Support NeoGAF

[Alienous]

Uh ... I don't get this (not directed at you, OP).

So what is a review? An analysis?

Then is a reaction not an emotional analysis? An unprocessed, raw analysis?

Why should it be a matter of time or effort?

How about let the barometer be whether or not it entertains someone? The ones that entertain rise, the others fall away.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Reaction videos hit rock bottom when they had the actors of Star Wars: TFA reacting to the trailer of the movie...

"Rey and Finn react to only getting paid 300k."

 

[Zepp Twofist]

I don't understand watching reaction videos at all. I can't comprehend what the entertainment value is supposed to be.

 

[MWS Natural]

You should've linked GradeA's video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Gde-5FRWA

Great vid, sucks to see talentless dudes get ahead. I put a TON of work into my channel and it's such BS to see someone with 200k+ subs who can't even do basic editing.

 

[Mailbox]

Uh ... I don't get this (not directed at you, OP).

So what is a review? An analysis?

Then is a reaction not an emotional analysis? An unprocessed, raw analysis?

Why should it be a matter of time or effort?

How about let the barometer be whether or not it entertains someone? The ones that entertain rise, the others fall away.

Earlier in the thread someone posted people who did a "reaction vid" of One punch man episode 12. The whole unabriged episode.

What do you think of that?

Then extrapolate to Youtuber videos; its the exact same thing.

 

[karobit]

It is transformative in that they have transformed something I might want to watch into something I absolutely do not want to watch. I have to assume that someone watching a Reaction video of a thing is interested in the Reaction, not the thing, because otherwise I cannot understand how it wouldn't be unbelievably annoying to have someone reacting all over the thing I'm trying to watch. I don't even like watching regular TV on the couch with most people because they won't shut the fuck up.

 

[PsychBat!]

You should've linked GradeA's video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Gde-5FRWA

good vid, I actually really hate everyone he was mentioning in the first minute of his rant (except Tyrone Magnus, although he's guilty af for this shit too).

 

[Ivan 3414]

We gotta go deeper.

Teens react to kids reaction to reaction videos.

How many times is this joke going to be made before people realize it's stilted as hell

 

[Alienous]

I don't understand watching reaction videos at all. I can't comprehend what the entertainment value is supposed to be.

You've never shown a relative or friend a trailer, or some YouTube video, to see their reaction?

There are occasions where that is strictly informative, but I find most of the time that comes from wanting to gauge someone else's emotional reaction to something, probably to find coherence with your own (but perhaps also dissonance).

I don't think it's a particularly nuanced thing. I've gotten a kick out of watching reactions to video game trailers quite a few times. Seeing someone get super excited about the remake of Final Fantasy 7 is interesting; the trailer does nothing for me, but the reactions give a glimpse at the excitement felt by many. I've also had that experience with Star Wars 7 movie trailers, or specific game moments. Like everything it can be hit or miss, but I've certainly been entertained by more than a few reaction videos.

And even then those points ignore reaction videos as a catalyst for someone giving their opinion on something, like an unpolished, honest review of something. Some moment. Some trailer.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

One could argue that Let's Plays are large-scale reaction videos, but nobody seems to question their monetization credibility. I'd call it an all or nothing sort of thing.
Edit: saw it was mentioned previously, whoops

As a Let's Player:

LPs that just dump a play through of a recent game up on YouTube? Yeah, fair point - especially if the game is some linear campaign.

LPs that go picking through an already known game, showing off design points, explaining things, or even use the footage as jump-off point for comedy? Transformative.

For example, I'm doing a LP series where I try and beat old adventure games without walkthroughs, to try and show off the puzzles as they are meant to be experienced. (Not linking it as that's be self promoton.)

Game Grumps do LP series where by and large the game footage and the story of them playing the game is just the foundation for the comedy duet work.

One of my buddies is a really good Civilisation 4 player, and used to do LPs of games of Civ 4 on really high difficulty, to create videos where he's challenged and that show off how the game is played at advanced difficulties.

