarkViperAu's essay, he actually adds onto the content he reacts to, and doesn't use the entirety of what he's reacting to in his video. Meaning a lot of the other people you mentioned don't fall into the same category Danny does. He was being general because the situation could be applied to reaction content as a whole. The original point could have come from criticism from Hassan, but why does that mean he can use that criticism to be general? (14:36). You say, "if you wanted to be more general, then you could apply the logic that you applied to Hassan and say some streamers think like this..." (14:40) as if that isn't exactly what he said. He's going to bring up the length of the essay several times... you don't have to pause or bring up every single time he mentions that his essay is 14 pages simply because it annoys you. It's very obvious that this annoys you simply due to every ounce of bias that you place in every sentence that you speak. (15:09). But that's not the point of his statement, he brings up the length to mention that he only brought up that group of streamers 3 times, he's using the length of the essay to say "Out of 5,000 words, I only used 500 of them for this group of streamers." Again, completely missing his point. The rest of the video is her going over topics that I already talked about previously, and if she mentioned anything else I really don't care at this point.

[@Gameferret16191]

​@@mystyssholy shit dude that's like a novel but atleast you got everything down

[@mystyss]

@@Gameferret16191 lol yeah

[@PPedroFernandes]

And to think at some point I actually believed you had a working brain ☠

[@CatDaddyx2]

Itd be nice to see the dislikes on things

[@onechessdude]

16k likes to about 1.5k dislikes.

[@cpt-cheese3489]

@@onechessdudewhere do you see that?

[@M4RV3]

​@@cpt-cheese3489chrome extensions

[@cpt-cheese3489]

@@M4RV3 I don’t use chrome but that makes sense, we can only hope that the dislikes grow

[@onechessdude]

​@@cpt-cheese3489 I use Firefox and there is an extension for returning dislikes. Idk if your browser has it.

[@Mistymist14]

I would say it is theft to an extent. There are streamers that play a video to the fullest without giving commentary. Which doesn’t make it transformative at all. Especially when they are a popular streamer and how they don’t get any punishment while other content creators do. React content isn’t bad (it is a bit lazy) but there are standards that make it so content creators don’t get reported or demonetized.

[@roostre5254]

I would say it is advertisement to some extent. Viewers are being exposed to videos and creators they probably never would have found organically, increasing views and subs for the original creator.

[@alonabb1911]

If you put videos on the internet for people to watch, people are going to watch them and if they do it on stream that doesn't matter their still watching it like the person that uploaded expected people to do, it isn't theft because they put it on the internet for everyone to watch for free lmfao yeah its lazy but it isn't theft it's just watching a video with your fans

[@HoneyLambkin]

@@alonabb1911 Other content creators put the content out there for free, but with the expectation that people will consume that content in large part from their platform, and they will then get paid based on the number of ad views. If a react channel plays the original creator's content outright, and people who see it have no reason to seek out the original, then it gives the reactor content and revenue while taking from the revenue the creator could be earning from those same views. Ergo, it is a form of theft if not enough commentary or cuts were added to the original to qualify a reaction as transformative. As others have pointed out, if done right, react channels and the creators' whose content they react to could have a symbiotic relationship. One gets content to comment on, and the other gets more eyes on their content, thus bringing more people to both their platforms. If done wrong, people have no reason to seek out the original content because they basically just saw it in full and uninterrupted, so there is no new experience to be had from watching it on the creator's channel.

[@bungiecrimes7247]

@@roostre5254 to an extent it could benefit someone, but compared to how it could kill someone's engagement to an original video, it falls apart.