There are plenty of huge youtubers that do not take your advertising dollars you fucking hack, you have no say in the new media.
Don’t try to pretend that you are some kind of authority now.
You’re not even impressed that I learned how to play Zelda?
Damn
Well, I don’t know an advertising hack that is trying to exploit the new media when most youtubers I watch are independently funded and don’t take advertising dollars?
Or an industry hack of old media that has all the research polls and is part of the reason why we got Trump in the first place.
Really hard choice, guys like him are done and he knows it.
The things you don’t know-
How mentally ill you are
how to make a decent argurment
how to find and post a good cite
I could go on
No Edward Bernays fucks like him are part of the problem.
They were being bypassed in the new media, but now him and his ilk are claiming they are kind of authority.
But, to be fair, his sauce is amazing!
Yes, keep joking, but it’s people like this that have screwed us all.
Alot of political youtube is not funded by advertisement directly, some are funded by paterons exclusively.
BTW, Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) but I’m sure that his death in the same year Windows fucking 95 was put out in no way hampered his attempts to be a part of ‘’‘the new media’‘’!
Fine, then let me do something novel for you, and provide cites:
(emphasis mine; source)
(source)
(emphasis mine; source)
And, for what it’s worth, Pit or no, one of the two of us has not resorted to name-calling and insults in this conversation.
Yes no shit, I’m saying that one poster that proudly proclaimed he was an advertiser is a hack in the mold of Bernays.
You are talking about monetization, I’m not, so I stand by calling you an advertising hack.
Of course you see it from the money side, looking for any angle to exploit.
Still not sure why anyone is bothering.
The point is still the same: subscribers alone are a lousy measure of the impact of a YouTuber. Generating money, or just getting their message out there, all also require a content creator to actually generate views of their videos.
Saying, “this guy is influential, he has 1 million subscribers” may or may not actually be true; without knowing what kind of views he’s generating, he may be hugely influential, or he may have bought his subscribers to game YouTube’s algorithm.
I think split p j is probably right when he says the “not really Black” angle is a conscious effort to drive down enthusiasm among Black voters. They did the same stuff with Obama, and look how that turned out.
At least in the parts of the Black community I’m exposed to, though, such attacks are pretty universally recognized as racist attempts to divide the community. I think he’s overestimating how effective that line is likely to be, particularly with younger people. I can see how the sort of Black people who are willing to advise Trump might think it’s a winner, though.
Ennui. And the lack of a decent, instant, Bernays sauce mix…
Sure, I could get the instant Hollandaise and add my own tarragon, but where’s the fun in that?
YouTube is not measured that way; some creators are putting out multiple long form videos every day. It goes by subscribers.
Tick-tock is measured by views of individual videos.
OK, George.
What goes by subs?
YouTube sure as fuck does not care about how many subs you have if their eyeballs are not there to watch the fucking ads that are the entire point of the platform as far as Google is concerned.
For purposes of this point you keep trying to make, “how YouTube measures it” isn’t really relevant. You’re trying to make the point of “this guy is influential,” but “influential” comes down to “how many people actually see his videos.” That’s views.
If you’ve got 1 million subscribers, but only 1000 of them actually watch your stuff, are you, in fact, influential?