A reaction video is just this - dumb, static, non-interactive content being captured along with a webcam. Humans are wired to watch people's faces (unless you are autistic) and thus the video is engaging just by virtue of having a massive face on the screen. It's psychology.

 

[Alienous]

Earlier in the thread someone posted people who did a "reaction vid" of One punch man episode 12. The whole unabriged episode.

What do you think of that?

Then extrapolate to Youtuber videos; its the exact same thing.

You're extrapolating from an 'extreme' reaction video example?

You should be extrapolating from the norm, a trailer reaction for example, to those potentially controversial types of reactions. 'What if someone reacts to a movie?'. Well, it happens.

The issue with uploading something like a One Punch Man episode is separate to reacting. If you think episodes of that should be uploaded onto YouTube, then what's the reasoning behind not having a reaction video to it? Why would that be wrong, and reaction to a trailer not equally wrong? If you think the episodes shouldn't be on YouTube then it has nothing to do with the reaction.

 

[Milly Osworth]

People getting rich from the most stupid Youtube channels is a big sign that capitalism isn't working.

 

[Alienous]

As a Let's Player:

LPs that just dump a play through of a recent game up on YouTube? Yeah, fair point - especially if the game is some linear campaign.

LPs that go picking through an already known game, showing off design points, explaining things, or even use the footage as jump-off point for comedy? Transformative.

For example, I'm doing a LP series where I try and beat old adventure games without walkthroughs, to try and show off the puzzles as they are meant to be experienced. (Not linking it as that's be self promoton.)

Game Grumps do LP series where by and large the game footage and the story of them playing the game is just the foundation for the comedy duet work.

One of my buddies is a really good Civilisation 4 player, and used to do LPs of games of Civ 4 on really high difficulty, to create videos where he's challenged and that show off how the game is played at advanced difficulties.

A reaction video is just this - dumb, static, non-interactive content being captured along with a webcam. Humans are wired to watch people's faces (unless you are autistic) and thus the video is engaging just by virtue of having a massive face on the screen. It's psychology.

That doesn't explain the rise and fall of reaction channels, like any other channel. 'Dumb, static, non-interactive' - OK. So why do successful reaction channels exist that aren't simply the earliest, or aren't simply the channels with the most videos?

Why do you think showing off a puzzle in a game you didn't make has more of an inherent value than someone sharing their emotional or intellectual reaction to something?

 

[PsychBat!]

You're extrapolating from an 'extreme' reaction video example?

You should be extrapolating from the norm, a trailer reaction for example, to those potentially controversial types of reactions. 'What if someone reacts to a movie?'. Well, it happens.

The issue with uploading something like a One Punch Man episode is separate to reacting. If you think episodes of that should be uploaded onto YouTube, then what's the reasoning behind not having a reaction video to it? Why would that be wrong, and reaction to a trailer not equally wrong? If you think the episodes shouldn't be on YouTube then it has nothing to do with the reaction.

Why did you use rifftrax as an example? It's not even the same thing. People put their dumb blank faces and make the ENTIRE video they react to smaller WITHOUT asking for permission of the content creator. You thought I was talking about trailers and commercials. No, these "reactors" also "react" to other content created by other youtubers that's already monetized. All the while, the people who are "reacting" to that content get paid for doing absolutely nothing, sometimes more than the people who actually make the content in the first place. That money could have gone to the actual creators but NOPE. The money went to a reactor because "um p-people wanted to see their f-faces when t-they react cuz i-it's funny".

And no one thinks that full episodes should be uploaded on youtube. Where did you even get that implication?

 

[Ominym]

While I think the idea is silly, I think I understand why people enjoy it as a medium. People love it when the persons they admire share similar thoughts, opinions, and ideologies to the ones they themselves hold. Seeing these similar thoughts being shared in real time, ideally upon the admired person's first and assumed unbiased viewing grants it more perceived realism in that it appears candid and unrefined. By feeling like the opinions of both parties are mutually shared, we feel similar or even closer to the person we admire. That is, at least, how I look at it.

