The Ethics of Reaction Content
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 07. 2024
- #philosophy #reaction #ethics
Every now and then, people on the internet discuss the ethics of reaction content. In this video, we take a look at the arguments people typically make, and whether they are any good.
For more input on the debate on youtube, see
• Why React Content Harm...
Stock footage by:
Pexels.com
Great video, I appreciate the multi-theory approach to exploring ethics questions, because not everyone subscribes to the same theoretical basis for ethics, so this way everyone can hear arguments that may appeal to them specifically. On that note, we might consider adding discussion of contract theories. Another good way to look at it may to be to ask what's in everyone's mutual interest and if we can plausibly act according to a social contract that facilitates those interests. It's best for original creators if they are sufficiently supported to make the best content they can, it's in the interest of reactors that original creators can make the best content they can (because then there is more great content to react to), and of course, that is also good for the viewers. If this is true, then some kind of revenue-sharing scheme may solve that. On the one hand, there is value to reaction/response content, which varies, but it's probably fair to say that a reactor is entitled to some of the proceeds of their video because they created value, and we want reaction content to continue and be sufficiently funded. Many reactors may react to the same video, and if they all shared a portion of the revenue from the videos with the original creator, that original creator would be sufficiently funded at a small cost to any individual reactor, while the benefit to the reactors is that there is more great content to react to. It's not an argument about who deserves what, but of what's best for everyone. There are plenty of specifics to work out empirically, of course. But at least this makes sense to me.
True, so true... gonna react to this one on my stream
very meta!
Something that I think about when considering this is the responsibility of the audience. The effects (that most are concerned with) of reaction content on the original creator are mostly only possible because of audience choice. The audience can choose to reject reaction content and go directly to the original, if they like. The problem identified is of course if reaction content simply adds value for many viewers, then they would have no reason to choose otherwise. Then the important question is mainly about enforcing some sort of copyright ethics. The question is how to determine attributions for a video. The reaction content creator would have a disincentive to label these attributions (unless the system also incentivizes correct labelling by the reactor), so the system would probably have to rely on labelling by original creators. To avoid fraud, these labels would need reviewing, and to avoid flooding with spurious requests, these label requests need some limiting force. They could cost money to a review. The price could be hard to pick, and could be based off the original creators ad revenue for scale. Or perhaps there would be a time limit between them. Detection is still a problem, as is determining the amount due to the original creator. Of course now I'm not really speaking of ethics, but implementation.
Nice edits 👏🏼
This channel is so slept on
❤❤❤
Music reaction videos that are titled "My First Time Hearing" that feature some massive hit from the last twenty to thirty years seem disingenuous unless the creator has been living under a rock.
Ethics vs Morals:
Ethics: True analysis of the contextual impacts of suffering on behavior, and vice-versa.
Morals: Dogmatic rules devoid of any true meaning or intent.
(Kantian deontology)
Kant can suck it.
i'd like to point out that you are fundamentally lacking a major part of why reaction content is immoral in this context, and that's the goal of the material being reacted to.
for instance - you show a reaction of a Star Wars trailer as an example of a good reaction, however the issue here is you are equivocating material that is designed as a standalone product vs a product with an alternate goal. this is fundamentally wrong, and at worst, dishonest, as the intent behind the material very much matters when looking into an argument regarding the ethics of the material.
Reacting to a movie trailer, an announcement, a new content update for a video game, a government broadcast, etc, are fundamentally different from reacting to a stand alone video or movie.
The reason for this is somewhat self evident, but like many things, it comes back to money. these alternate goal products do not have anything resembling the goal that say an animator on CZcams has. Those producing these alternative goal media products do not really care about any revenue they generate from the video itself, as their real desire is for a consumer to interact with their secondary product (movie tickets, buying a game, etc) and as such having people react to them is actively in furtherance of this goal. This is a symbiotic relationship at its heart, as both parties get exactly what they want, and the morality of this situation really can't be called into question as such. there can be no moral quandary when all parties involved are benefiting to the maximum extent, with no real drawback. (To be clear, this does not include when someone is actively hiding their partnership with a brand while reacting to their content. in this instance, the viewers are actively a victim of a plot by two entitites, as the content creator in this content will be compromised such that they will be playing the part of a salesperson)
However this does not apply to people who are making a product with no alternative goal, people who create just an individual video that is a standalone product on their channel, and their goal is simply - views/subscriptions/advertising. Reacting to this content does not benefit the creator in any way, and actively harms them by creating an environment where a content reactor bizarrely has to compete against... themselves for views. As such these reactors are not only damaging the content creator directly, they are standing to profit off them, this relationship is fundamentally parasitic and just not comparable to the symbiotic relationship seen from products with a secondary goal.
I think failing to address the major issue of intent pretty much invalidates any talk regarding how reaction content can be justified vs unjustified.
Finally, more to clarify, it is important to note this is just in regards to showing the entirety of the content on offer, and isn't really going the nature of reviews which fall into a different line of ethics just due to the nature of what a review entails, where it is very much important that the creator of a review and the company do not have a symbiotic relationship.
I don't even think I disagree with any of this -- the notion that reactors react in order to prolong their stream, gain impressions, make money, etc. is present for the whole video. I chose the star wars reaction clip in that one scene you reference, because there I talk about there being something valuable in seeing someone's raw reaction to something (that something need not only be a trailer)
Reaction content is scummy and parasitic; response videos that require editing and, dare I say, thought put into them are at least a little better. But that's just my opinion.
If reaction content is rewarded more than original content, then there will be less quality original content. therefore, reaction content itself isnt the problem, but rather the problem is how we reward it relative to original content. @ishmaelmcgoo2945 touched on this too. On the other hand, maybe this is an intended byproduct of our darwinistic society, where reactors are like parasites which feed on the weak, or is indeed predatory as proposed in the video. Are we going to see a youtube version of a karl marx communist revolution from the proletariat "original content creators" against the bourgeoisie "reaction content creators"? or are we going to see them placate the angry OCC by increasing the quality, getting consent, or "paying" them more so that the inequity isnt so obvious? lol
youtuber proletarian revolution sounds awesome lol, what ever that would mean :D yeah I also suspect that (at best) reactors will ask for consent more and maybe share revenue (some of that is already happening, I think)