I wouldn't personally consider Danny Gonzalez and Kurtis Connor "reaction" KZfaqrs. Their stuff is more scripted comedy that is reviewing a piece of media, and I feel like that's transformative enough to be a different category than just the "literally leave the entire video playing and occasionally say something about it" channels. You can't really lump those under the same umbrella.

i watch charlie for him, not what hes talking about. he consistenly ads his own opinions and contributions to things. And i know most of his fans feels the same way. not to mention all the insane work he puts into original content

Anyone else just here to read the comments😂

Matt is unable to be wrong in this situation. If you don't add actual content and just talking about a video while playing a video, you are literally stealing content.

Theres one thing that I wish people paid more attention to, reaction content and commentary content is not the same. They both stem from the same concept which is watching things and reacting/commenting on them but there is a notable difference between the react channels that just say stuff like "What's that?" or pointing out the obvious and the well constructed jokes of commentary channels.

How is Kurtis Conner comparable to pokimane, xqc or hasan? He doesn't just leave videos playing while doing whatever else or eat and occasionally say something. Not every "reactor" belongs in the same category that viper criticises.

Matt is just objectively right about this. Unless you are reacting to something and genuinely adding a new layer of content, whether it be a well thought out, solid opinion, or some kind of planned out meaningful comedy surrounding the content, you are just stealing. You are taking views away from the original creator. I am not personally sure how you can possibly say DarkViperAU is wrong. He is objectively correct about the fundamental basis of the situation, being that reaction content in general is theft and only benefits the subsequent creators at the expense of literally anyone else.

There’s a difference between reaction and commentary. Curtis, Danny and Drew make commentary, Hassan, Pokimane do reaction content. Both are valid if it is transformative.

It’d be nice if KZfaq had an embed feature. So the reactor doesnt just screen record the video but imbeds the video allowing each KZfaqr to share the revenue

I have a genuine question for you - if I sit through an entire video of XQC reacting, in full, to another youtuber's video, barely adding anything except occasionally saying a sentence and pausing the video, why would I watch the video he reacts to? There is literally no reason for me to, I have already seen it in full. Even if it appeared in my KZfaq sidebar, there's no reason for me to watch it now.

I've never seen anyone be so wrong and so proud at the same time, congrats gabi

You should look into Jay Exci's similar situation that happened when Hasan "reacted" to their video while leaving for long moments and barely chiming in. I think this was a much better example of the failures of react streamers who will often use KZfaq content as a way to entertain their audience. And when like Hasan did, they don't even link or call our to their chat the name of the channel they got it from, that's where it feels pretty scammy

There’s a tricky balance between watching content and reacting to it, but Critikal is someone who I think does it well. Sure, there are some “react” channels that don’t add anything to the source, but he is not one of them.

Good job twisting vipers point to be "if you make any video resembling commentary or talk about anything trending then you're evil"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "rebroadcasting a video without adding anything" considered Copyright Infringement? It's literally providing an alternate way to view someone's 'original' work without transforming it enough to make it fair use.

IDK why people struggle so much to comprehend what DarkViper is actually saying, it seems to me that everyone got butthurt at the idea of not being able to make lazy content anymore. For those confused "fair use" is totally okay, and DarkViper says this many times. The whole point was stop stealing peoples hard work. If you wanna make a "response" video where you look at points, pause say your piece, and continue or cut ahead that's totally fine as it fair use. He's not saying nobody can ever show somebody else's video on their channel. Just that it should be transformative in some significant way. Idk about the rape analogy, it makes sense but it is a bit insensetive. sorry for the rant but this response felt very bias'd and poorly researched.

Video essays, critiques, etc. shouldn't be treated the same as reactions. The former are transformative, the latter mostly aren't.

I think it’s unfair that KZfaqrs who just sit there and react get more support than KZfaqrs who actually put hard work into their videos. Now I’m seeing more reacting KZfaqrs and it’s getting annoying lol it’s just the same stuff but different person.