 

[Alienous]

Why did you use rifftrax as an example? It's not even the same thing. People put their dumb blank faces and make the ENTIRE video they react to smaller WITHOUT asking for permission of the content creator. You thought I was talking about trailers and commercials. No, these "reactors" also "react" to other content created by other youtubers that's already monetized. All the while, the people who are "reacting" to that content get paid for doing absolutely nothing, sometimes more than the people who actually made the content in the first place. That money could have gone to the actual creators but NOPE. The money went to a reactor because "um p-people wanted to see their f-faces when t-they react cuz i-it's funny".

And no one thinks that full episodes should be uploaded on youtube.

Where have you gotten the idea that there's some limited pool of views 'reactors' are stealing from?

Why would the success of a reactor diminish the success of 'content creators'?

And no one thinks that full episodes should be uploaded on youtube.

Did you see the post I was responding to? The point of contention wasn't the reaction, but reacting to an episode of One Punch Man. My point is that the issue isn't the reaction, then, but the episode itself being uploaded onto YouTube.

 

[Mailbox]

You're extrapolating from an 'extreme' reaction video example?

You should be extrapolating from the norm, a trailer reaction for example, to those potentially controversial types of reactions. 'What if someone reacts to a movie?'. Well, it happens.

The issue with uploading something like a One Punch Man episode is separate to reacting. If you think episodes of that should be uploaded onto YouTube, then what's the reasoning behind not having a reaction video to it? Why would that be wrong, and reaction to a trailer not equally wrong? If you think the episodes shouldn't be on YouTube then it has nothing to do with the reaction.

Okay.
First off, an episode of a published work is more comperable to that of another published work (ie: a youtube video, for example) than that of advertisement material (ie: trailers)>
That said, if we are being technical, the use of the trailer in a "reaction" is also basically as bad. (slight edit here): Not that i used "reactions". I meant using trailers in the same way as the "reactionists" use youtube vids..

That doesn't explain the rise and fall of reaction channels, like any other channel. 'Dumb, static, non-interactive' - OK. So why do successful reaction channels exist that aren't simply the earliest?

Why do you think showing off a puzzle in a game you didn't make has more of an inherent value than someone sharing their emotional or intellectual reaction to something?

Second off, lets plays HAVE been questioned for this kind of stuff. Lots of legal debates, online debates, its a whole thing. Not to mention, gaming, LPs, and walkthroughs are part of trans-formative media, ie: it is the experience rather than the product being exemplified. In these "Reaction videos", nothing of the videos used are transformed, no meaning in the used material is changed. The issue isn't the reactions these people did, but rather the exemplified, unedited, unchanged, non-transformed media that is being presented.


Third: most of these channels AREN'T giving intellectual/ emotional reactions and THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Nothing is added, nothing is transformed.

Shit is fucking freebooting.

EDIT:

Where have you gotten the idea that there's some limited pool of views 'reactors' are stealing from?

Why would the success of a reactor diminish the success of 'content creators'?

Anyone who knows anything about freebooting, its affect on youtubers, and youtube analytics would be able to give an easy answer.
I recommend the podcast Hello Internet, they talk about that quite a bit sometimes

 

[Huw_Dawson]

That doesn't explain the rise and fall of reaction channels, like any other channel. 'Dumb, static, non-interactive' - OK. So why do successful reaction channels exist that aren't simply the earliest, or aren't simply the channels with the most videos?

Why do you think showing off a puzzle in a game you didn't make has more of an inherent value than someone sharing their emotional or intellectual reaction to something?

Just to be clear, I'm not making a value judgement. In my use of the word 'dumb', I mean that the video is just that - it's just a set of images in a row, not an interactive medium. So you have misrepresented me - I do not think that a reaction video has any inherently lower or higher value than a LP of a video game. But here are some important factors that aid the LP-as-transformative cause.

Player agency - a player in a video game has agency, thus the content itself differs - rather than just the content created by reacting to someone else's content. This also allows for individual style differences. Goofball LPers are very different to analytical LPs.
Storytelling - as I mentioned above, Game Grumps works by having the story of the players playing the game frame the comedy (usually improv) done by the two+ players. Playing a game can tell a story. 'Oh man, I didn't realise you could pick up the worm in the town square - now I'm stuck!', for example.
Analysis - An LP can be a way of explaining or teaching about a game, an idea, a game mechanic or whathaveyou. (Like how someone who can beat Civ 4 on Immortal easily might show how he does it, or Double Fine's Dev Plays series shows off how Devs look at games and the story behind development).

