Jan 24, 2023·edited Jan 24, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent
You didn't address the primary points about the censorship-inducing penalties present on the term sheet (not a "contract" per say); penalties that force one to comply with the left's agenda. These penalties force your hand, because if you don't EXPLICITLY follow YouTube's onerous censorship guidelines, and end up receving any of these on ANY platform, a community strike, an advertiser strike, demonitized,or even get boycotted by advertisers due to leftist astroturfing, then that you can lose up to 100% of your "Fee" in penalties (the fee pays your shows employee's to by the way). Actually due to poor math, you would actually owe them money as the penlties would exceed 110% if you consider you get penalized if you get strikes or demonitized on Any of the following:
iTunes, Spotiy, Facebook, and/or Youtube. Any strikes on any of these would end the show, as you lose your money to pay your show's employees. Read below.
This fee is not just your pay. Any of these penalties, from 15% to 25% of your total fee, would force the show to shut down or lay off employees - so you're FORCED to censor yourself to keep your show running and your workers paid. The reason for this is., the entire show must rely on the "fee" to operate - the fee NOT not payment to the talent (Crowder), but his entire operating budget of the show - currently his show employees 27 people. If he suffered a 15% to 25%, or more likely multiples of these fee's - the show would effectively be shut down. Thus you are FORCED to not criticize anything that youtube deems forbodden. This would be unavoidable for small creators who couldn't from such lucrative contracts that could guarantee them a livelihood in a career that is risky to pursue, at best.
if the leftist activists gets 50% of your advertisers to boycott the show, you likewise loose your operating for your show. So you now have another reason to self-censor, and are at the mercy of the left's outrage-mobs.
Smaller creators locked into these terms well NEVER be able to be independent, lest they can build a following large enoough to leave TDW, and then they get zero Royalties from their past created content under TDW coporate umbrella. This seems to Fit with TDW who has been pro-vax, pro-war in Ukraine, and pro-uniparty (see their stance or silence on the speaker elections - the few who didn't like Mccarthy on TDW didn't even broach the subject). They do not want you talking about important topics that many conservatives consider paramount, and thus their employee's don't - unless like been who said "just get the vaccine dummies".
Even Candice Owens ADMITTED on Timcast, that there forced her to change her show when wanted to talk about the vaccines. She made sound all friendly that they pressured her into making sure she didn't violate the rules. But this is why she was tepid on the subject she is worth listening to on.
Quite honestly Candice Owens only has popularity because she is a novelty. she is a conservative, female,. black pundit (though formerly a leftist and who ran a website to dox critics of female content creators) - Note that this here is my criticism about Owens, not Crowder's.
That means the DailyWire has censored all their Contributors from talking about the Vaccine with any real criticism.
These were the complaints of Crowder, who not once in his first video did he call out TDW.
I didn't address everything because then it would have ended up being a post equivalent to the size of the streams that have already covered all of these things.
My intent with the last post was to infer that Crowder, even if he is on YouTube, still does what he does and gets embroiled with the censorship issues, unlike TDW which comes off as far more tepid and more inclined to play with the rules of YouTube.
Their policies are always changing, and instead of dipping the toes and seeing where one can step such as Crowder TDW just seems to want to avoid the whole conundrum. I don't watch much of TDW, but I do find that many of their takes are very similar to one another at times, or at least aren't as outspoken.
And like I said, small creators are not Jordan Peterson or Candace and therefore will not have the lawyer power to negotiate. As Barnes said, including on Rekieta's stream last night, the contract just comes off as adversarial right from the start, and that's not a good way to start a relationship.
Like I said, I could go on with many of my qualms with TDW which appear to be too close to the establishment talking points. I still remember that after 1/6 Ben Shapiro came out and immediately criticized Trump and that the Republican party should go back to traditional values, which just sounds like the old establishment wanting to gain their traction once again.
I created this post to show the sides of the people involved without including my biases, but from my perspective I've always had issues with TWD but at least wanted to explain some of what was out there in a concise manner, although of course I would miss a ton of the topics.