I’m just gonna throw this out there, basically because it was the main focus that caught my ear, but free speech and fair use are different. They go hand in hand, but they are different. Fair use protects free speech. Free speech can be used to achieve fair use, but free speech does not achieve fair use alone. If someone uploads this exact video to their channel, but they added a 5 second clip in the video where they say something like “I do not agree with the views in this video.”, would not automatically make it fair use. It would not by default protect the person who stole your video from you claiming it. Even if through out your entire video if they repeated that same sentence once every minute would it by default be something protected. Your ability to speak freely does not give you the right to infringe on someone else’s work. Tons of people stand on free speech and fair use to post on KZfaq, yourself included, which is why I find it hard to believe that you can stand behind reaction content, but not see how streaming some tv show or someone else’s video in it’s entirety while the streamer is eating for 25 minutes instead of practicing their free speech for 25 minutes and potentially reaching fair use. Most major streamers who do reaction watch parties add nothing inherently transformative to the original video. More often then not they aren’t even engaging with the video. This video I’m commenting on now, you’re practicing your right to free speech, and it falls under fair use, you’ve transformed Matt’s video and used the required pieces of his video to make your freely spoken opinions understood. Matt’s video practices free speech and fair use as well. Neither one of you should have any problem with each others videos. You know what you should have a problem with though? If Matt ripped this video and streamed it to his audience while he went grocery shopping. Reactors get the benefit of original content creators work. It’s just what it is. At 17:20 you showed Charlie’s reaction video and showed how the original video is right there next to his reaction on the recommended, but what is clearly shown but not mentioned is the reaction video has over 3.2 million views and the original is sitting at 332,000. What Matt’s been saying for ages at this point is that if that reaction video did not exist those 3.2 million views would have either gone to the original creator or somewhere else. Where does not matter because with no reaction content they would all either be given to the original creator, another original creator, or the views wouldn’t exist because someone decided to do something else with their time that does not relate to directly watching a KZfaq video. The subscribers gained from the video is not equal per se to the difference in views or any monetary gain that comes with it. People are subscribed to tons of people, and with how much content is pumped out on KZfaq it is inevitable that people will simply forget they subscribed to someone because they are constantly overwhelmed with new things to watch. Subscribing to someone with how much content there is ultimately means nothing for the viewer unless they religiously go and watch that specific creator to feed them into the algorithm as a creator you actively watch. I’m not trying to be mean so I’m really sorry if this comes off that way, but this idea that copyright and ownership suddenly means nothing if you slap a “reaction” stamp to it now is really frustrating. Reaction content is inherently stolen content unless you actually practice fair use. It’s just that simple. If I eat cheerios while I watch this video and put it up on KZfaq, you personally, the original creator, may not care that I did it, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t steal your content and got paid for it and all I had to do was eat cheerios. There’s a reason that jinx got ran off the platform by the people who understood free speech and fair use and rightful compensation for work done, but now no one has to work, practice fair use to even practice free speech anymore, because they can react and get the same results at a faster pace and even paint their room while someone else’s work is getting them paid. Watching your coworker do their job doesn’t mean you get a piece of their paycheck. I don’t know how many other analogies have to be presented to get the idea through to people.

This seems strange to me because I thought Danny Gonzales’ genre was ‘commentary,’ and that a ‘react’ video would be more “i’m gonna sit down and watch this with the audience” instead of “I will watch the media, write a script of all my thoughts on it, then film myself performing the script alongside clips of the media.” Like how Jarvis Johnson will post Twitch streams where he watches Beyond Belief and Dharr Mann videos with the audience. While the amount of the content he shows could be argued about, he definitely adds value by making commentary and also creating games that he plays with the chat. As far as content like that goes, I did look up the Beyond Belief show to watch it in full. Did not look up Dharr Mann because I am absolutely not interested

It genuinely baffles me how somebody can lie so confidently.

17:16 never happens with me. Every reaction video I’ve ever watched I do not see the original video recommended. I just get recommended more reaction videos from the same channel.

The amount of fallacies you present whilst acting righteous speaks volumes on your persona. The falsification of evidence and malicious deformation shouldn't go unpunished.

Don't know about this one chief. To quote yourself: "It really comes across that you have no idea how any of this works." You are surely not the first or last person to completely miss the point by equating "I will watch this thing without saying anything" and "I will actively add something to this content to give it further context and make something new" One is what I would like to be called from now on as lazy socially acceptable intelectual theft and the other one should be called response video. Also, would unlist this video or add a pin comment to the video. Just an idea though. PS: You should have also done more research on the sausage guy. His channel was growing in views and subs before crit and the trajectory didn't signifiantly change after he stole the content. Also, also you have this suggestion cause you you serched it up. Again to quote you: "It really comes across that you have no idea how any of this works." I would highly recommed to unlist this video.