A reaction video may well have a number of these things, too, but that is my case for LPs having a strong capacity to be transformative.

 

[PsychBat!]

Where have you gotten the idea that there's some limited pool of views 'reactors' are stealing from?

Why would the success of a reactor diminish the success of 'content creators'?

The fact that there are some people who get nearly the same amount of views with these "reaction" videos as the actual videos they steal from themselves. Just check it out through YouTube Analytics.

I also don't have any clue as to where you are getting this idea of emotional or intellectual reaction to other content, when it's obvious and shown in videos throughout the thread (except h3h3) that most of these people provide none.

Did you see the post I was responding to? The point of contention wasn't the reaction, but reacting to an episode of One Punch Man. My point is that the issue isn't the reaction, then, but the episode itself being uploaded onto YouTube.

That was the point. Why do you think people are upset that these reactors get away with this stuff? Because it's theft. They show the entire video (I have to bring this up because it's clear the issue is not a big deal to you even though it really is) and provide NOTHING of value. It's just a blank stare and several outbursts throughout the entire thing. They get money off of it, and they don't ask for permission, they just rip it and put in their video. This is the kind of video that is actually a reaction video, where it's just not sitting there and saying a few things sometimes, but actually criticizes the content they are watching.

 

[Zepp Twofist]

You've never shown a relative or friend a trailer, or some YouTube video, to see their reaction?

Yeah, but those are my friends and relatives. I show them stuff very carefully selected to match with (or clash against) what I already know about them, and it always involves two way communication. None of this translates to watching random people react on the internet for me, which is why I don't understand it.

 

[Mailbox]

Lets just all be honest, these "reaction channels" are basically reply girls 2.0

A way to exploit YouTube monetizing system with minimal effort which creates, what is effectively, spam.

I just hope that when all this settles down, an entire section of youtube doesn't get thrown under the bus like what happened with youtube animators

 

[Vilam]

The idea that the content creator should have some share in any profits from those is silly to me, but then I find the entire thing a bit ridiculous to begin with. Organic reactions are fun to watch. Hammed up acting for the camera because they're filming for the purpose of reacting to something is just stupid.

 

[Alienous]

Yeah, but those are my friends and relatives. I show them stuff very carefully selected to match with (or clash against) what I already know about them, and it always involves two way communication. None of this translates to watching random people react on the internet for me, which is why I don't understand it.

I don't know if watching reactions entails watching random people, in the same way watching reviews isn't about watching random reviewers.

Reactions who gain a following react in a way that certain people resonate with, probably on the same wavelength as how people watch the reactions of friends.

 

[Dio]

The idea that the content creator should have some share in any profits from those is silly to me, but then I find the entire thing a bit ridiculous to begin with. Organic reactions are fun to watch. Hammed up acting for the camera because they're filming for the purpose of reacting to something is just stupid.

Really? Even if it's just the entirety of the 'content' being reacted to? Why not just do what a some of these people do and record their dumb faces and then give timestamps and urge them to watch the actual video alongside the reaction?

 

[PAULINK]

Blame the finebros, once anything they put out blew up, there were no more standards. People just put way too much stock in other people's opinions and perceptions that we as a society have lost the very fabric of what we are.

 

[Alienous]

Really? Even if it's just the entirety of the 'content' being reacted to? Why not just do what a some of these people do and record their dumb faces and then give timestamps and urge them to watch the actual video alongside the reaction?

What's the point? What's the logic in that.

If someone decides to watch a reaction to your video, and not the video itself, then it's probably the reaction they're interested in.

If someone wants to watch your video why wouldn't they just watch your video?

What I mean by this is the notion of stealing views only makes sense if you think the viewers of a reaction video don't care about the reaction and are using those videos to view the reacted-to videos without giving the actual video views. Why would they do that?

