University of Amsterdam
The Art of the Meta-Commentary: How And Why YouTubers Talk About YouTube
Nicole Leeflang 11932376 MA Thesis
New Media and Digital Culture Supervisor: Alex Gekker
Abstract
Commentary videos have been a prominent style of YouTube video for the last few years. Surprisingly, one of the most popular topics to react to on the platform are events or prominent figures of YouTube itself. Focusing on ex-Vine turned YouTube celebrities commenting about the polemic Paul brothers, this paper explores how YouTubers choose to comment on YouTube, and with what end. Ultimately, it becomes evident that, particularly when younger audiences are involved, YouTubers aim to find a balance between educating their public and entertaining them, pointing out who is responsible, and giving an example on what being a good or bad YouTuber is.
Keywords: YouTube, Vine, Paul brothers, Meta-Commentary, Platforms, Commentary Videos
Table of Contents
Abstract 1
Introduction: Commentary/Reaction Videos on YouTube and The Rise of the
Meta-Commentary 4
Chapter 1: The Tumultuous Relationship Between Platform and Content Creator 8
1.1 Platforms: Definitions and Roles 9
1.1.1. Platform Capitalism 9
1.1.2. Platform Politics 10
1.2 The Professionalization of YouTube 10
1.2.1 YouTube’s Rising Institutionalization and Commercialization 10 1.2.2 Self-Branding, Social Media Influencers, and the Role of Authenticity 12
1.3 The Changing Role of YouTubers 14
1.4 A Case Study: The Adpocalypse 17
1.5 Conclusion 18
Chapter 2: From Ex-Viner Turned YouTuber to Ex-Viner Turned YouTuber: The Growing Aggravation with the Paul Brothers on YouTube 20
2.1. Seeing the Death of a Platform: Ex-Viners Unique Insight Into Platform Politics After the
Vine Exodus 20
2.2. Case Study: The Paul Brothers: How Two Brothers Showcase The Morally Ambiguous, Yet
Extremely Profitable Side of YouTube 22
2.3 Approaching Video Essays and Rant Videos 25
2.4 Research Process 27
Chapter 3: The Response From Ex-Viners Turned YouTubers 29
3.1 The Ex-Vine Stars: Who Are They and What Do They Produce? 29
3.1.1 Cody Ko: California Cool, With A Pinch Of Salt 29
3.1.2 Drew Gooden: Long-Form Commentary And In-Depth Analysis Dripping With Sarcasm 30
3.1.3 Eddy Burback: Awkwardness With Insight 31
3.2 Commenting On The Paul Brothers: The Art of Giving Advice While Throwing Shade 31
3.2.1. "They're Just Kids": Know Your Audience 32
3.2.2. Parental Guidance Advised: Know What Your Kids Watch 33
3.2.3. Be Careful Who You Talk About: Paying Attention Is Giving Power? 34
3.2.4. A Word To The Wise: Giving Advice From Peer to Peer 35
3.2.5. Oh the Humanity! The Importance of Showing Authenticity 36 3.2.6. Now Listen Up Kids: Reacting To The Jake Pauler Logang 39
Chapter 4: Let's Talk About How To Talk About Jake And Logan Paul 41
4.1 A New Form of Edutainment: A Fine Line Between Entertaining and Educating 41 4.2 Who Is Responsible? Playing Hot Potato Between Creator and Audience 43 4.3. Don't Listen To The Devil On Your Shoulder: Being A Good vs. Bad YouTuber 46
Conclusion: “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”: A YouTubers Role According to
YouTubers 50
References 52
Appendix A: Cody Ko 57
Appendix A.1 F*ck This Guy: LP Edition 57
Appendix A.2. It's Everyday No 60
Appendix A.3. F*ck These Comments: Jake Paul[ers] Edition 62
Appendix B: Drew Gooden Video Transcriptions 66
Appendix B.1. Logan's Failed Apology and Facebook's Hypocrisy 66
Appendix B.2. I Joined Team 10 So You Didn't Have To 68
Appendix B.3. Reading Mean Comments - Jake Paul Edition 76
Appendix C: Eddy Burback Video Transcriptions 81
Appendix C.2. Let's Examine Logan Paul's Comeback 85
Appendix C.3 Jake Paul Manipulates Kids for Money 91
Introduction: Commentary/Reaction Videos
on YouTube and The Rise of the
Meta-Commentary
Having existed for over a decade, YouTube’s ownership, priorities, and aims have shifted. In recent years, the video-hosting site has introduced new policies that favor advertising and profit over protecting their content creators. But, this shift has not gone unnoticed by the YouTubers. Over the last few years, there has been a rise of meta-commentary prevalent on the platform, many focusing on criticizing platform policies and changes. “Video essays”, audiovisual content that relays
information in an essay-like format, focusing not only on entertainment but also on providing in-depth analysis and commentary, have been the preferred format for meta-commentary. While these types of videos have been popular for years, the topics covered tended to be “low-brow” topics, typically pop culture. But, YouTubers have now extended the topic to cover the workings of YouTube itself and how it affects said creators. This level of meta-commentary and engagement with the platform itself seems to be particular to YouTube, both because of and despite the affordances of the platform.
YouTube follows the typical path that other platforms do of prioritizing the interests of their content creators and users to prioritizing the interest of advertisers. This is evident in certain policy
changes the site has implemented over the years, the most salient example being the “adpocalypse” and its vague guidelines for demonetization. The adpocalypse, a term that first emerged after the
mass demonetization and emergence of strict yet nebulous guidelines enforced by YouTube in regards to advertising, was first used by YouTubers to describe the massive loss of ad revenue that these creators experienced (with some reportedly losing up to 70% of their money (Zetlin)). The
adpocalypse occurred in 2016 (Dunphy) and has been a polemical topic since implemented. There
were several factors that led to the adpocalypse, but there are two in particular that were a catalyst in its introduction: the rise in ISIS videos and PewDiePie’s racial controversies (McCabe). The rise in ISIS videos being posted on YouTube contributed to the introduction of the adpocalypse due to the fact that advertisements were playing on all YouTube videos at the time, with these advertisements appearing on these type of videos as well. This caused advertisers to become wary about where advertisements were placed. Furthermore, popular YouTuber Felix Kjellberg (Romano), more commonly known as his online persona, PewDiePie, used a racial slur in one of his videos and this became widely publicized. Moreover, he was accused of antisemitism after he posted a video where he made two users, on the platform Fiverr, a platform that allows creators to charge a minimum of 5 dollars to create personalized content, to write "Death to all Jews" (Mahdawi). These creators had a limited command of English, but were subsequently banned from Fiverr (although they were later allowed to return after many argued it was not their fault, but PewDiePie's (Mahdawi)). With over 60 million subscribers, PewDiePie is the largest channel on YouTube. He became popular though his focus on gaming, particularly Let's Plays, where others could watch him play video games and see his reactions. He later transitioned into vlogging and further gained a wider audience. YouTube took note of his large audience, and even offered him a show on their then-upcoming streaming service, YouTube Red. Due to the visibility of PewDiePie in the public eye, as well as the fact that his
audience was perceived to be younger, YouTube decided to penalize their most popular YouTuber as an example.
