Taking a stance against reactions

[restive jetty]

top can be but the bottom is just "reaction"

[fickle dust]

yeah, I think they aren't really representative of Neuro's react content now considering the changes that Vedal is apparently making

[elfin geode]

How often does Neuro do react streams?

[urban scarab]

as someone that doesnt enjoy that much react content, I want Vedal to continue to develop this. but please make react streams like once a month at max

[fickle dust]

she doesn't at this moment

[elfin geode]

Oh. If its not that common. Neuro can play different kinds of streamer genres. This topic "Taking a stance against reactions" is about being against reaction streams in general. I would consider that the main intention of the OP is to prevent a lot of react style streams.

[fickle dust]

the react content was never supposed to be main Neuro's content, just some additional activity

[restive jetty]

that still doesnt make it okay

[elfin geode]

I could see Neuro watch vsauce, antique info films, genuinely well made documentaries about industrial things like motorsports, red bull extreme / motor sports ect or earth boring machines. But if its like zoomer skull emoji corporate graph sidelined with political context and data, i would skip it

[fickle dust]

in last react stream she watched some documentaries about turtles among others things

[wintry elbow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=New6r9DDxgQ

[elfin geode]

I looked at the video, but that documentary was very corporate short. It wasn't like the Life of turtles

like a david attenburg cinematic narrative

[fickle dust]

short videos work better with Neuro considering her attention span

[urban scarab]

in one of the react streams there is one video of meme compilations and was way too fast for her to even understand was going on
on the bright side data is collected about her reacts like in the karaoke (shame that sometimes people vote cause they like the video and not cause she reacted well)

[elfin geode]

I see. So snipets of humanity, life and nature.

But if its infographics blegh

[fickle dust]

can't really say for sure but I think it's what Vedal is going for

[viral prairie]

Hello

Wtf happen here

[elfin geode]

please read

[fossil zodiac]

they changed how the videos were picked for the react stream each time so they varied

but either way i'd assume it'll look pretty different now

[viral prairie]

Ikr what is about and stuff, but where did the debat go?

[fickle dust]

yeah, I've seen only fragments of the early react streams but they seem much more chaotic than the last one, which was actually quite decent

[fossil zodiac]

the actual roughest react stream was the idol debut. poor neuro just thought she was talking to someone that would never reply

[fickle dust]

haven't watched that one so can't say anything about that

[elfin geode]

Lets summarise the most significant points and then ask a moderator to pin them

[fossil zodiac]

two people don't like react content the rest of the chat doesn't care, mods and vedal can safely ignore this

[wintry elbow]

%lock

[jade timber]

Debate going nowhere, nobody wants to change their minds in usual internet fasion

[viral prairie]

Classic

[elfin geode]

But you cannot make points by just polling. We should summarise the for and against so that its easy to read without needing to read flaming

[fossil zodiac]

there really isn't much to summarize. watch any youtube video on the topic it's the same arguments.

[coarse bison]

meow

[elfin geode]

I did not watch youtube videos on the topic

[unreal nebula]

i got a dm asking me to lock this thread, what do you guys think?

[fossil zodiac]

smart imo

[unreal nebula]

i haven't been following the conversation so i don't know what's been happening

[fossil zodiac]

it's not toxic or anything

just circles

[idle canopy]

Yes, please do. It's a dumpster fire.

[elfin geode]

What why

[urban scarab]

no need to have this open
this looks like every x collab (loop)

[jade timber]

Not much really, it's pointless but not worth locking

[coarse bison]

[unreal nebula]

if it's not toxic there's no point to lock it... right?

people who want to talk about it can talk about and the others can leave the thread

[jade timber]

Keep the thread open to contain the in here

[fickle dust]

I guess

[elfin geode]

Ad hominen

[coarse bison]

yea. The debate may be pointless but no real reason to shut it down, people will stop talking about it on their own

[unreal nebula]

[idle canopy]

If you need a very short TL;DR:
OnlyInstinct and someone else are vehemently against Neuro watching reaction content. No one else seems to agree. Circles are being walked.
Basically Neurotic Neutrons lite.

[elfin geode]

But that's not the argument of the forum

[jade timber]

Somehow this thread is still more related to neuro than #neurotic-neurons

[elfin geode]

the forum is not about polling

I asked for a summary of the most significant points so that mods can pin them later.

