YouTube

There is literally no difference in terms of how much money the creator gets. It's all about how and when. This isn't hard to figure out: Super Thanks can be done any time, Super Chats can only be done during a livestream, but everybody can see that you did it.

Logan Paul sells crypto scams and overpriced "hydration" drinks. He's an awful person in every possible way. Look up Cryptozoo... but don't buy it, because you won't get what was promised.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2024 at 10:00:00 AM

Yes, but I want to know why Youtubers don't mention super thanks that much in their videos in comparison to Patreon and You Tube memberships, which are frequently mentioned in their videos.

I don't know. Ask one of them. Maybe in a Super Chat.

Well, obviously the difference being that a Super Chat happens in a livestream and the creators are usually encouraged to read it, as it's often a heartwarming thanks from the sender or something funny enough to spend money on. A Super Thanks is the same in the comments section.

Given the real-time differences between the two it makes sense for a Thanks to be replied to in the comments section rather than on video.

Logan Paul also wrestles part time as the WWE US Champion. Much as I hate the man with the passion of a million novas, he can wrestle.

[1]

Dorkly is still around?

Whew, I'm glad I'm not the only one going "What's Superchat".

Yeah, a lot of YouTubers don't mention Super Thanks, so it's easy to forget that it exists.

One-time donations are always going to get less praise compared to reoccurring donations (patreon, etc…), the reason ones done live get shoutouts is because it’s a live interaction. I double Twitch streamers will read out donations that come in between streams, though some might.

Yeah, I only really notice super chats if I'm watching a stream and they acknowledge it at the time. Feels like a slightly odd concept to me but if people want to give a creator they like money then sure, why not.

What exactly is wrong with Nostalgia Critic and Logan Paul? I know Logan Paul had some kind of controversey in 2017 or 2018, but come on.

I think the issue with Nostalgia Critic is that he was abusive and misogynistic on the set of his movies. And aside from the aforementioned scams, Logan Paul filmed a hanging suicide victim.

The Paul’s have been involved in scams/mistreatment of others since then. As mentioned before about the Crypto scams. They’re generally just terrible human beings.

Isn't one of them going to get his ass beat by Mike Tyson soon?

I feel that’s too light of a punishment and plus much as I hate to say it, they’re at least decent at boxing. (I know Logan is good though I can’t remember Jake’s skill.) I think that both of their channels should be gone already but since the site favors money over wellbeing I unfortunately think they’re here to stay.

Let's be clear that, aside from potentially illegal activity, it's not YouTube's job to decide who should and should not be popular on the platform. The problem is that people like Jake and Logan Paul have a great deal of appeal to the, I'll just say it, dumbass demographic. This is largely teenagers, but there are a lot of adults who seem to believe that their antics represent some kind of ideal, or are at least entertaining in a way that justifies their stupidity.

I mean, look at how much traction SSSniperWolf got for her fake reactions to stolen content, until she melted down because someone called her out for it. It's no coincidence that many of the biggest streamers have gotten in trouble for promoting crypto scams. They've started up again, too, since crypto had a recent boom.

It's all about building an audience from attention-starved young people who develop parasocial relationships with these "influencers", then buy whatever crazy shit they're selling. The problem isn't that the influencers exist; the problem is that people are suckers for them to begin with.

Edit: Let me be clear — there is nothing inherently wrong with building an audience on silly or trivial content. What is wrong is when you manipulate that audience in unethical ways.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 20th 2024 at 2:44:17 PM

I keep getting the same lame mobile game ads now, but only at the start of the video, and only those.

I keep getting zero ads. [whistles innocently]

Do you have any type of ad blocker or Premium?

Edited by eirigfi on Apr 20th 2024 at 9:56:56 AM

Premium, as that person's anti-blocker stance has been made quite clear.

If Premium integrated sponsorblock's features and Youtube paid creators more reasonably, I would have continued subscribing to Premium as well.

Edited by RainingMetal on Apr 20th 2024 at 12:58:31 PM

Yes, I've been a Premium subscriber for years. It neatly sidesteps all these ethical problems.

-smirks-

I look at it this way: I don't have to see ads (other than sponsor bits in the videos), creators still get paid, and my stress level goes down. It's a win-win.

TV Tropes has a subscription model that takes away ads. So do many other websites. Eyes or wallets.

If stress is a factor in giving Youtube money or not, why not just buy weed?

I'm half-serious.

Evidently, a lot of people get really worked up about giving Google money.

Not everyone has money to burn on an ever-growing number of subscription-based services.