Thus, these two events were paramount in the decision of advertisers to put pressure on YouTube to become selective with which videos contained advertisements, as they did not want to be associated with this sort of content. This led to a mass demonetization of any videos that contained any sort of violence, gore, or sexual references – any family-unfriendly content. The adpocalypse led to many YouTubers losing their main source of revenue. A large group of YouTubers become openly vocal about their discontent about the policy change. They took to the platform to voice their concerns and inform their viewers and other content creators on these changes.
Since content creators are currently expected to create “family friendly” content if they expect to be compensated, certain channels have been given preferential treatment over others. Channels like Ryan ToysReview, a channel where a child “reviews” toys by playing with them is currently one of
the most subscribed to channel, albeit only emerging in the last few years - an oddity, as most of the largest channels are from early adopters, such as Shane Dawson and Jenna Marbles (Case Studies From Successful Creators). This shift in dynamic between platform and content creators should be examined. Furthermore, with the affordances of the platform it is interesting to note how content creators use the platform itself to raise ethical questions.
Meta-commentary is on the rise; now, creators are not just creating video essays on popular culture or obscure topics, but becoming openly critical of YouTube and its policies. As an object of study, YouTube provides unique insight into the relationship between content creator and platform. The vocal nature of its creators, as well that of its community, brings to the forefront and makes explicit this relationship between content creators and the platform on which their content is hosted. Particularly, what their role is in being a driving force of change and commentary on how the platform should work, using their voice as a way to criticize the ethics and shifts in dynamic that occur on the platform itself, particularly in regard to adapting to advertiser’s interests over theirs. Furthermore,
Thus, to further explore this phenomenon the following question is posed “How do YouTubers use
meta-commentary on YouTube to communicate about controversies on the platform and to what end?”
The following steps were taken in order to answer this question. First, an in-depth exploration of the prevailing research done on platforms, the rise of cultural labor focusing on the definition provided by the Italian Marxist tradition, the professionalization of YouTube, and ultimately, how these factors have affected the role of YouTubers, was conducted in order to give context to the issue. The adpocalypse was then used to illustrate the concepts and ideas presented by these authors.
Then, a case study was selected to investigate the phenomenon. The case study in question is related to the controversy surrounding Logan Paul, which occurred at the beginning of 2018. Popular video vlogger Logan Paul visited Aokigahara, better known as Japan’s “suicide forest”. This visit involved exploring said forest, known for being a popular site for committing suicide. During this visit, Logan Paul veered off the chaperoned path and encountered a dead body. This encounter was filmed and later uploaded on YouTube. While the body was censored, the video generated great outrage amongst the general public and the YouTube community as it was considered an egregious and unethical incident. This controversy sparked conversation and debate upon the relationship between YouTube and content creator, due to the fact that YouTube was relatively lenient towards Logan Paul despite the implications of his actions (Farokhmanesh). Eventually, his video was taken down, although it had already hit over 6 million views and was featured on trending. His YouTube
show and film were also pulled from the YouTube Red service, but this was only done weeks after the incident. His videos were also temporarily demonetized, but this has already been rescinded, with him now gaining half the Adsense he did previously. Furthermore, other videos associated with Logan Paul and his brother, Jake Paul, were also analyzed. While the Aokigahara vlog is what initially caused the general public to pay attention to the ethical and moral aspects of vlogging, both
brothers have been consistently criticized on YouTube due to the nebulous nature in which they gain views and money. Part of this concern is associated with the sensitive nature of their audience, which skews toward pre-teens and teens, and the methods they use to manipulate them into buying their merchandise and encouraging disruptive behavior. Thus, this particular case will aid in
illustrating the complicated relationship between YouTube, content creator, and third-party interests.
In order to analyze said consequences, the following was done. Using a conceptual framework that will aid in guiding the research, a qualitative approach was used. Content analysis of commentary videos addressing the Paul brothers was conducted. The YouTubers selected are ex-Viners, as their multi-platform professional experience provides a unique insight that other YouTubers may not have. Their perspective is particularly interesting due to Vine’s refusal to run advertisements, thus rejecting the commercialization process. This leads to a unique expertise in various platforms that have undergone or refused to undergo the commercialization process, leading to the increase in revenue for the company, or the complete closure, respectively. Their insight into the Paul brothers behavior will be particularly useful in understanding the relationship between YouTube and YouTuber, and how said YouTubers, use the platform to negotiate said relationship. This selection criteria will be further elaborated upon when addressing the research process.
The videos were analyzed and broken down into structure, talking points, tone and language, and visuals. Through these categories it becomes apparent that the YouTubers selected all share similar thoughts and forms of communicating about this event on the platform. It becomes evident that these YouTubers are attempting to make audiences and creators alike more responsible and aware of their actions by informing them and providing a unique perspective on online phenomena, particularly that related to the platform in which they operate. Albeit being shown in a comedic manner, as the goal is still to keep audiences entertained, this does not mean that the information provided is not given any depth or thought. Ultimately, while YouTubers are entertainers, they still take the responsibility of informing audiences of the events that transpire on the platform, as well as give advice in order to enact change.
Chapter 1: The Tumultuous Relationship
Between Platform and Content Creator
To successfully answer the research question “How do YouTubers use meta-commentary on YouTube
to communicate about controversies on the platform and to what end?” certain areas must be further
explored. Firstly, the complicated relationship between YouTube and YouTuber will be looked at by exploring what platforms are, elaborating on the surge of platform capitalism, and focusing on Gillespie’s perspective towards platform politics. This will aid in helping understand YouTube’s current role as a platform, particularly emphasizing its importance as an intermediary. This
understanding will therefore provide a basis for explaining the following three sections that will aid in issuing further insight into the research question. The second section will explore how YouTubers fall into the role of the precariat and the rise of cultural labor, focusing on the writings of those following the Autonomist Marxist tradition, and how they fit into a society riddled by “free labor”, per Terranova’s definition of the term. This section will provide context for the emergence of content creators and YouTubers as well as it will aid in positioning their form of labor in a
socioeconomic context. The two sections following will be based on the two important reasons as to why YouTubers are shifting their attitude towards the platform to express their dissatisfaction, in an attempt to make it more ethically responsible: the increasing professionalization of YouTube and the changing role of prosumers and participatory culture over the years, particularly YouTubers.
The second section will focus on YouTube’s slow yet steady transition from a platform where amateur content reigned, to requiring a certain degree of professionalization and
standardization. This reflects a pattern seen previously on other forms of media. YouTube has gone from hosting the videos of amateurs, with one of their main selling points being the appeal of
authenticity and familiarity, to prioritizing and highlighting videos with a higher production value. Furthermore, this category will explore the shift from content creator to self-branded social media influencer and how this has accelerated this professionalization from the side of content creators. The third section will be intrinsically related to the first, focusing on how participatory culture and the role of content creators has changed over the years. Particularly, there will be a focus on the motivations of these creators and how these motivations affect their content and forms of communication. This will be explored on a more general level, then focus more specifically at YouTube and its relation to participatory culture.