[urban scarab]

classic Neurons

[rapid sphinx]

I see no reason to lock, if the mods lock people will be screaming 1984, this topic will die down eventually as people can only go in circles for so long

if it starts getting super heated then lock

[idle canopy]

Yeah, fair.

[jade timber]

We should make another thread were we can argue if this thread deserves to be locked or not

[fossil zodiac]

hidden wrote multiple but i can't dig through 800 posts to find them. but it's honestly just some people think it's stealing and immoral and others dont

[elfin geode]

That's why you should not write 800 posts and just say what you mean without attacking with popularity

[fossil zodiac]

i don't even know what that means tbh

[coarse bison]

and then when that one gets locked we make a thread asking if that thread deserved to get locked

[merry lotus]

Okay, I've just written a bunch of shit reacting to this video about reaction videos.

Which is ironic as fuck.

This video is basically unrelated to Neuro entierly lmao.

The dude is just pissed off about asmongold and that's the video lol

[idle canopy]

Circle walking: The META experience.

[restive jetty]

he has a playlist how videos explaing it

[lunar nymph]

[glossy nimbus]

[merry lotus]

He is just angry that

1. You have to compete for views.
2. There are shitty practice reaction content creators. (true)
3. Wrongfully says that reaction creators and original content creators are fighting for the same audience.
4. Misleads people to believe that normal media competition, and the nature of it, is somehow something only reaction creators are causing to original content creators, and ignores that it's the case for everyone from literally everyone else on the platform.
5. Is angry that big content creator make more money, because they're big.
6. Assumes and suggests that all reaction streamers are lazy and creatively bankrupt, rather than what often happens in a lot of cases that people's followers actively push them to react to content they like.
7. Wrongfully suggests that reaction videos are never done to support the original creator, or send followers their way, even though some literally do it for exactly that reason.
8. Tries to spin a neutral (no harm, no gain) situation with a creator's content after asmongold, and others reacted too it, ignoring the steady increase they continued to have in growth, and instead try to say that with no "apparent" effect, that this nothing burger of a situation is somehow a negative?

But then again, he has a very specific type of bad-practice reaction streamers and creatros in-mind as he's making this video.

It's just bad that he's blanketing all of reaction content under this umbrella.

Mind, I haven't yet watched the full video.

Just about halfway through it, but I really need to go get food, and it became increasingly more of just a rant about Asmongold, and some assumptions there.

[elfin geode]

I see

[idle canopy]

Thank you for saving us a view.

[urban scarab]

[merry lotus]

I do think people should watch it for themselves, if they're curious xD

Honestly.

Take that whole video.

Replace Reaction content creators, with Compilation uploaders.

And there.

That'd be more accurate xD

[idle canopy]

Sooo... Meme channels?

[merry lotus]

That said, I'm mostly just here to defend cases like with Neuro, where this isn't all they do.
They'll just react to things their community wants them to react too.

[urban scarab]

I dunno if he said something about it, but what I dont get is when the reactors skip the sponsored add on the video
90% of the time adds are really badly scripted but at least make it a motivation for more companies to try to help content creators through more engagement

[merry lotus]

Eh, I mean. I can't blame them. Especially if they actively have a sponsor of their own for that video lol.

I don't think the length of time you watch the ads affect the amount of money the uploader gets at all

If it lets you skip after a bit, then you can skip, I think everyone's getting paid all the same.

[fading trout]

holy I left for like 5 hours please tell me this forum is dead

[fickle dust]

With sponsor segments it especially doesn't really matter because creator was already paid for it and the amount depends of the past views on the channel, so any react content doesn't impact it

[urban scarab]

I say more on the way that it could value the sponsorship itself so later they start making better deals for the content creator but its just a "maybe"

cause they are paid an amount to play the add and it isnt valued on the flat number of views themselves

[elfin geode]

@plain quest
"immoral practice, directly analogous to stealing." On an objective basis, you have made your point according to this specific relationships which ended in the profit of the reacter, and the original creator. I have seen this happen personally and understand why something can suddenly become an immoral and thieflike practice. But know that this is not particularly relevant to Neuro's situation.
And I don't mind that you are against Reaction Content.

But can you elaborate more on this

[fading trout]

oh god why are we reigniting the debate

let it die

[elfin geode]

Umbrella, its not reignited.