I think that Crowder's position is the better of the two. The content on TDW is stale and rather boring, while Crowder's show breaks from traditional conservative talking points and dares to ask the questions that many conservatives have. A few examples of this are:
1) Why is it that, when conservatives have the majority in the House or Senate, they do not push their advantage and propose legislation that would return the US to its traditional roots?
2) Why does it seem that neither party cares about our soaring national debt and propose cut-backs or elimination of expensive federal programs which are outside of the scope of federal government as outlined in the constitution?
3) Why can't we secure our national borders or our elections?
Older conservatives seem content, or, at the most, mildly irritated, with the current state of our federal government. The newer, more "crass", conservatives are fed up with their representatives selling out the economic future of our nation, the diminishing of our guaranteed rights as enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the massive expanse of government regulation.
Given the choice between milquetoast conservatives along the lines of Ben Shapiro, or an argumentative, firebrand such as Crowder, I'd pick Crowder and his like every time.
I would agree with that sentiment. Even if I disagree with Crowder on some topics I just find his approach to be more...approachable? Don't want to sound redundant but compared to TDW Crowder breaks away from the typical decorum of political pundits that just seem too formal.
I remember Saagar Enjeti of Breaking Points made a comment that people have told them they're able to share his videos because they seem more professional, but it seems rather ridiculous that one's perspective would have to be filtered based on what someone wears. I find the more informal approach of content creators takes away from the glossiness of high production and uptightness and makes it so people can focus more on the topic.
Even though I wouldn't consider myself conservative I probably share more with them than I do with progressives, and yet I would prefer The Squad actually deviate from the establishment Democrats and actually stand with their positions, even if unfavorable. But instead they all just went along with whatever mama Pelosi wanted.
What people call unity can also be seen as political party hegemony, and I think people would rather their politicians deviate from the party and speak their own mind at times.
Who? What? Why? Not my circus, not my monkeys.
But without monkeys do we still get peanuts??
Peanuts, popcorn, and candy too ;-)
You didn't address the primary points about the censorship-inducing penalties present on the term sheet (not a "contract" per say); penalties that force one to comply with the left's agenda. These penalties force your hand, because if you don't EXPLICITLY follow YouTube's onerous censorship guidelines, and end up receving any of these on ANY platform, a community strike, an advertiser strike, demonitized,or even get boycotted by advertisers due to leftist astroturfing, then that you can lose up to 100% of your "Fee" in penalties (the fee pays your shows employee's to by the way). Actually due to poor math, you would actually owe them money as the penlties would exceed 110% if you consider you get penalized if you get strikes or demonitized on Any of the following:
iTunes, Spotiy, Facebook, and/or Youtube. Any strikes on any of these would end the show, as you lose your money to pay your show's employees. Read below.
This fee is not just your pay. Any of these penalties, from 15% to 25% of your total fee, would force the show to shut down or lay off employees - so you're FORCED to censor yourself to keep your show running and your workers paid. The reason for this is., the entire show must rely on the "fee" to operate - the fee NOT not payment to the talent (Crowder), but his entire operating budget of the show - currently his show employees 27 people. If he suffered a 15% to 25%, or more likely multiples of these fee's - the show would effectively be shut down. Thus you are FORCED to not criticize anything that youtube deems forbodden. This would be unavoidable for small creators who couldn't from such lucrative contracts that could guarantee them a livelihood in a career that is risky to pursue, at best.
if the leftist activists gets 50% of your advertisers to boycott the show, you likewise loose your operating for your show. So you now have another reason to self-censor, and are at the mercy of the left's outrage-mobs.
Smaller creators locked into these terms well NEVER be able to be independent, lest they can build a following large enoough to leave TDW, and then they get zero Royalties from their past created content under TDW coporate umbrella. This seems to Fit with TDW who has been pro-vax, pro-war in Ukraine, and pro-uniparty (see their stance or silence on the speaker elections - the few who didn't like Mccarthy on TDW didn't even broach the subject). They do not want you talking about important topics that many conservatives consider paramount, and thus their employee's don't - unless like been who said "just get the vaccine dummies".