Matt’s video though a “reaction video “on Charlie’s response,is not really a reaction.Matto clearly says that watching someone else’s content without basically adding nothing to it is bad,if you only use small clips,and actually add some effort,it isn’t as bad.Matto adds quite a lot,and only used clips from Charlie’s response.

It's not about asking people to react to their content. Anyone is free to do that whenever they want. We tend to call them reviews. It is on the other hand about asking people if you can display their content while you react to it. What you can do is use clips of someones content to highlight points that you are making while you review their content but that's not what reaction content creators do. Most of the time they tend to show the entire thing only stopping now and again to add their opinions. This leads to huge swathes of content being displayed where there is no reaction and only particular small sections where there is some kind of reaction.

Gabi got a lot of things just objectively wrong in this. And calling an essay by somebody you disagree with "a manifesto" just screams out the gate bad faith. Gabi is an ok channel for hearing her thoughts on unserious things, but here she seems unwilling or unable to engage with the actual arguments being made accurately and in good faith.

Imagine this. You're a graphic designer. You spend lets say even 8hrs on a project for client who's taking applications Someone then copies your work and throws in a new bit here and there. This takes them 1 hour and significantly less talent as you've done 99% of the work already. They then pitch this to the client and they take the money. Don't worry tho they shout you out. They then find another piece of graphic desgin work someone has completed and do the same thing. Again takes them one hour. They sell it and get the money. In 8 hours they have 8 pieces of work of equal value in the time it's taken you to make 1. Would you be happy about this? Going around claiming it's free advertising for your graphic design work? Or would you be pissed and file a copyright lawsuit?

Gabi: “I’m coming from a factual objective standpoint.” Also Gabi: “After all it’s just my opinion.”

Example: you're in a college writing class. Your class is told to write an essay, due at the end of the week. You spend four days between researching, planning, writing, editing, finalizing. You have a great essay Now comes along your friend. They copy your whole essay, add a couple sentences throughout it, change your name to theirs, and submits the essay as their own. That took them MAYBE an hour That's plagiarism Now change essay to youtube video. You spend four days between researching, planning, recording, editing, finalizing. You have a great KZfaq video Now comes along your friend. They copy your whole video, add a couple sentences throughout it, change your name to theirs, and submit it as their own. That took them MAYBE an hour. That's react content

Imagine binging half of someone's library of videos, thinking they were pretty neat, and then watching DarkViperAU tear them apart using actual facts and logic. Bruh.

Charlie isn’t really a reactor. He does so much more than that. Also he actually adds very good and funny commentary. Also without him reacting to “Red Dress” , I would’ve never been recommended your version of the song.

How about this for an example. You're a graphic designer, you went to school and shit for it. You create a sick artwork to put in your public portfolio. I, John McReacton, press right click, copy, paste it in Photoshop, add my signature, put it in MY public portfolio. How d'you feel about that ?

There is no ethical reason to use someone elses work in its entirely to prop up your own wealth. If you believe a millionaire watching a smaller creators art and profiting off it; whilst also reducing exposure from the original creator is unethical, then I dont know what to say. Except that you are a bad person and you should feel bad.

Try not lying in your videos

"I think we can all agree that react channels that do nothing while videos play are bad." No twitch streamers don't agree. That's literally the issue.

Idk, personally i think that dviper has a very strong and good point, maybe bad expressed on those videos but clear on the other saga

If I were a company that has hired you in the past I'd feel embarrassed for being involved with someone who is either this stupid or this purposefully malicious and mischievous

I know this is an old argument at this point, but you seemed to misunderstand what Matt considers "reaction" creators to be. When he's saying "react" content, he's referring to people like Asmongold or Jynx who would sit there saying nothing with no idea if they will even have an opinion on what they are watching and are practically reuploading other people's content. It confuses me how you misunderstood this when you showed the screenshot at 29:12 where he says that people like Kurtis Connor, Danny, or even you are not "reactors".

the problem is, no one needs to watch your video if they can just watch it on a reaction channel. A lot of these people title the video with the same title of the original video. Hasan does this a lot, with minimal commentary. People work their asses off making long form scripted videos so some reaction douche can stream it to thousands of people.

Suggesting a reactor is akin to a much more skilled freelance graphic designer -- Even though in this comparison someone would be stealing the graphic designs whole cloth -- has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard in a long time.

I literally cannot imagine using your mental illness as an excuse to misrepresent someone’s ideas. As someone who HAS ADHD, how dare you equate all of us to your low standards?