[fading trout]

not yet

also im mostly joking

[elfin geode]

Umbrella, what do you think about this:
#1173644350534713404 message

Its a literal opposition of the very thing that we want Neuro

[rapid sphinx]

Am still curious about that actually, never got a follow up from OP about that

They just dropped it out of nowhere and moved on without explaining

[fading trout]

I looked at it before and I dont think its actually helps any of the points OP was making (funnily enough), and is just a kinda cope he is using to justify Vedal and Neuros react content as "copywright infringement" in his eyes

he is basically saying neuro cant be transformative because its just a program and not a person I think?

[elfin geode]

Seriously. Don't use neuro for this kind of thing.

[fading trout]

at least I think thats what hes getting at?

idk its dumb

[elfin geode]

its just offensive against the fabric that makes Neuro, and it actually kind of hurts me that he would amount neuro to this "pareidolia" idea

That is probably more important than the forum topic itself

which uses neuro's community in a situation that she's not part of

[fading trout]

I mean, we do? pareidolia is not really a conscious thing. its part of human pattern seeking mind to see human like traits in stuff

just the thought of "oh shes cute" or thinking of her as a human at all (which is Vedal's goal) is pareidolia. Thats not a bad thing

people who form too crazy of an attachment are bad, and should get some help

but its not an inherantly crazy thing

I dont know what part makes you so upset

[elfin geode]

This is the statement "I mean... Are you sure you're not attaching way too much human properties to neuro?
If I may use the term ARG people found in their exploration, pareidolia"

[fading trout]

what about it? apart from him just being kinda dumb

[elfin geode]

no

thats not it

Its literally against neuro

[fading trout]

I dont follow

[elfin geode]

Neuro is essentially Vedal's and Anny's daughter

Its so disrespectful

[fading trout]

well we dont know how they REALLY see her

thats the bit yes

I dont think Vedal ACTUALLY sees the program he made as a child

[elfin geode]

Its not about saying what they see Neuro as

its just why do you have to involve neuro into a subject she doesn't have any part in. And then be that disrespectful, against the grain that makes Nuero what she is

[grave solstice]

Neuro is literally an AI made for entertainment, the presence of parental figures is to make the neuro experience more entertaining

[elfin geode]

But these are your opinions. I mean where is the etiquette

[fading trout]

I dont follow this against the nature of neuro thing
also she was involved cause she is the react content machine in essence

what is so disrespectful about the concept of pareidolia?

[elfin geode]

I don't believe you are a super neuro fan even if you are monetarily significant

[grave solstice]

neuro is suposed to be "human", while still being an AI

[elfin geode]

Don't strawman me

[fading trout]

what are you talking about

Im not even being mean I just literally dont understand your point

[grave solstice]

you are literally burying yourself deeper with each sentence

[merry lotus]

Well, it does apply to Neuro though...
The concept of Neuro itself is similar to people treating Roombas like a pet.

It's an AI specifically made for us to project the ideo of being a person onto, with code that keeps phrases she generates relevant and consistent enough that it comes across like human dialogue.

It's a whole system made to play on the fact that people love humanizing things.

[fading trout]

sorry who are you refering too? im getting lost in the sauce in this convo

[grave solstice]

not you

[fading trout]

oh okay cool

[merry lotus]

funny that you both agreed with what I said lol

As such I don't get what's wrong?

[fading trout]

me neither I dont get what qala is trying to say

[elfin geode]

Umbrella is not here for a forum if you look at how he first entered to talk to me. But I am in disagreement with darkeew

[fading trout]

What I do

I was against the react discussion flaring again, not any discussion lmao

why you so hostile, I didnt do nuthin

[elfin geode]

You can ask a mod to help you when that happens

[fading trout]

???? when what happens

Im so lost

[elfin geode]

When it flares

[fading trout]

it was a joke homie

[grave solstice]

no you're not

[fading trout]

I dont actually care

[grave solstice]

disagree with yourself not me

[elfin geode]

You made your opinion. But I think this isn't another's opinion, but you said it like this. And I feel like its not good for neuro

[grave solstice]

its not an opinion

[fading trout]

how is it not good

I was under the assumption that pareidolia IS what neuro is going for

[grave solstice]

its the truth

[elfin geode]

But the attitude in which it was said was as to be against the effort that goes into Neuro

#1173644350534713404 message

[merry lotus]

It's... literally just how the whole thing works?

Vedal is neuro's "dad" because he codes her, and Anny is the "mom" because she created her avatar.

It's just a barrowed social fun thing from VTubers and the creators of their models.

It's just to give context for the idea of Neuro.

All I can really say, is attitude is largely just percieved on the part of the reader, and very easy to misunderstand what mood or attitude the person typing something actually has on the other side.