Lastly, to illustrate nuances and points made in the literature explored above, the topic of the adpocalypse, the policy change which involved a mass demonetization on any content that could be considered advertiser un-friendly (such as violence, gore, or sex) on Youtube, particularly how the platform has changed their advertising system in such a way that affects content creators in a myriad of ways and protects advertisers, will be used as an example of the influence of platform politics and the further professionalization of YouTube, as well as the shifting dynamic between platform and prosumer. This example will focus on aspects such as the preference of YouTube for the interests of advertisers over that of their own content creators, and the pushback from these same creators, particularly the ways that they found to counter the damage done from mass demonetization.
1.1 Platforms: Definitions and Roles
1.1.1. Platform Capitalism
With an emphasis on political philosophy, Srnicek’s conceptualization of platform capitalism provides insight into the current relationship between a platform and the late-stage capitalism that it is a part of. Srnicek argues that capitalism has advanced in such a way that it has become focused on extracting and using data and that said data has become a central resource for businesses (6). He further argues that the perfect vehicle for said data extractions are platforms (10). Srnicek
describes five different types of platforms: advertising, cloud, industrial, product, and lean
platforms. Advertising platforms are those that extract information on users, undertake a labor of analysis, and then use the products of that process to sell advertisement space (51). Cloud platforms are those that own hardware and software of digital-dependent businesses and are renting them out as needed (60). Industrial platforms build the software and hardware necessary to transform a traditional good into a service and by collecting rent or subscription fees on them (64). Lastly, lean platforms are those that attempt to reduce their ownership of assets to a minimum and to profit by
reducing costs as much as possible (75). Out of these five, YouTube, being owned by Google, falls squarely under the first category: advertising platform.
1.1.2. Platform Politics
Gillespie provides an understanding of platforms as intermediaries and the politics of platforms that successfully illustrate some of the main tensions between platform and content creators, from a communications perspective. These tensions are also illustrated using the example of YouTube as a platform. He notes (353) that the term intermediary in the context of platforms revolves around “connecting different constituencies”, with the platform being the intermediary itself. The three constituencies are: “end users, advertisers, and professional content producers” (353) and these platforms must appeal to all of them to have a stable foundation they can all touch upon. Not only do these intermediaries have to provide a stable foundation, but they must also position themselves in such a way “that best suits their interest” (Gieryn), by shielding themselves from being seen as responsible for the content they host or the advertisements they provide. This coincides with designer Bratton’s (46) idea that platforms only suggest the idea of neutrality, yet that does not necessarily mean that they are actually neutral. This becomes relevant when taking into
consideration Gillespie’s argument that as an intermediary, these platforms become “providers [that] become the curators of public discourse” (347). We must therefore understand those curators as appearing to be neutral, but not being such. It is in their interest to appear to their creators and audience as a neutral entity, mediating the interests of advertisers with those of their creators, while simultaneously implementing policies that aid in keeping the platform sustainable, and even profitable to still operate.
1.2 The Professionalization of YouTube
By concluding that platforms must also seek sustainable business models and establishing the parallels between new media and traditional media, Gillespie further highlights that therefore, both will have the same tensions. One of these tensions that arise in is the process of professionalization. Several authors have explored the shift of featuring mainly amateur content to requiring a higher production value to reach a larger audience. There are several reasons for this change, which will be further explored below. Furthermore, professionalization has altered how YouTubers approach the website and the dynamic between content creator and audience.
1.2.1 YouTube’s Rising Institutionalization and Commercialization
Media scholar Kim (2012) raises the question of YouTube no longer being an accurate representation of McLuhan’s virtual village as it has shifted from user generated content to professionally generated content. Kim argues that although McLuhan's virtual village was first introduced in regards to television, that this could also be interpreted in the context of the Internet (2012). The author claims that framing the virtual village in reference to the Internet, particularly the beginnings of Web 2.0 provides a better interpretation of McLuhan's concept. But, this is solely in reference to the quasi-utopian characteristics first given to the Web in regards to the potential reach of user generated content. Kim claims that this is no longer accurate due to the lean towards professionally-made content, especially on YouTube. This has been attributed to Google’s purchase of the company. The author reasons that YouTube is becoming institutionalized and further
reinforces Gillespie’s argument that YouTube, while it is presenting itself as a platform that is simultaneously a creative outlet and a forum for discussion, it still follows the same rules as traditional media. While Kim mentions the techno-economic limitations, he remains positive there is an alternative. It is noteworthy that the article was published before the occurrence of the
adpocalypse. YouTube was still not pressured by advertisers to the extent it is today, and there had
not been a death of a platform to forewarn what would occur if attention was not paid to advertising forces. The closing down of the popular video platform Vine provided a warning sign for platforms which wished to remain fully open, democratic, and as neutral as possible without focusing on commercialization.
To illustrate the professionalization and commercialization of YouTube, Morreale provides the example of the Annoying Orange’s journey from “amateur content” to a television series on Cartoon Network. The author concurs with Kim, also stating that the platform is evolving into a
commercially driven medium (113). In Web 2.0, where some participants are rewarded financially, while others provide their creative content for free, platforms will most likely keep on rewarding those that put effort in trying to professionalize and commercialize their content (118). Here, we see the tension between allowing the average user to actively create content and to keep their business model sustainable. This channel moved from new media to traditional media, and this was seen as a sign of success (115). But, this was before YouTube Red existed, where YouTube began capitalizing on their most successful content creators by allowing them to create new shows backed by the platform. But this is not the only way in which the commercialization of YouTube is evident. Vonderau, another media scholar, (2016) explores multichannel networks and how they reflect a change in YouTube. The author describes multichannel network as “intermediary companies that
sell advertising, cross-promote affiliated YouTube channels, and develop video brands”. These multichannel networks are also consistently criticized for being seen as drivers in the
commercialization of YouTube as they are held responsible for hiking up the average production value of videos on the platform and creating a more streamlined and standardized look. Once again, echoing Gillespie’s claim of YouTube becoming closer to traditional media and reflecting the same tensions, Vonderau states that these multichannel networks reflect a trend of new media absorbing and integrating traditional media practices into their sphere.
Furthermore, this professionalization and commercialization, while lucrative for the few that exploit and understand the shift, has also caused frustration amongst content creators. While the focus of the majority of these studies is on Western YouTube channels, Jing Zhao (2016) provides insight into how this process is occurring and is received in China. Jing Zhao argues that user-generated content initially made users enthusiastic about the possibilities, but as platforms encouraged professionalization, a sentiment of disillusionment has set in. This is due to the fact that users were now expected to consider their content, advertiser’s interests, and their audience, in order to increase their chances of their creations being seen. This process is referred to as that of “professionalizing amateurs”. The author also highlights the importance of platform politics and how amateur users are now expected to be aware of an follow these.
These theories have provided insight into what the professionalization and commercialization of YouTube means and how it affects the dynamic between platform, advertisers, and content creators, mainly focusing on the relationship between advertiser and platform. To understand how the content creators themselves also accelerate this process, it is necessary to understand how the rise in importance of social media influencers plays a role.
