I wonder how much other information exists on the web that is extremely valuable yet unnoticed
Estimating earnings based on views/subs is helpful to prospective youtubers, letting them make wise decisions about whether they pursue that path or do something else with their time (it will probably dissuade more than it will encourage, but that's a good thing if in aggregate people are making sounder career decisions).
Totally taking the convo in the darker direction, but you can see this dynamic in play with Rogan‘s podcast. He’s a liberal, but those hot button right wing takes are probably what brings in the clicks. Every trans critique he makes caters to that traffic, so he milks that audience often.
What does one become when you effectively sell out to the analytics?
Your thoughts and perspective are no longer driven by your convictions or experience, but by this shit.
Is he?
"USA: the primary use of the term liberal is at some variance with European and worldwide usage. In the United States today, it is most associated with the definition of modern liberalism, which is a combination of social liberalism, public welfare and a mixed economy,[12] which is in contrast to classical liberalism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_parties_by_country#The...
This assumed cultural hegemony by some US citizens is frustrating as hell; they are incredibly quick to assume (or demand even) the rest of the world knows their cultural references/idioms/etc., yet make zero effort to discover what the rest of the world is doing. Unfortunately they are also loud and so it's easy to come to the false conclusion all US citizens are like that.
I used to believe this as well. I was thaught a lesson... In fact, now I understand that liberals, when given the power, will corrupt into totalitarism in a few months.
> liberals, when given the power, will corrupt into totalitarism in a few months.
Is your complaint an actual example of that? I've never actually heard the argument - I've heard "billionaires should not exist", but never "we should have a 100% tax on those making more than $100m", so I don't know if the claim you're making is as popular as you're making it out to be, nor do I believe is it an example of totalitarianism.
I also don't see actual examples of liberal governments doing that. People say lots of crazy stuff online, but "liberals say the darndest thing" is not the claim here.
These conversations never go anywhere. The battlelines are already drawn. It just becomes a semantic debate around loosely defined terms like totalitarianism.
Republican = social restrictions + economic freedoms
"Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.[10] Until the Great Depression and the rise of social liberalism, it was used under the name of economic liberalism. As a term, classical liberalism was applied in retronym to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[11] By modern standards, in the United States, simple liberalism often means social liberalism, but in Europe and Australia, simple liberalism often means classical liberalism.[12][13]
...
In the United States, classical liberalism may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal". Despite this context, classical liberalism rejects conservatism's higher tolerance for protectionism and social liberalism's inclination for collective group rights, due to classical liberalism's central principle of individualism.[14] Classical liberalism is also considered closely tied with right-libertarianism in the United States.[15] In Europe, liberalism, whether social (especially radical) or conservative, is classical liberalism in itself, so the term classical liberalism mainly refers to centre-right economic liberalism.[16]
"
"Liberal" in the US -> some social freedoms, but restricted in certain ways + economic restrictions.
"Liberal" outside the US -> social freedoms + economic freedoms.
I learned this as an American abroad when someone called me, who would generally be seen as conservative / libertarian in the US, "very liberal" when discussing gay rights (pro), gun rights / armed self-defense (pro), and abortion rights (pro-choice).
Again, it's just a fine point when discussing in an international context (like on HN). When speaking only with Americans, you'll never need this distinction, it's just good to be aware of it when discussing with non-Americans or when reading about foreign politics (e.g. FDP in Germany is a "liberal party" in the European sense of the word, but their policies are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If an American reads "liberal party", they would be surprised to learn that they campaign on cutting taxes, pro free market, privatization, etc., yet are also pro gay marriage and are for legalizing marijuana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Democratic_Party_(Germany...)
Supporting gay rights and being pro-choice is seen as conservative??
These are many large quantitative changes, that are going to have qualitative implications.
For instance, given the small scale of each offering, post, etc., most creators won’t have developed deeply held individual visions to be compromised with a focus on adapting
I’m guessing (but not willing to check although it’s easily empirically proveavle) that the variance in view count per episode more than outweighs any “trans conversation premium” if that even exists. At acquisition Spotify mentioned Joe was the most searched query in their search bar they don’t have.
The value of his podcast is the massive audience of humans who watch his 2 to 3 hour multiple times a week diatribes, it’s probably not the little clips that anger people. If you’re clicking at a trans clip and foaming of the mouth, you’re probably going to be super disappointed to listen to 10 hours of rogan and find no salacious topic included.
Plus I’m biased once but he swung by my ju jitsu gym once and he seemed like one of the most normal humans every and super humble.
It’s probably either: how he speaks, his takes in general, how others view him, how others reamplify him, or something else, but I really doubt he’s beating the drum on transgender rights since he’s he seems to in favor of all socially liberal topics in general.
To me it was clear he had an axe to grind in regards to the subject, though, and took out that axe out semi-regularly.
[1]: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-crazy-man-have-you-ever...
These are the questions that cut across the entire political spectrum, as there are plenty on the left questioning the excesses of this activist movement too.
I agree they are reasonable, but it’s kind of like a cock tease dog whistle (maybe a less crude way to put it is a feint dog whistle).
If you take a Kanye, and he says ‘I love Hitler’, that’s a blow horn. But if you say, ‘There are a lot of Jews in Hollywood, and look at all that stuff that’s going on in Palestine’, now we’re angling. Everything you are saying is reasonable, but you are reconnoitering around the rim of a specific demographic.
I guess the question is, is this subtle play going past you, or are you letting it get a pass?
He’s keeping one foot in the ring because it’s a pragmatic way of acknowledging the existence of those viewpoints.
I’m not saying black people commit a lot of crime, but look at this shoplifting video. Proceeds to show black people looting. We need to do something about crime.
There are ways to hold that audience without being an outright demagogue.
I like Rogan, but this manipulation in the interest of holding that broader audience smells a little. Integrity is the word I guess.
We know what happens... you get Mr. Beast. He's known for hyper optimizing the metrics. Watch one of his interviews. His Joe Rogan interview was an eye opener.
Basically every scientific progress which gets published on peer reviewed journals (a lot of them open). Some books also are online.
If anything I'd prefer less interest of the general public on specific papers because the way it ends up is with people misunderstanding it to fit whatever the journalist/redditor that peddled it wanted it to mean, maliciously or not.
At the end of the day there's already huge amounts of youtubers showing their mansions or whatever to influence the gullible viewers, the ones who would miss the nuance of his situation would most likely fall for them anyway. There's already an abundance of blatant "false hope" being peddled far harder and wider, the chance of his objective analysis being misinterpreted by people is as far as i'm concerned insignificant.
This issue, in this case, is information dispersal. This sort of information is highly analyzed, almost certainly, by google/youtube. They have all the data, so there's a lot more you can get out of analyzing it.
If ever channel's youtube data was released to the public like this, there would be a lot more notice.
Transparency doesn't just need to overcome secrecy, they need to overcome obscurity.
A huge part of the phenomenon comes through how fashions form. Hype collects around emotionally-charged things. By their very nature, their spectacle is compromising some of the sincerity and value to maximize reach. The spotlight is power, and power corrupts.
HN is a perfect example of this: looks like a chat forum from 1998, but is very much current and edgy with the cool kids.
https://twitter.com/linusgsebastian/status/16094698614949519...
Of course he has other income streams - sponsorships, lttstore.com, commissioned videos etc.
This is pretty common knowledge for monetized or high viewership (sponsored/paid for outside of Google) channels.
They both have private communities where people freely share a lot of good info (especially Project24).
There are many others that I have heard good things about but have not checked out myself.