[fading trout]

okay I guess I agree? I think? the way you word your sentences is very confusing

[grave solstice]

do you even know the goals of vedal for neuro...

[elfin geode]

No tell me now

[fading trout]

please

also

its that Vedal wants to make neuro as HUMAN as possible

[grave solstice]

shes suposed to be as human as possible
that includes reaction

[grave solstice]

i meant as human while still being considered sn AI

have human features, not look and act like a human

[fading trout]

yeah thats fair

[grave solstice]

the same thinking, vision, etc

[elfin geode]

But you said this like defending the other person who was basically insulting the effort of making neuro

[merry lotus]

I don't think anyone was downplaying the effort people put into making Neuro what she is.

I think they were just trying to point out that people just like her content, and about a "child finding out new things"
(Which to be fair, isn't actually what's happening at all, and Neuro is aware of everything she's ever been trained on, etc.)

Basically, trying to pull the veil back so we can have an actual conversation. Which is fair.

[fading trout]

what how

[grave solstice]

im not insulting or defending anyone

[elfin geode]

Because I was talking about Only Instinct saying #1173644350534713404 message

[fading trout]

honestly I dont know what anyone is saying anymore
this is the most confusing discussion ive been a part of in a while

[grave solstice]

i was simply stating what neuro is and the future of neuro

[elfin geode]

And then you came in and said Neuro is literally an AI made for entertainment, the presence of parental figures is to make the neuro experience more entertaining

[fading trout]

yes and your issue with that is?

[merry lotus]

Going to be frank:
I don't think anyone was insulting the process it took to make Neuro.
And nobody has defended such a thing, because I don't think most of us think that happened.

The original poster of that wiki was just curbing the idea of something that Neuro literally can't even do.

Which was fair enough when wanting an actual discussion on something constructive, Even vedal does this when talking about Neuro's development.

[elfin geode]

if you want to sound impactful by stating the obvious when others are already in instigation against an arguement, you suddenly get involved

[fading trout]

what is bro saying

[grave solstice]

idk

[merry lotus]

What are you refering too with "you", and "stating the obvious"?
Me? And what I just said?
Because if what I said was obvious, then there wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

[elfin geode]

I think this is wrong #1173644350534713404 message

[grave solstice]

i saw misinformation and said something

[merry lotus]

okay. However, it happens to be one of the few times it's actually correct that that person's said all day in this forum lol

Because it's literally the point of Neuro

which you said you agreed with

No offense, but you just don't seem to understand the context around them posting that wiki, and the conversation they were having.

[fading trout]

omg so true
mans was spitting garbage the whole time
this was like the only valid thing they said

[elfin geode]

In this link to the message. What will this person ever do to influence neuro if this is his observation

[merry lotus]

The same as all of us.

Becuase it's an accurate observation, in-fact, being aware that Neuro isn't actually a person, is more healthy overall.

[elfin geode]

Its not a person. But its like why don't wheelchair people just stand up

[fading trout]

????????

[elfin geode]

its like that

[fading trout]

HUH

[merry lotus]

No, it's nothing like that. I feel like you're projecting a lot of your own arguments into what they said.

[grave solstice]

man

[elfin geode]

That's how I think it is

[grave solstice]

can this be closed

[merry lotus]

And I'm sorry, but given the context of things above, you are incorrect.

[merry lotus]

nah, but we can just end the convo lol. It's derailed as it is.

[fading trout]

so true

[merry lotus]

Or close the topic, that works too xD

[grave solstice]

then do it

[elfin geode]

This isn't about being incorrect. Its just being polite, he used that as an arguement

[merry lotus]

You made up the argument you think he's making.

[elfin geode]

I wanted him to elaborate it

but your engagement is like this

[fading trout]

we wanted you to elaborate your's but you kinda just didnt

but its cool

lets move on

[grave solstice]

you literally make no sense

[fading trout]

seek peace and touch grass and all that

[grave solstice]

how can we respond to you

[elfin geode]

don't respond, I only asked umbrella and onlyinstinct

[fading trout]

this mans speaking in Moon runes

[merry lotus]

At this point practically trying to gaslight what you think he said onto us lol.

They're currently busy with stuff and had to go lol.

Again, the context was:

"We want reaction content, because it's Neuro's 'first time experiencing things', and it's cute like a child seeing the world for the first time."

Which is kind of misunderstanding Neuro, and they responded by saying we're applying human characteristics where they don't apply to an AI.
And used that as an explination of the sort of phenomina.