1.2.2 Self-Branding, Social Media Influencers, and the Role of Authenticity
The professionalization and commercialization of YouTube has not only been pushed by the platform itself, but also by some of its creators. Khamis et. al explores the concept of self-branding and how it translates into a new media environment. The authors argue that self-branding as we currently understand it, became popularized in the mid-1990s (1) reflecting a neoliberal
individualism at its core (2). While before Web 2.0 this was seen in the rise of “micro-celebrities” that gained fame through traditional media, particularly reality television, this can now also be seen with the increasing importance given to social media influencers (8), as platforms such as YouTube and Instagram return a sense of agency to creators with user generated content. But, Khamis et. al
are critical of the concept of self-branding as they consider it as being framed as individual freedom, when in reality it simply reflects the current state of market forces, where the concept of the self becomes commoditized (11). Bardinelli and Arvidson (as cited by Khamis et. al (11)), further mention that this commodification of the self also involves taking on responsibility for one's own success, which relieves responsibility from platforms.
This conceptualization of self-branding also reflects the theory of a “social factory” brought forward by Italian operaist Lazzarato. The operaists, also known as the Italian autonomist Marxists, or autonomists, were a political group focusing on the potential of the individual to disrupt, over that of the group. Hearn and Schoenhoff (2016) define this concept of the social factory as “a situation under contemporary capitalism in which work extends far beyond the temporal and spatial limits of traditional workplaces, eluding effective forms of capture and measurement, and capitals
productivity penetrates ever more deeply into all, including the more intimate aspects of our life”. Particularly in creative areas, which would fall under immaterial labor, this becomes more salient. To illustrate the increasing importance of self–branding for social media influencers on YouTube, Maguire uses the example of popular YouTuber Jenna Marbles. Maguire argues that self-branding is ultimately what allowed Jenna Marbles to turn YouTube into a full-time job (72). The increasing awareness of the ability to turn a profit on YouTube, and in this case on ones life - as Jenna Marbles is known for her vlogs – has made creators aware of the fact that they must create a persona that others are compelled to watch, and therefore to “buy” (78). This creates a new tension as part of the appeal of YouTube, especially that of vlogger’s, is the appearance of authenticity (78). This “slice of life” approach to sharing life must be consistently negotiated with a constant strive to portray a consistent and appealing personality.
Moreover, this tension becomes particularly relevant when considering that YouTubers are also financially benefited from portraying advertiser-friendly content. User generated content is usually lauded as being a way to show more authenticity in a mediated setting, especially when compared to traditional media (Tolson, 2010). YouTube in particular is seen as one of the platforms with the highest degree of authenticity from their content creators. But, this is not actually the case. Through a discursive analysis of beauty tutorials, Tolson (2010) finds that while user generated content on YouTube has its own particular conventions, it is not necessarily more authentic than other
mediums. Ultimately, this authenticity is an illusion. Thus, once again, this tension between seeming authentic, yet curating ones own brand in order to gain more views is highlighted in these findings. This illusion of authenticity can also be used to the advantage of advertisers, as certain forms of marketing such as stealth or covert marketing rely on “the intrusion and exploitation of social
relationships as a means of achieving effectiveness” (Martin & Smith, 46). This commercialization of social interactions becomes a point of interest for advertisers and content creators. Particularly since the adpocalypse, YouTubers whose content is not considered advertiser-friendly have had to search for other avenues of gaining revenue. Sponsorships have become a popular way of doing so. But, these sponsorships could be considered a form of covert marketing (source and explanation). While YouTube has increased regulations and forced them to be disclosed, they are not always done explicitly (46). Thus, this finding, paired with the fact that YouTubers are seen as more authentic and real than celebrity sponsors, shows that advertisers are also increasingly becoming more involved with content creators directly as well, influencing their content.
Thus, the professionalization of the platform has affected the dynamic between Youtube, YouTubers, and viewer. In its role as a platform, and therefore as an intermediary, by slowly
prioritizing the interests of advertisers to create a sustainable business model, YouTube has altered what content is prioritized, what is made, and what viewers expectations are. Moreover, with the rise in social media influencers and the increased lucrative appeal of the job, YouTubers have also become more aware of the interests of advertisers and are adapting in ways to conform to their standards. This entire process of professionalization has affected the role of content creators and is thus changing the way in which these creators communicate to their audiences, and what content they prioritize, being forced to negotiate several inerests in order to maintain their job as a YouTuber.
1.3 The Changing Role of YouTubers
Therefore, YouTube’s shift from an open platform for all to share their content and creativity, to a potential business venture that prioritizes the interests of advertisers as a sustainable business model, has also altered the role of their content creators. In this section, the new role of content creators brought upon by the professionalization and commercialization of YouTube will be addressed. Starting from a perspective that focuses on the reaction of content creators to this role, to further exploring what are the motivations of participation and interaction on YouTube.
Ultimately leading to an understanding of how creators use the platform to involve the community and contest this changing role.
Based on the literature relegated in the previous section, YouTube’s practices and policies could be seen as exploitative. Andrejevic provides a critique of YouTube’s seeming exploitative practices, by providing a Marxist, autonomist perspective, as the author sees this particular platform’s politics as a reflection of the pitfalls and tensions already present in the emerging
interactive economy. Andrejevic reflects that YouTube represents “a hegemonic tension between an amateur-led, individually-driven mediascape and a professionally led, institutionally driven
professional media landscape” (407). This tension has been explored and elaborated upon in the previous sections with Gillespie, Kim, Morreale, and Vonderau. But, Andrejevic also outlines three other main tensions, particularly in relation to YouTube’s consistent struggle between encouraging users to create content and upload it, and that of organizations wishing to protect their intellectual property. First, “there is the attempt to assert copyright claims and thereby to command the revenues that may eventually flow from them, [second], the attempt to gain control over user-generated data, and [lastly], the attempt to shape the media environment in accordance with advertising imperatives” (409). These unresolved struggles are important factors in the seeming exploitation that occurs on platforms such as YouTube, as the platform tends to take the side of advertisers and marketers (409). Andrejevic claims that this exploitation is possible due to the fact that content creation on YouTube falls under immaterial labor, labor that provides “autonomy from capital and an exploitable surplus” (417). This creates dissatisfaction on the end of the creators as commercial content with a high production quality become prioritized over “amateur” content. It is important to note that Andrejevic constantly criticizes the platform’s lack of responsibility towards its content creators, as well as the author’s propensity to be critical of YouTube and the advertisers. He does not acknowledge the agency that content creators have, or the ways in which a select number of them encourage this exploitation. Furthermore, Andrejevic does not further elaborate why or how disgruntled YouTubers react to this frustrating tension.