“Facts and logic” and “that’s just my opinion” kinda contradict each other 🤷‍♂️

I've followed a bit of DarkViper's drama with xqc specifically and idk, the dude has a point. Maybe not every single point in his 14 page rant, but such a huge chunk of react content is lazy and is stealing revenue from actual content creators because copyright laws are messed up. He initially got bent out of shape because his own content was being lazily reacted to a bunch. Dude is definitely unhinged tho. I think implying smaller content creators are uneffected because no one would be watching them anyway is a bad take and dishonest. If there was a lot less shite react content out there, then people would obviously be watching something else and I'm sure a percentage of that would be smaller content creator's content.

Gabi, it's a shame to find out you made this video. I had seen some of your videos a while ago about Gordon Ramsey and a few other random topics so I liked you, but this is extremely disappointing. I would have never thought you would defend stealing content.

Ah yes mizkif is a very good person to be standing behind, atleast when he’s not covering up SA☠️

You know why Matt is right about react content? Recently Charlie made a vid about the Oompaville thing where he got scammed for a truckload of money and then made a vid about it. Charlie doesn't actually REACT to Oompa's vid in his own or even shows a single frame from it, he actually asks his audience to go check it out themselves and links it in the description If react content brings in so much exposure to small creators and is so much of a quid-pro-quo thing why wouldn't Charlie do that to his friend in need?

She went up against someone who was way too qualified for the level of argument she made and then called the misleading and debunking video as her opinion on the same thing.

22:35 I find this part the most ironic part of the video. You say your sister is an expert in impressions and marketing for 10 years and knows exactly how it works, and then after she gives you an answer you IMMEDIATELY say she's wrong :)))

🎉 Congratulations Gabi! You've got a response from DarkViperAU!!! Too bad it's a 1hr25mins long well-thoughtout response that you'll probably don't understand anyway. But Congrats!

"There is not a finite amount of impressions" Yes, there is. There is a finite amount of KZfaq users with a finite amount of time.

It was really hard to sit through this whole video lmao. Crazy how much bias can affect ones ability to look at a situation objectively and admit fault... React content is objectively left.

I have to agree with Darkviper to some degree it’s not as dramatic as he makes it seem but there is a change to the algorithm due to reaction content hell if you try searching for some videos you’re likely going to see reactions to that video instead of the original video itself which is wild and it does take away some revenue because I watched someone react to something why tf would I watch it again

PS. If we applied your definition of free speech, I can just download a movie, put it on my stream and pause it once in a while and say "hahaha that'S funny I like that guy"... because free speech doesn't allow you to just steal someone's work and add nothing to it. That's why we have copyright and Fair use.

React channels literally steal from people I don't understand what's so hard to get ? Also next time use facts please and thank you.

How can you be a commentary KZfaqr and not understand the situation 💀

I think there's been a weird mixing on Reaction content and Response content lately. Because the vast majority of Reaction content is the same lazy junk that has been around since the days of Jinx getting mocked by Jacksfilms for reacting to Jack's content and hardly adding anything. I personally refute the idea that Reaction content lifts up the content that is reacted to, because the vast majority, especially the more famous and popular channels, only really react to already viral or popular content. Because hoards of fifteen year olds watching Pokimane watching Avatar is totally going to bring Avatar into the public consciousness, of which it has NEVER been a part of before. Sure, SOME of the content might see a boost in one way or another, like a handful of pennies being thrown into your face, but most Reaction content are flying in the original content's slipstream, hardly ever contributing back anything meaningful. It is a pretty obvious fact that of plain and pure Reaction content, a fairly generous estimate of 85% of it could be DMCA'd off the planet with no leg to stand on. Because again, Reaction content has not substantially changed since the days of Jinx, it just seems people fail to have eyes and can't differentiate between critically analyzing content and watching content with your brain switched off.

Since I'm rambling. I actually discovered your channel after Moist reacted to the Red Dress video and KZfaq recommended your version of that to me. If it wasn't for Moist's reaction,, I would have never been able to sub to your channel and enjoy your content.