[grave solstice]

this gets worse everytime

[merry lotus]

They weren't disrespecting anything about Neuro, or the efforts taken into creating her.

I'm sure they're just as much a fan as all of us are, or they'd likely not even be in the discord lol

[elfin geode]

I have to check that

[fading trout]

you do that 😊

[thick estuary]

Holy. I finally finished reading this thread

[rapid sphinx]

why would you willingly submit yourself to this torture

[thick estuary]

Procrastinating doing my homework

[rapid sphinx]

[thick estuary]

[sly grail]

this community is just fucked after all

[heavy gale]

damn really

[near osprey]

i read like a quarter of the essay above

my input is that if he gets credit from the producer of the original content for reaction use then it shouldn't be illegal

as for the issue of whether it's moral in the face of that, and the point i've seen about linking to the creator or other common forms of attribution being insufficient, if the person giving permission thinks they are insufficient then they could have just not given permission

this point is perhaps a bit weaker and open to counterpoints, but i also think any perceived damages from neuro reacting to content would be limited

most things suggested frequently enough for her to react are likely already popular or famous, at least if its crowdsourced

and i dont believe there are many situations where a potential viewer will be met with a direct choice between watching a neuro reaction or watching the original

anyone searching for the original on youtube or whatever will probably watch the original instead of the neuro reaction seen as that's what they were looking for

so i fail to see how this is likely to impact the revenue of the original content creator in any significant part in neuro's case, though again i admit this is conjecture more than science

[old sand]

Cant wait to come back home tomorrow and see this have 2000+ comments

[fading trout]

god I hope not

[gilded flint]

lol found this thread

The people complaining are trying to change the habit of the internet

[cinder kayak]

I'd be fine with AI taking these jobs away in terms of react streams

Only if it's neuro/evil tho

[finite tusk]

well im so glad evil hasn’t had a pirate stream in a while because she’s promoting an unethical “profession”

[marsh willow]

Guys, few years ago i shared a youtube video with my class back when i went to school, reading this discussion made me reflect upon myself, sorry for being a a former thief i'm a better person now

[fading trout]

how could you

[late junco]

To those who want a tl;dr, go here --> #1173644350534713404 message
To those who want to go to the very top, go here --> #1173644350534713404 message

[viral prairie]

NOVA

[quick tendon]

i hope neuro steals all the content while she eats food and doesnt say anything

[plain quest]

Is there still a need to elaborate on this or has it been sorted?

I can see there was some misinformation being thrown around as well

And people want to lock the thread because they don't have anything to contribute to the conversation but are still angry at the topic

[plain quest]

The mind changing had occurred actually.
It went "It's not illegal" -> "It is illegal but harmless" -> "It is harmful but I personally enjoy it" -> "It is harmful but the system is too large for individuals to make a meaningful change"
I think this is already a win, the hill justified dying on itself

[serene ginkgo]

by posting this emoji im stealing the artist's content

[plain quest]

Completely unprompted strawman whatever am i going to do, all my arguments are shattered

[serene ginkgo]

i'm not trying to argue, you will never change your mind

[merry lotus]

Incorrect.
It's not illegal to do, if you do it right, never created harm, and most of us still stand on that, you just changed topics 5 times lol

[fading trout]

Just woke up, came to see if this thread was dead yet, sad its not.

You will never change your mind and neither will the many people who disagree wjth you

My final verdict: Cringe. Go outside.

[merry lotus]

The discussion actively moved from: "Neuro shouldn't do it because it is morally bad, and illegal"

To challenging what was wrong with it to find something constructive to work on, and trying to find out what we can do to avoid issues, to instead ending up with you trying to grandstand against unrelated issues to Neuro about how competetion on Yotube works for everyone creating any content, and about the unfairness of getting noticed on YouTube.

Which, sharing your content, actually helps with.

Nobody has yet to show any harm to anyone because of react content specifically, while both sides have shown it can at most help, just maybe be upsetting that it doesn't help as much as they like for it too.

End summary was that big streamer is big, and make big money when smaller creator small, and get less money out of it, and that's not fair, despite just being how that works for everyone for anything in media.

[fading trout]

Holy wall of text batman

[glossy nimbus]

[fading trout]

TL;DR : Cry about it

[glossy nimbus]

soooo how bout that weather

[fading trout]

Its cold but sunny here in Canada rn

Hoping for lots of snow this year

[merry lotus]

As far as what Neuro and Vedal should do:

I think they should crowdsource material people want them to react too. They should watch, and react to it, and actovely contribute dialogue about the video they are reacting too. Make sure the focus and priority is on Neuro, as that's what we're there for, and then actively encourage people to seek the creator's content if we enjoyed it.