Shao and Khan both provide a more in-depth insight into why individuals are attracted to user generated content, and what drives them to it on YouTube in particular. Both authors use a uses and gratifications framework to drive their investigation. Shao focuses on the general reasons as to why individuals are attracted to user generated content. Ultimately, the author comes up with three. First, individuals wish to fulfill their information, entertainment, and mood management need and consumer user generated content to do so (9-10). Second, individuals enhance their social bonds by interacting with content, as well as other users - these users being both content creators and other viewers in the comment section (12). This is considered vital for the actual formation and maintenance of online communities, bonding them. Lastly, those that produce their own content do so in order to express themselves and self-actualize (13). Moreover, Shao also focuses on the reasons for user generated content provides gratification. Mainly, it is “easy to use” and allows individuals to have a sense of control over what they both make and consume.
regarding participating and consuming content on YouTube. In this study, the author finds that the top five reasons for engaging on YouTube are: information seeking, giving information, self-status seeking, social interaction, and relaxing entertaining (242). Furthermore, while giving information was the second most popular reason for using the platforms, it had the strongest relationship with sharing videos. This is explained by Khan’s statement that due to social media’s nature being that of promoting the highest number of user participation possible, its tools are ideal for providing information (243). Both studies by Shao and Khan procure an increased understanding as to why both the viewers of user generated content, and the content creators themselves still engage with user-generated content and return agency to individuals, rather than focusing on the external forces that govern the politics of the platform. With user generated content the line between creator and viewer becomes blurred, with an emphasis on the feeling of community.
While Andrejevic gives a glimpse into the reasons why YouTubers may be frustrated, and Shao and Khan explores the motivations of both the viewers, as well as the content creators, from a uses and gratifications framework, Burgess and Green provide deeper insight into how YouTubers themselves understand and negotiate these in practice. Particular that of YouTube’s “double function as both a ‘top down’ platform for the distribution of popular culture and a ‘bottom-up’ platform for vernacular creativity” (2). To understand how and why YouTubers interact on the platform, the authors focus on framing the platform as a social networking site, where the video content itself is the main form of contact and communication (3). Thus, the content creators, the YouTubers are considered to be the social core and those that are the main drivers for change on the platform (3). Burgess and Green highlight how YouTubers use community-oriented practices on a platform that does not initially provide many affordances directed towards such (4). This is
reflected in the existence of “reaction” videos – videos whose sole purpose is to react and comment on other content. While YouTube’s design does not allow tagging or annotating others videos, the fact that these videos are still popular and relevant today exemplify how users still work around this lack of affordance. This illustration is used as an argument that YouTube is riddled with user-led innovation (6). Lastly, Burgess and Green address the rise of meta-commentary on YouTube, attributing it to its “bottom-up” culture. This is seen particularly with vloggers addressing and explaining content about the YouTube community to the YouTube community (8). They also note that the vlog itself is a form of communication that “invites critique, debate, and discussion” (8).
These vlogs are not always perceived as nuanced discussion or criticism but as rants. While rants are generally considered “anti-social” (Lange, 2014), the community’s issues with YouTube are still properly addressed through them. Ranting provides an entertaining quality to these vidoes,
is crucial in drawing in and keeping viewers. Lange (2014) argues that ranting helps bring an emotional element into the public sphere and is more likely to create discussion about
communicative rights and privileges online, particularly on YouTube. Thus, based on these findings, these rants provide unique insight into how YouTubers actually feel about YouTube, and seem to have the power to elicit an emotional response from users, encouraging them to discuss the topic.
1.4 A Case Study: The Adpocalypse
The adpocalypse illustrates many aspects of the complicated relationship between YouTube, advertiser, and YouTuber. Firstly, it further establishes the fact that out of Srnicek’s five types of platforms, that YouTube is an advertising platform first and foremost. Its priorities lie with that of the advertisers, over that of their content creators. Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that Google owns YouTube, a company that is known for their personalized advertisements based on the data extracted throughout the web. Thus, YouTube is also subject to the same prioritization as Google. Moreover, the adpocalypse demonstrates YouTube’s role as an intermediary, as well as shows the need for them to be a stable foundation for their constituents, and breaks the illusion of platforms as neutral “curators of public discourse”, especially when they prioritize their own self-preservation. During the adpocalyse YouTube showed a preference towards advertisers, rather than towards their professional content producers, with the excuse that the end-users would correlate advertisements played before videos with potentially unsavory content with the product advertised. While presenting the topic of the adpocalypse to be in the interest of all, this mass demonetization was done mainly out of self-preservation, as YouTube would otherwise lose the advertiser money en masse. This selection of which videos became demonetized and which ones also shattered the illusion of the platform as a neutral, open entity that encourages free speech and public discourse, since certain content was allowed to continue making money, whilst others were excluded. While some “family –unfriendly” content such as gore or swearing seems logical since they are generally advertiser-unfriendly as well, other content such as LGBT content also has been consistently demonetized. Ultimately, the adpocalypse further confirms Gillespie’s remark that platforms must seek sustainable business models, just as traditional media do, and as such, carries the same tensions as it (Gillespie, 359).
Moreover, the adpocalypse also illustrates the professionalization and institutionalization of YouTube. Larger channels, those in which a significant amount of money has been invested in in order to achieve legitimacy, are more likely to have their videos reviewed if they are demonetized than smaller channels. With the large influx of videos that YouTube has to deal with everyday, larger,
more professional channels are prioritized over smaller ones. Furthermore, the frustration of smaller channels with this prioritization of more professional-looking ones that is illustrated in Jing Zhao (2016) is evident in the recent policy change brought about after the adpocalypse, with
YouTubers with under a certain amount of subscribers becoming ineligible for compensation from advertising.
Lastly, it becomes evident that the adpocalypse is also an extension of the changing role of YouTubers. It encapsulates the “hegemonic tension between an amateur-led, individually-driven mediascape and a professionally led, institutionally driven professional media landscape” outlined by Andrejevic (407). In the case of the adpocalypse those most affected by the changes are the YouTubers themselves, not the platform.
1.5 Conclusion
Based on these studies, several factors become evident. Firstly, Gillespie’s approach to platforms provides insight into YouTube’s role as an intermediary and its responsibility towards its
constituents, as well as self-preservation. This highlights the lack of neutrality on a platform that presents itself as neutral. Secondly, the section exploring the professionalization of YouTube introduces the idea of the institutionalization of YouTube, the shift towards commercialization, and how content creators adapt to it. Moreover, it addresses this shift not only from the perspective of the platform, but that of a select few content creators also accelerating a process that can be highly profitable for them by consciously self-branding. Lastly, the motivations as to why content creators are consistently interacting with user generated content on YouTube, especially content about YouTube, and the forms they are doing so provide new insight into how creators are regaining agency during a process where they are seemingly losing it.
Chapter 2: From Ex-Viner Turned YouTuber
to Ex-Viner Turned YouTuber: The Growing
Aggravation with the Paul Brothers on
YouTube
The exploration of platforms, platform capitalism, and platform politics, along with the analysis of YouTube’s relationship to cultural labor, the changing role of the YouTuber, and the professionalization of YouTube as a platform, have laid ground to begin understanding how YouTube has evolved over the years. This understanding provides a framework in which to
approach the research question “How do YouTubers use meta-commentary on YouTube to
communicate about controversies on the platform and to what end?” Through this framework, we can
understand the current YouTube landscape and analyze how YouTubers negotiate their place on the platform, especially when talking about events from the platform itself. The following chapter will elaborate on the research method done in order to answer the guiding question. The case study of the Paul brothers will be elaborated upon and explained, as well as the choice to use commentary videos on these prominent and polemic YouTube figures by ex-Viners in particular. Finally, the research process will be outlined, noting the steps and difficulties encountered.
