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).
I immediately noticed a dark dynamic based on the analytics. Lucky for OP, they are making Lego videos. However, if you are in the business of selling your opinion or sexuality, and you start to see that people click on certain hot takes or less-clothes on, you will start to morph to cater to that traffic. I wonder how this destroys a person (the greed).
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.
He’s had (guessing, including multi guest, and the mma pieces) close to 2,000 guests, and probably has spoken about trans a maximum of 5 times? Call it 1%. If you assume a 2 hour podcast length and a 2 minute instagram length clip that’s 0.01%ish? That’s probably at (or maybe significant below) main stream medias coverage of the topic but that’s a wild guess.
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.
I don't watch Rogan a whole lot nowadays (used to regularly before the Spotify purchase), but back when I did he spoke about Trans people (especially atheletes) way more than 5 times. It wasn't constantly, though, although it did seem like he wormed it in a few times where it wasn't really called for (to be fair he does that for several of his interests, hence the "Have you ever tried DMT?" meme[1]). And that was before he started bringing more alt-right guests on the show.
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.
I went to one of his stand-up shows last year. Both him and the guys he had opening all had maybe 30% trans jokes. He's definetely catering to an antitrans crowd these days
I wonder how many in the crowd are reacting to being labelled antitrans and transphobic unfairly. It's definitely what I see the comedians reacting to.
Definitely some of that. I think a person should have the right to do whatever they want with themselves, and it's not mine or the states business. I'm sure others in the crowd felt the same way. I can see why people would have issues with the routine he put on though, it was certainly not a kind one, and saying he just has a few instances of bringing up trans issues seems like a outright lie.
Performing artists have for centuries had to balance catering for popular opinion and tastes versus a more faithful realisation of their vision in order to make a living. I don't see a difference with this at all.
For online creators, I think the high speed and frequency of material creation, release, consumption and feedback, coupled with vast potential audiences, global competition for the nichiest of niches, the ease of copying ideas, and the extremely high rewards and margins for the winners, … is unlike anything that ever came before.
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
Especially as due to lower cycles you typically created larger units of work: Not just a song, but an album. Not just a poem but a book. So you could do the popular part and also the thing you care about and somehow tie them together.
His trans critiques are very reasonable though, particularly when he talks about males in women's sports, males in women's prisons, and the social contagion aspect of this type of identity.
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.
> What does one become when you effectively sell out to the analytics?
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.
"Liberal" in the US used to mean (and still does outside the US) someone with a "live and let live" mentality, where things/actions are generally allowed unless there is a very good reason for restricting them. "Classically liberal" is a better match for the term in modern US English. So things like decriminalizing drugs, allowing gay marriage, being pro-gun/self-defense as a human right, privacy as a human right, etc, all fall under "classically liberal". It might help to read the word "liberal" in a philosophical sense, where it means "liberally applying the idea of freedom for everyone, only restricting that freedom where absolutely necessary, where one persons freedom begins to infringe on the liberty of others".
Joe Rogan is an American commenting almost exclusively in the American political context. Referring to him as a liberal in this context is misleading, as the term here is almost exclusively understood to mean “center-left relative to American politics” and is almost never used in the economic or philosophical sense in mainstream political commentary.
I'm aware of who he is, and the context of "liberal" when referring to him and his views. I'm offering an explanation as to why someone might describe him as "liberal", because if anyone outside the US listened to his viewpoints they would describe him as "liberal". I'd be willing to bet that the original commenter is not American, and that's why they chose "liberal", not to be misleading, but because literally the entire rest of the world uses the word differently.
"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."
> because literally the entire rest of the world uses the word differently
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'm a Brit, I would no think of Joe as a liberal, and I only read this thread as I was so shocked to hear he might be a left leaning commentator. Obviously reading this, he is not.
I'm also a Brit, and to be honest, the term "liberal" in a political context has lost all meaning for me since everyone seems to have their own definition of what it actually entails.
People usually call Rogan liberal because he occasionally showed(s?) some sympathy for the US left - like him inviting Bernie Sanders on during his primary campaign. I think this is far more likely than applying a non-US definition of liberalism to him - especially since many right-wingers the GGP is referring to are also liberal based on this other definition.
Yeah because many GOP members are liberals. The entire world has a definition for a word. Following that definition which has been the definition for many many years makes sense.
"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...)
> 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)
Supporting gay rights and being pro-choice is seen as conservative??
> only restricting that freedom where absolutely necessary
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.
> nor do I believe is it an example of totalitarianism
These conversations never go anywhere. The battlelines are already drawn. It just becomes a semantic debate around loosely defined terms like totalitarianism.
Agreed with you on "modern liberalism" devolving into totalitarianism. "Classical liberalism" doesn't allow for that though. In practice, I don't think anyone in the US follows the latter strictly enough for prevent the same decay anyway though.
You might find "Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen interesting if you haven't read it already. He argues that modern liberalism is the inevitable successor to classical liberalism.
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).