Do all that, and there's no issues for them.

If they go to them upload said video, then link to said creator, credit them, and cut and edit the video so that the whole video isn't reuploaded, and just kerp the mor interesting responses towards the video.

The lashback on reaction channels, have purely been against bad actors, that are doing it intentionally maliciously, or have purely made a career out of watching other people's content.

That does not apply to Neuro, who people just want to see their favorite streamer enjoy content the viewer already enjoyed.

No harm comes from the exposure to your content, and youtube is a gane of trying to get your name out and promote yourself to begin with, to be able to get big, so someone like vedal advocating for your content, and drawing attention too it, can only be a net positive, and there's been no show of actual harm to a channel.

That's the end result that actually applies to neuro and vedal from what I've seen, read, and looked into...

In order to actually bring this back to something even worth reading by the people we were supposed to be discussing lol.

[gilded flint]

it's cold and moist in my country which shall not be named

[jade timber]

It's getting colder and darker

[gilded flint]

in short, it's a win win situation and why stop it

[serene ginkgo]

I think Neuro should just watch random videos without giving a single shoutout to the creators

[fading trout]

How devious

[jade timber]

Anny reacting to Neuro videos steals money from Vedal

[serene ginkgo]

She is stealing money from clippers

Just for her reaction to also be clipped

[idle canopy]

Well the sun sets at 16 O'clock, which I guess is better than when it rises at 4 in the morning.

[plain quest]

You're just swapping in definitions then. I've already told you what is being discussed when you first asked it.

You are just making claims about what helps and doesn't without any actual logic behind those claims. Poinint to individual cases means nothing. You are simply dismissing unrealized gains and opportunity cost, leading to a false dichotomy where "It either stays the way it is and it's bad or it changes and gets worse"

And that's the problem, right, you know. The problem with the difficulty of making Neuro react content right as you call it

There is no win win, you lose behind the scenes, everyone loses but because there isn't a single number you can point to, it suddenly becomes "Oh it's impossible to prove actually"

[gilded flint]

bro you're going insane

[glossy nimbus]

not sure if anything else can be said in this thread lol

neuro's latest react content is all viewer submitted

[merry lotus]

Nothing constructive, no lol.

[plain quest]

That doesn't make it any better or worse that it's viewer submitted, what's your point

[glossy nimbus]

reviewing pictures of fridges isn't 'stealing content'

esp. since the viewer sent the pics in themselves

[plain quest]

That's because pictures of fridges have been specifically submitted to be reviewed
That's called consent

[glossy nimbus]

next stream is also user submitted pics

[plain quest]

Good, but that's not what is being talked about

[glossy nimbus]

?

[proud escarp]

This thread is correct we shouldn't allow vedal to react to our content for free we should pay him to react to our content after all its not fair to the corpos that pay millions of dollars to get their products in front of viewers eyes we should also pay our fair shair to vedal for the exposure we get.

[merry lotus]

Their point is out of scope of Neuro, and is just about how reacion content as a blanket activity is bad, because it's easy content that bad actors can use to reupload people's content and outcompete others and make big dolla, and the original content creators are left out...

Which makes the assumption that 1. All react content is the same. 2. The ship should sink instead of the bad actors being specifically targeted.
3. That this actually harms the original content creators in any actual way, other than personally being offended for nothing, jealousy, and envy of bigger content creators' successs.
4. That the only reason to make reaction content is to specifically steal content, and isn't done for any other reason, and finally 5. That nothing constructive can be done about how reaction content is done to improve the practice and make it okay and a net positive overall. Which it already is.

You can't change their mind, because they will willfully ignore your point, dodge responsibility to actually support their own claims, and/or expand the scope of their argument to make it easier to keep arguing.

We've literally gone from: okay, what can we do to make Neuro's react content not bad, too, okay, how is it all apparently bad, how does it hurt the original creators, so we can avoid that, and are you sure it even does?

To: so it's not about the oroginal creator it's about the whole media industry's health. Don't see how that's about Neuro, but sure what's the issue?

To it's massively demotivating content creators and that's bad, and trying to get actual proof of that happening, while content creation is only growing exponentially.

To just making vague criticisms.