It seems like you didn't read/understand the essay or watch his videos on the topic. He specifically defines react content as watching a video for the first time in full while recording yourself hitting the pause button occasionally and giving poorly thought-out, real time, often nonsensical ramblings on a video that will often address the very thing your talking about if you just let it play out. This type of content is almost never going to result in a high quality transformative reaction, nor is it really fair that they just play your video in full. It shouldn't be hard for them to watch it before hand, see if its worth reacting to, then editing out specific clips from it as needed. But with the way they're currently doing it, particularly on twitch and stream dumps on YT, they definitely need to be asking consent because IT IS NOT LEGAL. Thats right, look up the 4 major points of fair use, this type of content violates points 3 and 4 easily. Ask yourself, why is it wrong to do it with a show or movie, but cool to do it with someone's YT content? That content belongs to them. As for the argument that if this content didn't exist, then maybe people will just spend less time on KZfaq.. Yea, fair enough. DarkViper does mention this briefly, and his response is that it doesn't really matter, and he's right. If you stop watching KZfaq then you're very VERY likely to become a consumer of something else. Maybe you'll watch Netflix (then Netflix benefits), maybe you'll play a game (then the ecosystem of that game benefits, or you'll eventually beat that game and likely buy another game), maybe you read a book (and you eventually finish that book and buy a new book). Even if you argue something as ridiculous as- well.. maybe I'll play solitare with myself. First off, those cards had to come from somewhere, and I 110% guarantee you won't be able to sustain your entertainment needs on solitaire alone. You'll have to move on to something else, eventually becoming a consumer of something. Ideally something ethical, unlike this style of react content. Mind you, I'm only 8 minutes in your video and you already had a number of heavily flawed arguments. I would consider deleting this video. It's not very good.

DarkViperAU is not wrong though. You just misrepresented him and ranted about whatever misrepresentation figure you drawn.

I don't think you really understood his points or didn't watch his video? You bring up that they'll leave the site and consume other content, but he already acknowledged that argument. Saying that even if they leave the site they're still going to consume (any) other content that actually deserves the impression, rather than watching a streamer who is keeping those impressions lazily and isn't doing anything to earn those viewers on stream

ALTERNATE TITLE: Gabi Belle Accidentally Propogates the Capitalist Myths of Infinite Growth and Trickle Down Economics

Some of his points have been proven right. XQC literally posted whole video of content creator, and KZfaq promoted XQCs video before the actual creator.

My problem with most react channels is they'll do everything possible to hide the channels watermark to make it impossible to figure out who the creator is. Idk if it's to engage comment interaction or what. If I see someones reaction and they are laughing at it and I think it's funny as well I'll want to go see that creator, when I can't get any information on that creator how am I supposed to find newer creators that need subs and views? As long as the react videos keep the creators information in the video or credits them in the chapter section sure. And some of these react videos are re-uploaded and cropped/edited via multiple channels to the point the video quality is so shit it's unwatchable. Reaction videos can be great as long as the original creator is able to be found and the reactor is actually funny. There is one female one that is beyond terrible with her videos and she is one of the names that sparks the debate of "reaction videos being bad"

I agree with matto and dont agree with gabi bellybutton

Either double down (despite being wrong) or provide an apology in the comment section, etc. You have been thoroughly debunked by Matto and this video has no point

Your argument of why it doesn't matter that it took the original creator of a video significantly more time to produce than it did a react streamer is done in such bad faith, too. Snapping back at DV's point with you saying that it can take a professional creator less time to produce something than an amateur is nonsensical when the person for whom it takes less time to put out the same product which often times is competing in the same space, is taking video of themselves watching something that took somebody else hours of research, editing, scripting, etc. to do, regardless of skill level, who now gets none of the ad revenue, or algorithmic rewards of getting the views from the video. If asmongold or mizkif (pedo, btw) watches the entirety of somebody's half hour long video essay, if the streamer's audience liked it, they have barely any incentive to seek out the original creator, and even less incentive to watch the video again.

mf lied so much lmfao

I'm curious if you have any updated views on the topic since DarkViper has actually made a more detailed and thorough video describing the problems with react streamers. A lot of things that were communicated poorly in the original essay are more clearly defined. A few examples... The definition of reactor not including reviews or opinion pieces on certain content. Like this video would not fall into the react category. Also, what impressions are. You were talking about impressions in regards to specific topics; however, DarkViper was talking about impressions in regards to the videos put in a person's recommended.

There's always this one stinky video that makes me unsub

I've watched this video from beginning to end and my conclusions is that she jumped on a band wagon to get views and if she call someone unhinged for making a 47 min response video what does that say about her making a 35 min react video.