2.1. Seeing the Death of a Platform: Ex-Viners Unique
Insight Into Platform Politics After the Vine Exodus
With many content creators commenting on events occurring on YouTube, about YouTube, certain YouTubers show a more niche perspective and expertise on the topic of platform politics in comparison to others. While there are a plethora of competent and entertaining YouTube
commenters, there is a niche of reaction channels that have rapidly gained popularity, despite their initial content being vastly different in nature: ex-Vine stars.
As a platform, Vine began in 2012, and was quickly purchased by Twitter as it unexpectedly blew up in popularity (Adweek Staff). The goal of Vine was to be a microblogging site that allowed for extremely short videos to be shared, whose unique features were its categorical grouping and the fact that the videos were endlessly looped (Adweek Staff). Initially received with skepticism due to its unique yet seemingly useless selling point of only allowing 6.5 seconds of video per blog, the platform rapidly gained in popularity due to the share-ability of the videos and its user-friendly interface (Kharpal). The platform was responsible for propagating viral songs into the mainstream and managed to create big stars such as Shawn Mendes and Lele Pons (Alexander). Its most popular categories remained that of music and comedy until its closure.
In 2017, despite its popularity, Twitter announced it was shutting down the popular microblogging site due to a lack of funds coming in from the platform (Kharpal). Their business model followed Srnicek’s description of a lean model: whatever is not profitable, despite being popular, would be discontinued (34), and Vine was no longer profitable. Vine was deemed an unnecessary cost for Twitter. Unlike other social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube, Vine did not run advertisements or mine data to sell to advertisers. This caused the platform to be considered unsustainable for the social media giant, since no revenue was coming in from this
enormous purchase. Not only was the platform not profitable, it was also unnecessary, since Twitter claimed that videos could be hosted on its own site instead (Kharpal). Although an archive of past Vines is still hosted online, users can no longer upload new content (Adweek Staff). Those that had primarily gained their fame through Vine were forced to search for an alternative to it. Some flocked to Instagram or Facebook, such as Lele Pons or Piques, focusing on lengthening or creating new comedy skits that reflected the type of content for which they became popular for on Vine. Other Vine stars decided to go in a completely different direction than what they were previously known for and create commentary, reaction, or review-style videos on YouTube. While these type of videos are still comedic in tone, they are not an extension or continuation of their Vine personas. Instead of stretching their 6.5-second videos to minutes long, they go a completely different route. Two such ex-Vine stars that was forced to find a new avenue for Internet fame and notoriety were the Paul brothers: Jake and Logan Paul.
Having seen the death of a platform before and having had to adapt to its demise, ex-Vine stars have a unique insight into the importance of platform politics, particularly that of the relevance of monetization. They have participated on a platform that refused to recognize the relevance and necessity of having a third party, advertisers, which not only provides an extra responsibility, but also gives the platform sustainability. As such, ex-Vine stars are more aware of the responsibility a platform has to both its content creators and its advertisers. Furthermore, since Logan and Jake Paul are ex-Vine stars, this means that they also have a better understanding of where the Paul brothers are coming from, compared to other YouTubers that create video essays, commentaries, rant videos, or reviews of other videos. Thus, the videos that will focus on meta-commentary and provide insight into the difficult relationship between YouTube and YouTuber will be those created by ex-Viners, particularly those ex-Vine stars who focus on creating lengthy reaction or commentary-style videos that are not simply extensions of their past content on Vine.
2.2. Case Study: The Paul Brothers: How Two Brothers
Showcase The Morally Ambiguous, Yet Extremely Profitable
Side of YouTube
Logan Paul created a stir online with his vlog in Aokigahara, at the beginning of 2018. This vlog - how it came to be, what it reflected from our current use of media and that of YouTube in particular, and its repercussions – caused it to be one of the most polemic and multi-faceted events in recent
memory in reference to YouTube and its platform politics. This vlog drew a magnifying glass to the concept of vlogging for views, and essentially, for profit. This focus was no longer relegated to only this video or Logan Paul's vlogs, but also to those of his brother, Jake Paul, who creates a similar style of videos. Both brothers speak to the same audience: pre-teens and teens. They also have similarly problematic approaches to gaining money and views: through disruptive behavior,
clickbait content, and persistent promotion of merchandise. Due to these reasons, the Paul brothers, Jake and Logan Paul, will be the topic chosen for the commentary videos.
YouTube has been prone to housing controversial content creators. With Internet fame becoming more lucrative, YouTube has always been one of the platforms in which this type of fame was possible due to its reach, as well as its implementation of a monetization system, AdSense, which will be further explained below. Before Facebook or Instagram introduced video content, when Myspace was still widely used, YouTube was one of the first sites in which viral content was shared. With a wide variety of videos such as “Charlie bit my finger” (premiere date: 2007), that depicted a comedic scenario that was captured during everyday life (Musguin-Rowe & Oakley), and “End of ze world” (premiere date: 2008), a Flash-animated video that epitomized the sense of humor on the Internet at the time (Farokhmanesh), YouTube provided a home to Internet sensations. In the advent of AdSense, YouTube’s monetization system that compensates YouTubers with money from the advertisements that run before or during their videos (“Monetization”), Internet popularity and fame from YouTube has gone from being a springboard to being a sustainable job. As this shift has occurred, some YouTubers who depend on the platform for their livelihood are more likely to lean towards either creating content with mass appeal or making their content as “click-worthy” as possible. “Clickbait” (videos whose thumbnail and title are dramatized representations of the content in order to make users more likely to click on the video) videos tend to have more views, regardless of the quality of the content (Smith) and YouTubers are aware of this. Thus, some YouTubers have begun churning out videos that are specifically meant to attract as much attention as possible, rather than to share a slice of their lives in an attempt to connect with others or express themselves in a creative way. These YouTubers will be prone to dramatics or exaggerations in order to gain more views, become more popular, and ultimately, gain more money.
Two YouTubers that epitomize this development are the Paul brothers: Logan and Jake Paul. The first that is accused of being this type of YouTuber is 22-year-old Logan Paul. While both Paul brothers are infamous on YouTube, with Jake Paul being previously considered the most egregious of the duo due to his creation of Team 10 and rude behavior (Chen), since January of 2018, Logan Paul has currently become the most ill-received of the two. Gaining his fame through Vine, once the
platform became unsustainable and it became known it was going to be shut down at the beginning of 2017, Logan Paul began investing more in his YouTube channels (Chen). The YouTube channel that garnered the most attention was his vlog channel. As of September in 2016, Logan Paul began uploading a vlog - a “video blog” detailing what occurred during a certain time-frame, giving a “slice of life” approach to filming - every single day. His vlogs tended to be outrageous, edited to be quick, digestible, and fun. These vlogs would show him showing off his wealth, commonly known as “flexing” (Chen), promoting his merchandise, or pulling pranks on those around him. With over 17 million subscribers, these vlogs have proven to be popular, particularly amongst the pre-teen to teen demographic (Chen). But, one vlog in particular that he posted in January of 2018 brought negative attention to his channel and caused him to stop vlogging consistently.