That's been the experience.
So you're correct, there literally has never been a point to the thread or any reason to add anything lol. It's willfully disregarded or ignored.

[plain quest]

The first point and it's already all wrong lmao. Like who are you arguing with anyway, the voices in your head

Point to a single place where such an assumption is stated or implied

[merry lotus]

Which 'assumption'?

[glossy nimbus]

this is way too dank

[merry lotus]

Yep.

[plain quest]

The first one my guy, have you not read. Are you actually just arguing with the voices and they swap in the words I am typing with something else

[glossy nimbus]

this is getting too charged and circular, so i will lock the thread shortly

[merry lotus]

No, that was a genuine moment of just mixing things up, I realized you said first assumption and what you meant after I asked xD

My bad on that one lol

[jade timber]

Nobody knows what points are actually being argued

[velvet aspen]

End summary was that big streamer is big, and make big money when smaller creator small, and get less money out of it, and that's not fair, despite just being how that works for everyone for anything in media.

I think you missed important details here, the kicker is that big streamer makes money profiting off of other people's labor while small streamers makes less money from their own labor

[merry lotus]

That's how Youtube works with all content at all.

[velvet aspen]

And so it shouldn't change?

[merry lotus]

That's not within the scope of a Neuro Discord. I actively encourage people to try and tackle the problems of the media industry.
But frankly, no, it shouldn't, it's a natural result of consumerism, and simply the way it will be.

[plain quest]

Why not change it within the scope of Neuro Discord then

[velvet aspen]

Except reaction content may pose a possible threat for Fair Use, it should change if companies want to play it more safer

[merry lotus]

#1173644350534713404 message

As for where has the assumption or generalization that all reaction content is equivilant:
It's in the original post for crying out loud?

Fair Use specifically allows for people to make content reacting to others, that's a very crucial and necessary thing.

The only time it breaks that, is when you literally just reupload content 1:1 without any actual contribution. Like bad actors that do "react" content, and then leave their computer, or fuck off to do other things.

That's malcious, and malpractice.

Not "Reaction" content.

[hard flume]

Getting in here before it gets locked

[merry lotus]

Not equivilant, and not the same, and shouldn't be treated the same.

[plain quest]

We've already talked about what is meant by "reacting" in that post #1173644350534713404 message

You are trying to swap in your definition and then argue "why doesn't my defintion fit in"

[velvet aspen]

Malpractice? You mean misuse of treatment by medical practitioners?

[merry lotus]

Yes, and your response is:
I am talking about what everyone calls react content, and what is normally considered react content.

You said:
"When I say A, I am talking about everything that's ever been considered A"
So you're still generalizing everything that is considered reaction content.

[plain quest]

That's literally the opposite of what I have said in that exact post.
In fact, it specifically says that it's exactly not what I mean

[merry lotus]

Then my bad if I misunderstood, let me re-read and figure out where I mixed that up.

[merry lotus]

How do I interpret this?

You say the "majority of what people consider reaction content"
But not what "everyone has ever called reaction content"

Those are both incredibly vague. What are you considering react content, that is all objectively bad and illegal?

If that is difficult, lets just say: Bad Reaction content.

How does Neuro make Good Reaction content, that's NOT within the scope of what you are claiming is a problem? Since you acknowledge that not all reaction content is bad and illegal, from what you're telling me now.

That would be useful and constructive feedback, within the scope of what Neuro and Vedal can do, to avoid problems.

[plain quest]

Let me show you a diagram if that can make it clearer.

For example reviews are not within that inner circle. That's because a large portion of people call them review content and not reaction content. The fanart review is also not within there.

What is in there is what can't be called anything else other than reaction content. For example Neuro watching a video of turtles is just reaction content

[serene ginkgo]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/804820319406653452/1162170678607360070/AutoMemes-2.gif?ex=653af6c9&is=652881c9&hm=f753f30e23db1ce2329db53e0d887f2d664890e6aa6eff2f56b6f8c07da6effd&

[merry lotus]

Aye, okay. Still vague and not defined. But again, we can still work with that, I think I slipped a response in before you posted that that follows right up with that.

[plain quest]

That's the thing I told to CJ at the very beginning.
Fridge reviews is good reaction content in the meaning that you use. Fanart review is good, fan animations, clips of own streams

[merry lotus]

So you draw the line at people's videos?

[plain quest]

I draw the line at informed consent.
If in simple terms then yes

[merry lotus]

Okay then. I'm sure they will make note of your feelings on that, and consider it.