I think the likely scenario is that reaction video views exist largely separately from the views of the reacted-to videos, if anything it's likely that the reaction videos that have more views than the reacted-to videos are providing views to those videos, not stealing them.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Jinx is the biggest "reactor" doing this shit.

Jinx almost certainly purchased his subscribers and views, so the biggest is doubtful.

People actually watch reaction videos?



So do I

Yes. We have these things in our brains called mirror neurons and they essentially mirror what happens in others. So if they're happy we're happy.

That's why reaction videos are a thing. We like to reexperience something through another person.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Dp

 

[Mailbox]

What's the point? What's the logic in that.

If someone decides to watch a reaction to your video, and not the video itself, then it's probably the reaction they're interested in.

If someone wants to watch your video why wouldn't they just watch your video?

What I mean by this is the notion of stealing views only makes sense if you think the viewers of a reaction video don't care about the reaction and are using those videos to view the reacted-to videos without giving the actual video views. Why would they do that?

I think the likely scenario is that reaction video views exist largely separately from the views of the reacted-to videos, if anything it's likely that the reaction videos that have more views than the reacted-to videos are providing views to those videos, not stealing them.

Its very clear that you don't understand how the business side of youtube works in relation to content creators.

These "reaction" videos are, in effect, the same as someone taking a web comic, rehosting, and posting it.

Or, if we want to go with the "why are people here" mentality, what about news sites that, in the article, have a youtuber's video playing on their proprietary player?

Or what about someone posting a video to fb that isn't their's.

All of this shit does nothing but harm the original content creators financially, while still using their content. This is inherently and morally wrong.

If you think someone is there for the reaction, that fine.

I propose an alternative then:
A channel where the only content is, in fact, the person's reactions. No audio or video of the original content, but just the reactions.
This person would gove an annotation to the video and a timer to tell the person when the video starts so that they and the original video start at the same time.

Everything is preserved, nothing is stolen. Everyone wins.

And yet......... no one does this, why? Because they wouldn't get as many views. AND WHY WOULDN'T THEY?

Because the content the "reactionists" are stealing is the hook, and its what keep people there.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Its very clear that you don't understand how the business side of youtube works in relation to content creators.

These "reaction" videos are, in effect, the same as someone taking a web comic, rehosting, and posting it.

Or, if we want to go with the "why are people here" mentality, what about news sites that, in the article, have a youtuber's video playing on their proprietary player?

Or what about someone posting a video to fb that isn't their's.

All of this shit does nothing but harm the original content creators financially, while still using their content. This is inherently and morally wrong.

If you think someone is there for the reaction, that fine.

I propose an alternative then:
A channel where the only content is, in fact, the person's reactions. No audio or video of the original content, but just the reactions.
This person would gove an annotation to the video and a timer to tell the person when the video starts so that they and the original video start at the same time.

Everything is preserved, nothing is stolen. Everyone wins.

And yet......... no one does this, why? Because they wouldn't get as many views. AND WHY WOULDN'T THEY?

Because the content the "reactionists" are stealing is the hook, and its what keep people there.

Some actually do that. And I'd say it is people's reactions that keep people coming back. I'm certainly not interested in watching the same video over and over again.

 

[PsychBat!]

Double Toasted is also good.

 

[Mailbox]

Some actually do that. And I'd say it is people's reactions that keep people coming back. I'm certainly not interested in watching the same video over and over again.

okay, then. No problem with those people then.

My problem is with people who actually use the whole unedited content in their video.

Edit: Your last sentence is exactly why reaction channels that use the full unedited content are a detriment to content creators

 

[Alienous]

Its very clear that you don't understand how the business side of youtube works in relation to content creators.

Is it?

These "reaction" videos are, in effect, the same as someone taking a web comic, rehosting, and posting it.

It isn't.

Or, if we want to go with the "why are people here" mentality, what about news sites that, in the article, have a youtuber's video playing on their proprietary player?

Again, bad analogy.

That, and the web comic analogy, are examples of rehosting. Reaction videos aren't rehosting.

Or what about someone posting a video to fb that isn't their's.