On the first of January, Logan Paul posted a vlog during his trip to Japan. While there already had been criticisms of Paul’s behavior during the trip, claiming his attitude and actions were culturally insensitive (Yam), this vlog crossed a moral line in the perception of many. In this vlog, Logan Paul prefaces the video by stating “This is not clickbait. This is the most real vlog I’ve ever posted to this channel” (Paul). He further continues saying “[he] think[‘s] this definitely marks a moment in YouTube history because [he’s] pretty sure this has never hopefully happened to anyone on YouTube ever. Now, with that said: Buckle the fuck up, because you’re never gonna’ see a video like this again!”. Despite his propensity to exaggeration, in this case, his words were applicable to the situation.
Logan Paul came under fire after visiting the forest of Aokigahara (“Sea of Trees”), also known as the “Suicide Forest” ("Aokigahara Suicide Forest"). This forest, located near Mount Fuji, infamously gained its name due to the high number of suicides that occur in it ("Aokigahara Suicide Forest"). In his vlog, Logan Paul visited this forest and joked about its reputation. With a few friends, he left the path marked for visitors and stumbled across the body of a suicide victim. Although he censored the body by blurring it, he uploaded the video with his reaction and that of his friends to YouTube. The vlog was ill-received not only due to the content, but, due to the tone of the video being more light-hearted and humorous than expected, by the public and YouTubers commented on the incident. Although Logan Paul released an apology video, this was still considered to be an insincere attempt to win back the acceptance of the public, as well as appease his relationship with YouTube. Eventually, after it already garnering 6,3 million views (Yam), YouTube took down Logan Paul’s vlog about Aokigahara. The platform also discontinued his series on YouTube Red, their paid subscription service with original films and series, and he decided to “take a break” from vlogging after the incident (Farokhmanesh).
Jake Paul, while not having such a monumental event that has garnered the same attention, has also been consistently criticized. With the constant promotion of his merchandise (more commonly referred to simply as "merch"), his over-the-top vlogs, his constant "flexing"(a term that
encompasses any activity where extreme wealth is shown off), and the rude behavior of him and his "team", Team 10, he has been the subject of many commentary videos on YouTube. Jake Paul tends to be considered an illustration of what is currently wrong with YouTube, more particularly of influencer culture on YouTube. Jake Paul's current subscriber count is lagging behind his brothers, with over 15 million subscribers. His audience, just as Logan's, is the pre-teen to teen demographic, most of them flocking to his channel after his success on Vine, with others being drawn to him due seeing him on the Disney Channel show Bizaardvark, a show which he was eventually fired from due to his online antics. His videos mainly consist of vlogs, similar to his brother. In these videos, he is seen pulling pranks, creating music, or showcasing the adventures of him, Team 10, and the Team 10 house. Team 10 consists of ten individuals, including Jake Paul, that live together and whom are all considered important online influencers. Their behavior tends to be loud and over-the-top, and recently have come under fire due to consistent complaints from their neighbours (Devoe), who are directly affected by their stunts.
There are a few key events associated with Jake Paul that have made him disliked by the YouTube community, not including the aforementioned noise and disruption complaints from their
neighbours. In early June 2017, Jake Paul released a heavily disliked (eventually becoming the 7th most disliked YouTube video to date) diss track titled "It's Everyday Bro" in which he bragged about his rapid YouTube fame, as well as all the money he made from said fame (Devoe). After that, he was surrounded by drama involving Team 10. Due to the Internet fame of all members, this drama was always public. But, this also led to many speculating whether the drama was actually real or simply fabricated to draw in more views. Over the span of 2017, xenophobic and racist comments from Jake Paul were unearthed and exposed, as well as previous classmates of his coming out and publicly stating that he was a bully in high school, after he released a video stating that he was against bullying and openly confronted bullies during his schooling (Devoe). Furthermore, his consistent prank videos, clickbait videos, and overt manipulation in regards to gaining more views and getting more money, have all kept his name in the mouth of YouTubers who criticize YouTube. Due to the behavior and events outlined above, Logan and Jake Paul are an ideal representation of a YouTubers complicated relationship with the platform that has caused their fame. As a product of their success, which they are simultaneously punished for, their approach to YouTube exemplifies the extreme version of the changes YouTube has undergone over the years. For this reason,
commentary and reaction videos from other YouTubers who recognize and understand this make Logan and Jake Paul a topic that are a suitable case study and object of review. Thus, videos commenting and reacting on the Paul brothers will be the target content that will be analyzed in order to answer the research question posed.
2.3 Approaching Video Essays and Rant Videos
In order to analyze the videos selected, a qualitative content analysis will be conducted. The research question posed lends itself to the identification of certain trends and patterns within the YouTube community, and as such, qualitative content analyses provide the ideal venue to explore it further (Elo & Kyngas, 2008). Specifically, I engage in discourse analysis of the videos pertaining Logan Paul by other YouTubers, and use them a prism for understanding the platform relation between YouTube and its content creators.
A judgment sample, also known as a purposeful sample, (a sample where the researcher actively selects the most productive sample to answer the research question) will be used. In this case, it will be a critical case sample: the subjects studied will be those who have specific experiences (Marshall, 523), particularly that of having experienced the death of a platform, Vine. Furthermore, not only will any ex-Viner's channel do, as there are many who have veered into different categories such as comedy (Liza Koshy and Lele Pons) or vlogging (Jake and Logan Paul), their area of
expertise are reaction or commentary videos, particularly those of a comedic nature. While this does not mean that all their videos on their channel must explicitly fit this category, the majority of their videos should be geared towards commenting on Internet phenomenon.
All videos selected for the analysis were explicitly about Logan and Jake Paul. Beginning with videos on the seminal suicide forest event, other videos such as follow-ups, content analyses, and reactions to comments from their fans, are also taken into consideration. Although the suicide forest incident is what cemented the general public's dislike for Logan, both brothers have a history of being infamous on the platform. Thus, the other videos provide a clearer insight into the general problems surrounding their content, which is ultimately what their critics focus on. Thus, based off of this selection procedure, nine videos from current prominent YouTubers and ex-Vine stars fit the criteria: those of Cody Ko, Drew Gooden, and Eddy Burback.
The comment section of each video are also integral in gaining a further understanding of how the videos are received by the community. Two of the Viners in question have videos
responding to hate comments by members of the "Logang" and of "Jake Paulers" (names given to the fans of each brother). But, they do not address their own commenters. With YouTube also being
a community, and one which the Vine stars are attempting to send a message to, the comment section is essential in understanding the reception of their videos.
