I wish more streamers would do that early on. Pirate Software in one of his shorts made a point of small streamers not haaving a tendency to do that for fear of losing a viewer but that's the wrong way to look at it. People should be timed out or blocked in order to make the experience better for everyone. A channel will grow fast if it's known that the streamer takes care of the chat and makes sure it is a pleasant experience for all. And time outs can be a considerable period as you don't want the nuisance being a nuisance repeatedly but at the same time if he behaves that he can still contribute to the chat too.
That's a very mature and thought out response to the situation and has earned my respect for her and probably makes her one of the safer streamers to be around.
The point of red flags is to inform you that you should keep in mind that the person might be approaching you with ill intent. It’s not a damning piece of evidence OF ill intent like people think.
I feel like the problem on the low-intensity non-criminal side of this is that the rules of social interaction across several different lines have all changed, but there's no up-to-date "rulebook" yet. So, everyone's stuck with different editions of the "rulebook," frantically scribbling in the margins what they think is up-to-date information, whether from observation or just because they think so, and everyone's confused, scared or angry about people not adhering to the completely unstandardized rulebook that they're carrying around.
If that's the case everyone needs to take a step back and take a breath and really calm down. Using the power to destroy another's reputation can have far reaching consequences for innocent people. As a really good look Dr. D does admit talking to a minor through Whispers but nothing illegal, the really big issue is why the hell is Twitch allowing minors to access the platform, that shouldn't be. Twitch has some guilty hands in this even more than Dr. D as he went and sued them and won as well he got a settlement that included an NDA, which the former Twitch mod voided by talking publicly. But he had a hate on because of Dr. D's politics whih we have to put aside yes differences of opinion exist, no reason to become a nasty person out to destroy another. And no Dr. D does get off scott free but the person that needs to take him to task if anyone live with him its not our business at all. I have no intention to get involved in marital disputes
I've only ever unfollowed two vtubers from social media (one went back to what they were doing before vtubing and pretty much suffered no consequences for the harm they caused to the community.) There's also like 15 or so creators that I didn't follow in the first place that I muted while a drama was blowing up so I wouldn't see the dog-piling. The end result is that I end up seeing very little of the drama because it's always going to be the same (large creators) who end up causing the dog-piling in the first place.
It's always a bit fascinating whenever there's a cancellation that's clearly a "he said she said" sort of affair between known quantities and you see "instertnamehere DEBUT:TBA" weighing in like "so and so was a bit rude to me after i tried to ride their tailcoats to success" Like it's either the vtweeters who blow it out of proportion or people who have nothing to do with the person getting cancelled. Whenever i see various small time creators weather they be artists or rigger or etc, and they say "i'm never gonna work with so and so because they had an opinion trend that was out of context!" and then you open their feed and they have a go-fund-me for something like rent or medical bills and i'm just thinking "bro, you're in dire straits. why are you burning bridges that could be your saving grace?"
Getting "cancelled" on twitter amounts to "some people get mad and loudly say you suck because they know they have zero actual power to do anything about the wrongs in society."
I'm not gonna say names, but I know of someone who was cancelled on Twitter and Reddit, and that psrson attempted to take drastic actions you often can't take back when things went extremely south (avoiding the s word due to censoring). They are alive thankfully, but after that, I have absolute vitrol towards anyone trying to cancel another, regardless of the problem.
People need to stop calling online harassment "cancelling" someone. Cancelling someone is when the internet collectively says "nope, I'm out" and fucking unsubs/unfollows/whatever someone, not harassing them to the point of attempting to take their own life.
this approach is very good for personal dignity. i also think it's fair however to ring the public alarm bell for others if the evidence is conclusive but community consensus is either not so or isn't aware at all. Mr. Beast for example is still holding strong despite the mountains of evidence, as his core audience are not people who would be readily exposed to this information. the only way they would know en masse is if Mr beast acknowledged it himself, which is why he hasn't.
I have friends who have opinions and ideas that don't quite line up with mine. I have friends who do things that I wouldn't do, and have done things that would cause a stranger to be concerned. They're still my friends, because disagreement is not supposed to be a deal-breaker. You're *supposed* to be different people, with some similar ideas and some different ideas. This is healthy. Having points in common is how you relate, and having points of difference is how you challenge and expand your perspective of things. And I'll never understand the people who will hear their current favorite entertainer say the "wrong" opinion, and immediately try to go as nuclear burnt-bridges as possible about it.
This "creep" conversation is very necessary, if you dig up what actually happened with lab zero and mike_Z you would see it's just some autistic dude said some stuff and got cancelled, nothing actually happened
Honestly, when someone alleges (keyword: *alleges)* someone doing illegal shit, our first question should be "Did you go to the cops first before you made this post?" I don't fucking trust Gabbie Hannah or Tana Mongoose, but if a court of law can prove what they're saying about Cody Ko is true so be it. Same for Dogpack and the shit he said about Mr. Beast.
This might be a little long and weird, but Im kinda confused with how to feel about some of what she is saying. For example at 2:56 to 3:11. Is she saying she is indifferent or tolerant of someones actions and words unless it has to do with her or is bad enough? As an example, like if someone was rude to people regularly but they werent a racist or bigot, then she is okay with that because she doesnt know them and is just there for the content. I understand not needing to care about an entertainer's life, but I feel its weird to be okay with certain things because you arent their friend. Im just confused. Maybe someone could help clarify things I may have misinterpreted.