I’ve seen a few reaction channels and they literally just sit in the corner of the screen saying nothing until the end of the video

If people was react content because they like the reactor you say . Then it should not matter if the don’t create those lazy react videos anyway. you seem to be grouping all react videos in one category. How are you not getting this . Yours seems to be a perfect example of a good react video.

I love that things have come full circle with reaction videos.

theres a thin line between bad and good reaction content. i wouldn’t consider kurtis conner, danny gonzalez or many others in the same group as people who just silently watch a video and make a comment every 30 minutes

This is a topic that I have strong feelings about, and I agree with DarkViperAU

KZfaq needs to implement a system similar to TikTok duets, where a creator can watch a video or stream a video and both channels get views and ad revenue, that could totally solve the problem on KZfaq even though twitch would still be a problem

i think Charlie actually adds content to the videos he’s reacting too, i often get annoyed because he pauses the video way too often, but that’s what makes it special and new content

so if i reacted to this vid made more money and views u wouldnt feel anything?? mind u i didnt even apply an hour of effort?

So you are an artist, right? If i take your art and i draw a little smiling face in the corner - am i allowed to sell your art as my own?

There's react and response. If there is some alt-right podcast / Ricegum drama and you make a RESPONSE (as in, going over what he says, saying why it's wrong etc.) it's different from REACT where you just watch a video about ricegum's drama and say "LOL HE'S DUMB"... if you make a response, where you have some critique, arguments etc. it's transformative.

Reaction content for the most part is personality based, but also can be useful when doctor/hairstylist react to or just being the medium to not engagge to content that you are curious but not gonna watch for whatever reason like a js video.

Asking permission IS IMPORTANT. DON'T ever let this person tell you otherwise. No one should be allowed to lazily reuse content of yours and just react to it. Review and commenting on something is fine, but it is absolutely a big issue when someone lazily reacts and reuses the entirety of your content and reacts to it with no substance. That is a huge artistic issue that I would assume an artist like Gabi would understand. It felt so strange hearing her argue otherwise.

I like how much you misinterpreted or just lie so it fits your narrative 😊

The description to this video is extremely hypocritical with all the insults and jabs you threw at DV throughout the video

And to think at some point I actually believed you had a working brain ☠

The fact that Danny Gonazales, someone who DEFINITELY DOES NOT make the react content Darkviper was addressing, is one of your primary arguments in this video, proves you don't actually know what you are talking about.

terrible take there gab

It just sounds like she’s Charlie’s #1 fan, and to her Charlie can do/say no wrong 😂. Saying this as a fan of both Charlie and DarkViperAU myself, just unbiased unlike her

Having watching some of your other videos I'm surprised you're not embarrassed by the low quality of this one. Honestly it makes me question the quality of your research in other, much better videos...

You can’t claim to take an unbiased approach to reviewing a debate and then use words like “unhinged” when explaining one sides argument. How can anyone trust what you’re saying if you can’t even stick to the most basic premise you laid out at the start of your video?

honestly its hard to believe you even read the essay or did any modicum of research. I would have been embarrassed to so brazenly be so wrong about a topic.

It's really funny how you made a video while seeming like you have not watched or read any of the videos and documents you're talking about all the way through.

Is that the Roadrunner Coachella hat you're wearing at 33:00? I miss mine. Keep up the good work. :)

Do research you didnt even understood a single word

Hello Gabi, No one is attacking free speech, you know... Nobody said that you need to ask permission first to make a video about sb, except you? Eh Just try not to watch their entire video on stream. That's all... shortly speaking/=being a decent human and not copy the work of others.

Matt was right, this video was made lazily while at the same time lying even though you can be proven wrong by just reading the essay that he made

i feel like if gabi wants to wave off any criticism she's getting for making horribly illogical points and prove that she's changed from this video, she should make some kind of response either rebutting viper (after actually watching his whole video and reading the document) or admit she was wrong and unlist the video. fairly easy out in my eyes. dont think she'll take it though, she doesn't seem like the kind of person to care enough about blatantly spreading misinformation.

I would say it is theft to an extent. There are streamers that play a video to the fullest without giving commentary. Which doesn’t make it transformative at all. Especially when they are a popular streamer and how they don’t get any punishment while other content creators do. React content isn’t bad (it is a bit lazy) but there are standards that make it so content creators don’t get reported or demonetized.

Matto has been talking about you on stream, it looks like a video from him is on the way. A storm is coming and all I know is that it’s gonna be really entertaining. The video should be an interesting watch when it’s released