Again, bad analogy.

All of this shit does nothing but harm the original content creators financially, while still using their content. This is inherently and morally wrong.

Does it harm the original creators financially?

Again, why would someone decide to watch a reaction video, and not the reacted-to video? Obviously that's the concern, 'view stealing', so tell me the scenario as to why, as you see it.

If the reaction adds nothing to the video why would people watch them? If they aren't there for the reaction what are they there for?

To me it's pretty simple. If they were going to watch the video, they'd watch the video. If they are watching a reaction, they are watching because of the reaction. Any views that might amount from someone watching a reaction and not the reacted-to video are surely offset by the amount of people who are introduced to the content by the reaction video.

The only scenario where it's view stealing is the fictitious one where people decide, maliciously, to watch a reaction video instead of the reacted-to video to avoid giving that video views.

If you're going to reply at all to my post please address this, or don't bother.

If you think someone is there for the reaction, that fine.

Is it?

I propose an alternative then:
A channel where the only content is, in fact, the person's reactions. No audio or video of the original content, but just the reactions.
This person would gove an annotation to the video and a timer to tell the person when the video starts so that they and the original video start at the same time.

Everything is preserved, nothing is stolen. Everyone wins.

Are you sure? That seems inconvenient for a viewer.

And yet......... no one does this, why? Because they wouldn't get as many views. AND WHY WOULDN'T THEY?

Why would they?

Because the content the "reactionists" are stealing is the hook, and its what keep people there.

Is it?

 

[Pluto]

Blame the finebros, ...

No, like their reaction videos or not but they do more than point a camera at someone for 20 minutes and put that footage online unedited. They use several people, only show parts of the content they're reacting too, provide some additional information and the second half of each reaction video is the people talking about it, being asked questions etc., the elders react videos are usually pretty interesting and the teens aren't bad either, I think the first one I saw was teens react to twilight, that was really good and their criticisms were actually relatively smart.

 

[PAULINK]

No, like their reaction videos or not but they do more than point a camera at someone for 20 minutes and put that footage online unedited. They use several people, only show parts of the content they're reacting too, provide some additional information and the second half of each reaction video is the people talking about it, being asked questions etc., the elders react videos are usually pretty interesting and the teens aren't bad either, I think the first one I saw was teens react to twilight, that was really good and their criticisms were actually relatively smart.

those people/ kids are just hamming it up for the camera, everyone knows that. You can mask a stinky pile of shit and make it a shiny turd, but it's still a turd deep down inside.

 

[PsychBat!]

Is it?

Yes.

I don't know if you're not watching these videos criticizing the reaction videos, but give them a view, it's clear that these "reactionists" don't do shit. And your question about how you think others think that people don't watch the original video after watching the reaction video, how do you know if they do? Like I said, check out the views and make a comparison between the source and the reaction videos. And I'm talking about animations or other content that was originally by youtubers for youtubers. Not trailers or commercials, but you can do that too I guess.

As to why are viewers watching the reaction video just for the reaction, well that's complicated. People like to watch it for the reactions but they ALSO watch it for the video the person is "reacting" to. Sometimes it's easier just to see the reaction videos for the videos they react to because people are subscribed to them. It's not as simple as "well if they watch the reaction video, then surely they'll watch the video that was on the reaction video". Why would they, if they just saw the video on the reaction video anyways? And since there are hardly any noisy distractions because these "reactors" barely say anything, the viewer can focus on the video and not on the reactor. So what's the point of going to the original video if they saw it already?

 

[Alienous]

Yes.

I don't know if you're not watching these videos criticizing the reaction videos, but give them a view, it's clear that these "reactionists" don't do shit. And your question about how you think others think that people don't watch the original video after watching the reaction video, how do you know if they do? Like I said, check out the views and make a comparison between the source and the reaction videos. And I'm talking about animations or other content that was originally by youtubers for youtubers. Not trailers or commercials, but you can do that too I guess.

What is that comparison supposed to tell me?

If the source has more views than the reaction ... then ... ?