Even Candice Owens ADMITTED on Timcast, that there forced her to change her show when wanted to talk about the vaccines. She made sound all friendly that they pressured her into making sure she didn't violate the rules. But this is why she was tepid on the subject she is worth listening to on.
Quite honestly Candice Owens only has popularity because she is a novelty. she is a conservative, female,. black pundit (though formerly a leftist and who ran a website to dox critics of female content creators) - Note that this here is my criticism about Owens, not Crowder's.
That means the DailyWire has censored all their Contributors from talking about the Vaccine with any real criticism.
These were the complaints of Crowder, who not once in his first video did he call out TDW.
I didn't address everything because then it would have ended up being a post equivalent to the size of the streams that have already covered all of these things.
My intent with the last post was to infer that Crowder, even if he is on YouTube, still does what he does and gets embroiled with the censorship issues, unlike TDW which comes off as far more tepid and more inclined to play with the rules of YouTube.
Their policies are always changing, and instead of dipping the toes and seeing where one can step such as Crowder TDW just seems to want to avoid the whole conundrum. I don't watch much of TDW, but I do find that many of their takes are very similar to one another at times, or at least aren't as outspoken.
And like I said, small creators are not Jordan Peterson or Candace and therefore will not have the lawyer power to negotiate. As Barnes said, including on Rekieta's stream last night, the contract just comes off as adversarial right from the start, and that's not a good way to start a relationship.
Like I said, I could go on with many of my qualms with TDW which appear to be too close to the establishment talking points. I still remember that after 1/6 Ben Shapiro came out and immediately criticized Trump and that the Republican party should go back to traditional values, which just sounds like the old establishment wanting to gain their traction once again.
I created this post to show the sides of the people involved without including my biases, but from my perspective I've always had issues with TWD but at least wanted to explain some of what was out there in a concise manner, although of course I would miss a ton of the topics.
I think that Crowder's position is the better of the two. The content on TDW is stale and rather boring, while Crowder's show breaks from traditional conservative talking points and dares to ask the questions that many conservatives have. A few examples of this are:
1) Why is it that, when conservatives have the majority in the House or Senate, they do not push their advantage and propose legislation that would return the US to its traditional roots?
2) Why does it seem that neither party cares about our soaring national debt and propose cut-backs or elimination of expensive federal programs which are outside of the scope of federal government as outlined in the constitution?
3) Why can't we secure our national borders or our elections?
Older conservatives seem content, or, at the most, mildly irritated, with the current state of our federal government. The newer, more "crass", conservatives are fed up with their representatives selling out the economic future of our nation, the diminishing of our guaranteed rights as enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the massive expanse of government regulation.
Given the choice between milquetoast conservatives along the lines of Ben Shapiro, or an argumentative, firebrand such as Crowder, I'd pick Crowder and his like every time.
I would agree with that sentiment. Even if I disagree with Crowder on some topics I just find his approach to be more...approachable? Don't want to sound redundant but compared to TDW Crowder breaks away from the typical decorum of political pundits that just seem too formal.
I remember Saagar Enjeti of Breaking Points made a comment that people have told them they're able to share his videos because they seem more professional, but it seems rather ridiculous that one's perspective would have to be filtered based on what someone wears. I find the more informal approach of content creators takes away from the glossiness of high production and uptightness and makes it so people can focus more on the topic.
Even though I wouldn't consider myself conservative I probably share more with them than I do with progressives, and yet I would prefer The Squad actually deviate from the establishment Democrats and actually stand with their positions, even if unfavorable. But instead they all just went along with whatever mama Pelosi wanted.
What people call unity can also be seen as political party hegemony, and I think people would rather their politicians deviate from the party and speak their own mind at times.