In order to provide structure to the content analysis, the videos are broken down into the following categories: structure, talking points, language and tone, and visuals. The structure of each video was assessed and analyzed as it reflects the narrative that each YouTuber wants to create. The structure allows us to gain an understanding of the story these creators wish to communicate to their
audiences. The talking points reflect the main topics covered in each video. These were compared and contrasted to each other, with importance given to those that overlap, showcasing what these creators find the most important topics to discuss. Following that, it became necessary to address how the talking points are expressed through language and tone. Analyzing the language and tone of each video is essential in understanding what each YouTuber is presenting to their audience and how they wish to communicate their ideas. Lastly, the visuals were shortly taken into consideration, as videos also have an important visual element and each YouTuber has their own signature visual. While all of these elements were analyzed separately, the main element guiding the research were the talking points, as they overarched throughout all three videos, providing a framework in which to analyze the videos and comments.
2.4 Research Process
Thus, after selecting the criteria for the YouTube videos based on content and type of YouTuber, nine videos ranging from just under 10 minutes to 20 minutes passed the selection procedure and became the judgment sample. This range in length illustrates the different styles of commentary and comedic tone from each content creator. In order to encapsulate these differences, categories were created to analyze the content: structure, talking points, language and tone, and visuals. Due to the specific criteria of the video content and that of its creators, the sample was small. Furthermore, due to the fact that the sample was selected months afterwards, there is the possibility that certain videos are now less likely to appear in the search bar or inaccessible due to deletion (be it from YouTube or the creator itself). Videos on the Logan Paul suicide forest incident have been deleted before, due to unexplained reasons, as happened with PewDiePie's account of the events (Russell).
The videos were watched and their audio was transcribed. In order to aid the transcription process, the CC subtitles were ripped from the videos, using DownSub, a website specifically designed to rip subtitles from online videos, and later converted to text with SubtitleTools, a website which aids in converting subtitle files to an easy-to-read text format. These were used as the basis for the transcriptions, with the text being cross-referenced with the videos, and
corrections made where necessary. This was necessary due to the fact that some of the smaller channels did not have reviewed subtitles, thus not being an accurate representation in certain aspects. Visual cues were noted and paired with the audio transcription if relevant. Based on the transcription and noted cues, the videos were first individually assessed with the categories, and then ultimately compared to one another to see where there was overlap and where there were stark differences. Lastly, these were compiled and written in the following section in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding on how these YouTubers are communicating and what they are trying to communicate. They were ultimately organized in such a way as to emphasize the
overarching talking points that were relevant in almost all videos selected.
Chapter 3: The Response From Ex-Viners
Turned YouTubers
Based on the criteria established in the previous chapter, there are nine YouTube videos that encapsulate commentary-style videos on YouTube in regards to meta-commentary. The videos
chosen are from ex-Vine stars Cody Ko, Drew Gooden, and Eddy Burback – three of the many that re-gained Internet popularity by creating reaction and commentary videos, particularly focusing on Internet phenomena. First, a short introduction of each ex-Viner turned YouTuber is given in order to garner a better understanding of who these people are and what type of content they produce. This aids in creating a context for the content and form of communication in the videos selected. Then, these videos will be broken down into the important points of discussion brought up
throughout these YouTube videos, regardless of topic or YouTuber. In total there are six topics that these YouTubers bring to light in regards to YouTube and its toxic influencer culture, as represented by the Paul brothers. First of all, they reference the fact that these vloggers' viewers tend to be younger, and that they should curate their content in such a way that it is geared towards
benefitting their younger viewers. Second, they speak about the responsibility of older guardians in being informed about who and what their children are watching. Thirdly, responsibility is also relegated to the viewers themselves, pointing at the fact that we as an audience also have power in giving attention to certain figures. Fourthly, they focus on giving advice to the Paul brothers - be it sarcastically or seriously, they address them as peers and provide direction to them. Moreover, they emphasize the importance of humanity, especially in regards to coming off as an over-produced puppet, just as the Paul brothers seem to to these YouTubers. Lastly, they address the fans of the brothers - the Logang and the Jake Paulers - and attempt to illustrate how "ridiculous" the personas and behavior of their idols are.
3.1 The Ex-Vine Stars: Who Are They and What Do They
Produce?
3.1.1 Cody Ko: California Cool, With A Pinch Of Salt
Cody Ko, like the rest of the YouTubers from this group, became big on Vine. He attempted to build up his fan base on YouTube before Vine announced they were shutting down, although his subscriber count grew exponentially after the shutdown of Vine (Socialblade, n.d.). With the oldest active YouTube channel out of the three content creators (created on May 30th, 2014, and actively
posting since), he also has the highest amount of subscribers, having passed the 1
million-subscriber mark (Socialblade, n.d.). His videos tend to be comedic and off-the-cuff, with the most casual approach. This is highlighted by his use of language being the most informal, as well as the ever-changing backdrops of his videos, without there being a predetermined space for his videos.
The emphasis of his videos are on criticizing, commenting, or ranting about Internet phenomenon. This includes all platforms – from YouTube to Instagram, the focus of his content is on reacting to and talking about certain trends or events that occur online that deserve attention. His response to Logan Paul’s video on Aokigahara, the suicide forest, was the most popular of the three, uploaded only a day after the events occurred. Two of the videos analyzed are also part of a series he created on his channel called “F*ck This Guy” (and its extension: "F*ck These Commenters"). This series entails ranting about Internet personalities who are infamous due to their behavior or beliefs, as well as the comments he received from the fans of these personalities. The series is especially meant to poke fun at those that lack self-awareness.
3.1.2 Drew Gooden: Long-Form Commentary And In-Depth Analysis
Dripping With Sarcasm
Drew Gooden created his channel on YouTube at a later date than Cody Ko, on the 21st of
August 2015. While his subscriber count is almost half that of Cody, he still has a considerable following with over 540 thousand subscribers on his YouTube channel (Socialblade, n.d.). Just as with Cody Ko, his channel grew exponentially after Vine’s closure. His content is always comedic in nature, and tends to be quite lengthy, between the 15 and 30-minute mark. Like Cody Ko, he focuses on commenting on Internet trends or relevant figures. His reviews are more analytical in nature, while also being well planned, with occasional skits or scripted jokes. In his videos, he tends to interact with the content he is criticizing, responding by participating in events, even paying to be able to give an "insider look" to his audience. In the videos analyzed, we can see this particularly in his video on attempting to join Jake Paul's "Team 1000". Furthermore, he is extremely sarcastic in his reactions, similar to the other YouTubers featured, although to a larger degree. His videos are not as marked by intense emotional reactions, compared to Cody and Eddy Burback.
3.1.3 Eddy Burback: Awkwardness With Insight
Lastly, Eddy Burback is the one of the trio that has the least amount of subscribers, with just over 115 thousand. He has the oldest YouTube account, beginning in June 2011, but only posting actively since mid-2017 and gaining a large amount of his audience in October 2017 (Socialblade, n.d.). Just like his constituents, he gained the majority of his subscribers after Vine shut down. Similar to Cody Ko and Drew Gooden, he also chose to create commentary videos after Vine shut