If the reaction has more views than the source then there are clearly people who are watching because of the reaction. That's why at least those additional people aren't watching the source. Why would the source be entitled to those views? It wasn't the source that got those views, it was the reaction. And in that scenario the reaction is likely introducing people to the source, which means more views for that also.

 

[Mailbox]

Okay, i'm starting to get legitimately peeved at your lack of understanding of the situation from the content creator's perspective.

Is it?

It is. You obviously don't get that youtubers are basically getting money drained from the videos

It isn't.

You obviously missed the important part of that sentence: "In Effect".
Its a video with stolen content whose affect is that people do not want to see that same video again, which in turn means less potential views on the original video, which across many videos can mean big losses for youtubers.

Again, bad analogy.

That, and the web comic analogy, are examples of rehosting. Reaction videos aren't rehosting.

How is this a bad analogy if it IS the exact same thing., except... the news sites do more.
My news example still drains youtubers of revenue, and yet still takes more effort to make an article (which as you would say "is the reason people are there") than a reaction video. No one denies those are unethical.

Again, bad analogy.

How so? Seriously. As I said, these all have the same effect. Its not an analogy, but rather an example of something in the same set of content stealing for gain. In the case of FB is for FB's gain which is extra shitty.

Does it harm the original creators financially?

Again, why would someone decide to watch a reaction video, and not the reacted-to video? Obviously that's the concern, 'view stealing', so tell me the scenario as to why, as you see it.

If the reaction adds nothing to the video why would people watch them? If they aren't there for the reaction what are they there for?

To me it's pretty simple. If they were going to watch the video, they'd watch the video. If they are watching a reaction, they are watching because of the reaction. Any views that might amount from someone watching a reaction and not the reacted-to video are surely offset by the amount of people who are introduced to the content.

The only scenario where it's view stealing is the fictitious one where people decide, maliciously, to watch a reaction video instead of the reacted-to video to avoid giving that video views.

If you're going to reply at all to my post please address this, or don't bother.

its the same reason why people watch anime or tv shows on illegal streaming sties. convenience and a whole a la carte selection of videos all in one place.

Again, i recommend you listen to the podcast "Hello Internet" Its done by CGP Grey and Brady Haran who are educational youtubers and they have to deal with freebooting all the time. They go far more in depth and detailed than I ever could on the issue and I do implore you educate yourself on the actual affect this kind of content has on youtubers.

Is it?

You do realize that's a lead in, right? I was basically saying that i don't blame viewers and that the onus is on the reactionists.

Are you sure? That seems inconvenient for a viewer.

Convenience =/= morally or legally correct.

Is it?

Its tiring how most of your reply to my post is "is it?" and no rebuttal at all. And yes... it is. If the videos were always no names with no famous youtubers or videos involved there wouldn't be this problem today because these reactionists wouldn't get the traffic in the first place.

I sure as hell wouldn't stay to watch someone someone stare blankly at a screen the whole time...

I'm done. Sorry, but talking about this stuff is pissing me off and I know that if I go any further I risk getting banned, so... yeah.

 

[Alienous]

I'm done. Sorry, but talking about this stuff is pissing me off and I know that if I go any further I risk getting banned, so... yeah.

I'm glad. You're conflating reaction videos with re-uploading videos unmodified. Your argument hinges on a false premise.

 

[PsychBat!]

If the reaction has more views than the source then there are clearly people who are watching because of the reaction. That's why at least those additional people aren't watching the source. Why would the source be entitled to those views? It wasn't the source that got those views, it was the reaction. And in that scenario the reaction is likely introducing people to the source, which means more views for that also.

See my edit.

But if you're still willing to defend these dumbass reaction videos by saying this:

Why would the source be entitled to those views?

Then I can't help you see why these reaction videos are wrong.

Also quit believing that if people see the reaction videos, it automatically increases the viewer count of the original content. It doesn't.

I'm glad. You're conflating reaction videos with re-uploading videos unmodified.

That's basically what it is. And you can't see it.