[plain quest]

There is no them, there's you.
You claim that change in the system is a whole is impossible, it's too great but you don't even want to change yourself

[merry lotus]

I just want to caution you not to start on someone like you know them. Not your place lol.
Certainly not within the subject matter of your own post here.
The first part, it depends. The second part, you don't know me.

[velvet aspen]

Like what?

[merry lotus]

We have gotten things back to a point where it's actionable for Vedal and Neuro, and gives considerations for them the can feesibly do, while still creating content on the platforms they use.

We can keep it there, or this will fail to be constructive at all once more lol.

Emergency:
With literally all of the content. All bigger content creators make more money per video, on anything, over a small creator, because Youtube gives them money based on viewership and ad revenue, which bigger content creators always have more of.

Barring the external sources of income, like a outside funded video.

Well, I say that but I can't help but still respond to out-of-scope questions x.x

ADHD at work lmao.

[velvet aspen]

Still doesn't answer my question, what other content on Youtube makes it so that big creators profit off of the labor of smaller creators?

[fading trout]

We are so not-on topic with neuro or Vedal anymore its not even funny

Nothing you guys are discussing is something vedal or neuro could change

Why are we discussing this

[merry lotus]

profit off of smaller content creators.

That's a different question now.

Drama channels, "reporting/news" channels, collabs, competitions, etc.

[plain quest]

The post is tagged as a suggestion. I made a suggestion to change your mind, you deflect the suggestion at certain them.

You are free to not change your mind, but I am not the one at fault nor am I the one crossing personal space.
I'd be glad to end this here, back at actionable point, but I can't stop you from writing neither can I stop certain others from seething in the thread

[merry lotus]

I tried bringing it back lol.

[merry lotus]

By them I meant Neuro and Vedal.

[fading trout]

Yay lets lock this channel then!

[merry lotus]

Literally the people that are meant to be taking your feedback lol.

[idle canopy]

POSTHASTE!

[velvet aspen]

Drama channel provide their own feedback and don't repost content 1:1, reporting facts isn't subject against Fair Use, collabs require consent. Not defending each and every action of drama channels or unreliable news sources, it's not exactly the same as react content

[merry lotus]

Aye, we brought it back to earth as close as we'll get, It's fine to wrap up at any point really lol.

[gilded flint]

i was here

[fading trout]

i was here

[idle canopy]

Pog

[fading trout]

[spare compass]

it was fun to read, thanks to those 5 peeps who sacrificed their 48 hours for philosophical debate

[merry lotus]

anytime x.x

[fading trout]

I legit tried early on but it was an actual drain on my braincells

[velvet aspen]

Circular subjects that lead to nowhere and repeat the same cycle
Sounds like #neurotic-neurons

[fading trout]

#neurotic-neurons

[earnest lotus]

[merry lotus]

Back to my regularly scheduled programs

[fading trout]

This whole thread be like

[velvet aspen]

On the topic of Neuro, I don't think any significant damages would be caused by Neuro's react content in Vedal's subathon. His subathon would likely be too long to capture everything all in one go, and it's not like Vedal has a front for reaction content on Youtube to make profit out of, since people were gonna sub to him anyways.

[fading trout]

Good point

[idle canopy]

Finally something we should all prolly be hopefully able to agree on, right?

...Right?

[gilded flint]

mods should lock this before another debate starts

asap

[merry lotus]

@glossy nimbus ? xD

[idle canopy]

"meow meow" train to send it off, anyone?

[spare compass]

meow meow

[gilded flint]

meow meow

[glossy nimbus]

meow

[idle canopy]

meow PETPET meow PETPET lol SPEED0

[fading trout]

LOL

[velvet aspen]

Mods, before you lock this channel I still have a few things to say regarding Neuro and Vedal

[wintry elbow]

[gilded flint]

lock now

[fading trout]

Mods crush his nuts

[idle canopy]

CLOSE THE GATES!

[glossy nimbus]

1 minute

[merry lotus]

[velvet aspen]

Okay

[spare compass]

you should lock this thread... now

[wintry elbow]

<t:1699979100:R>

[gilded flint]

[velvet aspen]

It's best if Vedal just stays silent about this and never notices it in the first place, it'd be a pain for him to deal with something he would want to

[idle canopy]

[supple dew]

Lock now now

[wintry elbow]

@glossy nimbus

[velvet aspen]

Also I hate Neuro she's ugly

[gilded flint]

nothing happened here