 

[NewGame]

love watching people react to things

Watch people react to Old People Reacting To <shock site scat porn>

"Dude gross"

"Oh emm gee you guys"

"I literally do not want to watch this"

"HAWTHORN EFFECT BRINGS OUT THE BEST IN US"

 

[Alienous]

See my edit.

But if you're still willing to defend these dumbass reaction videos by saying this:

Then I can't help you see why these reaction videos are wrong.

Also quit believing that if people see the reaction videos, it automatically increases the viewer count of the original content. It doesn't.


That's basically what it is. And you can't see it.

Could you perhaps explain where my points make no sense instead of telling me to "quit believing".

Here's the post again:


What is that comparison supposed to tell me?

If the source has more views than the reaction ... then ... ?

If the reaction has more views than the source then there are clearly people who are watching because of the reaction. That's why at least those additional people aren't watching the source. Why would the source be entitled to those views? It wasn't the source that got those views, it was the reaction. And in that scenario the reaction is likely introducing people to the source, which means more views for that also.

 

[PsychBat!]

Could you perhaps explain where my points make no sense instead of telling me to "quit believing".

Until you back up your statements by saying that these reaction videos do what they're doing then this discussion is done.

Here's the post again:


What is that comparison supposed to tell me?

If the source has more views than the reaction ... then ... ?

If the reaction has more views than the source then there are clearly people who are watching because of the reaction. That's why at least those additional people aren't watching the source. Why would the source be entitled to those views? It wasn't the source that got those views, it was the reaction. And in that scenario the reaction is likely introducing people to the source, which means more views for that also.

So you didn't see my edit then. Because it answers this question you posed.

 

[Platy]

Every generation has it's mystery science theater 3000

 

[Gr1mLock]

i must have watched like all the 'people from x try food from place y' there is on youtube. probably gave a bunch of views to buzzfeed that i wish i could take back.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

That's basically what it is. And you can't see it.

It obviously isn't. A reaction video is a terrible way to watch a video if you don't want the reaction. Why watch an episode of a TV series in a tiny corner with some person you don't care about mumbling over it, with muted music, etc.? Just pirate it.

 

[Alienous]

Until you back up your statements by saying that these reaction videos do what they're doing then this discussion is done.


So you didn't see my edit then.

No, I didn't see your edit, you posted it after I had replied, 7 minutes after your original post. My apologies. Allow me to address it.

As to why are viewers watching the reaction video just for the reaction, well that's complicated. People like to watch it for the reactions but they ALSO watch it for the video the person is "reacting" to. Sometimes it's easier just to see the reaction videos for the videos they react to because people are subscribed to them. It's not as simple as "well if they watch the reaction video, then surely they'll watch the video that was on the reaction video". Why would they, if they just saw the video on the reaction video anyways? And since there are hardly any noisy distractions because these "reactors" barely say anything, the viewer can focus on the video and not on the reactor. So what's the point of going to the original video if they saw it already?

Ok.

There is a fair point here. People choosing to watch source content they enjoy through a filter they also enjoy. I was perhaps rigid in my thinking regarding how a person might enjoy a reaction video; 'they're there for the source or the reaction'. But, as per the point you made, that's ignoring people watching a reaction merely to improve the viewing experience of a source video.

That hasn't been something I've seen in the reaction videos I've encountered but yeah, I understand your point now more thanks to you having elaborated on that example. I appreciate that. Points I've made fall away in light of that.

Still, I maintain that the notion that a reaction video having more views than the source video would benefit the source video more than prove to be a hindrance; if people want to watch your video because of your video they will likely just watch your video. More views on a reaction video more than likely means the source video getting more views than it would otherwise have had, unless the majority of people like to watch the source video through the filter of a reaction video (which might speak to how entertaining that source content is), and anyway that doesn't seem probable.

But, if there were an argument I certainly concede.

 

[Measley]

Shit I'm not going to lie, I enjoyed the hell out of the TFA trailer reaction vids.

 

[Shuggananas]

reaction channels are the fucking worst. 95% of that is fake trash and has no production value, just slap your face next to some media and call it a day

 

[Oblivion]

Every generation has it's mystery science theater 3000

MST3K consisted of people commenting on stuff they watched?