It's not indifference, it's admitting you don't know the person and that the schoolyard squabbles are not something you are in a position to ascertain. When creators are accused of genuinely terrible crimes etc there is a lot more in place for that creator to defend themselves and it matters a lot more. But when someone accuses creator X of being rude to a waiter offstream and wants the world to shun them for it (for example) 1) you can't prove or disprove 2) you aren't aware of the full circumstance (perhaps the waiter tried to scam them and they just raised their voice) 3) none of this matters to any extent compared to accusations of violence or sa 4) allowing people to cancel over trivialities with no falsifiable information gives a massive opportunity for fakers to try it for creators they don't like. That's why people urge this sort of public shaming to be reserved for the truly heinous stuff that actually needs to be out there for the welfare of an audience (whether it's an r accusation or a creator scamming their audience) rather than "was a bit of a bastard to me personally" type stuff
@@gigitrixI understand not jumping to conclusions especially on smaller issues without proof, but that is only a thing she talked about at the start. In the part that I timestamped she is talking as though something on the smaller side was in fact the situation and how it doesn't matter because even though she watches them she doesn't know them and that makes it okay. With that being said I'm not saying that people can't make mistakes and can't be forgiven, but the way she is talking about it makes her sound indifferent to the actions of someone she spends time watching
@Kodabear6275 Again, you are misinterpreting the point. She is not saying that bad actions are okay if they actually did a bad thing. What she is saying is: 1. She doesn't have full context of the situation to make a call whether that person did a bad thing or not so she can't make an informed decision on whether the person is guilty or innocent. And instead of accusing the person over assumptions and little to no facts, she will instead remain impartial until more info is brought to light. 2. She doesn't know the person well enough to waste her time getting the full context or info over some petty online drama that is not going to matter to her or her community. If it was a more serious allegation or affected her friends or community in some way, then she could justify spending her time looking into it. 3. If she can avoid the mindless dogpile/witch hunt the internet seems to enjoy with their putchforks and tin foil hats and their need to cancel everybody over small and trivial things, then she would much rather avoid all that and do something much more productive with her life. It's really not that difficult to understand really and is actually the healthier and more mature action to take in these types of situations.
ignore and block is more powerful than sending hate or dogpiling. If they can't be seen they can't be heard.
I wish more streamers would do that early on. Pirate Software in one of his shorts made a point of small streamers not haaving a tendency to do that for fear of losing a viewer but that's the wrong way to look at it. People should be timed out or blocked in order to make the experience better for everyone. A channel will grow fast if it's known that the streamer takes care of the chat and makes sure it is a pleasant experience for all. And time outs can be a considerable period as you don't want the nuisance being a nuisance repeatedly but at the same time if he behaves that he can still contribute to the chat too.
That guy that said "he likes ketchup on his pancakes" though?
Nah. That's on sight bro. That's criminal af. lmao
Hey they are great 😤
We’re southern guys, of course we put ketchup on our waffles when we go to waffle house
That's a very mature and thought out response to the situation and has earned my respect for her and probably makes her one of the safer streamers to be around.
Geega is by far the sanest vtuber, no joke.
The point of red flags is to inform you that you should keep in mind that the person might be approaching you with ill intent.
It’s not a damning piece of evidence OF ill intent like people think.
I feel like the problem on the low-intensity non-criminal side of this is that the rules of social interaction across several different lines have all changed, but there's no up-to-date "rulebook" yet. So, everyone's stuck with different editions of the "rulebook," frantically scribbling in the margins what they think is up-to-date information, whether from observation or just because they think so, and everyone's confused, scared or angry about people not adhering to the completely unstandardized rulebook that they're carrying around.
If that's the case everyone needs to take a step back and take a breath and really calm down. Using the power to destroy another's reputation can have far reaching consequences for innocent people.
As a really good look Dr. D does admit talking to a minor through Whispers but nothing illegal, the really big issue is why the hell is Twitch allowing minors to access the platform, that shouldn't be. Twitch has some guilty hands in this even more than Dr. D as he went and sued them and won as well he got a settlement that included an NDA, which the former Twitch mod voided by talking publicly. But he had a hate on because of Dr. D's politics whih we have to put aside yes differences of opinion exist, no reason to become a nasty person out to destroy another.
And no Dr. D does get off scott free but the person that needs to take him to task if anyone live with him its not our business at all. I have no intention to get involved in marital disputes
I have unfollowed Ford ever since the Ford Pinto.
Clicked on the video expecting it to be about series cancellations. Boy was I mistaken.
I thought it was going to be on cancelling plans, like collabs
bro... ICANT
@@hellospringlakeYeah me too lol
Well said. I think the Vtuber community especially needs to learn this.
I've only ever unfollowed two vtubers from social media (one went back to what they were doing before vtubing and pretty much suffered no consequences for the harm they caused to the community.) There's also like 15 or so creators that I didn't follow in the first place that I muted while a drama was blowing up so I wouldn't see the dog-piling. The end result is that I end up seeing very little of the drama because it's always going to be the same (large creators) who end up causing the dog-piling in the first place.
It's always a bit fascinating whenever there's a cancellation that's clearly a "he said she said" sort of affair between known quantities and you see "instertnamehere DEBUT:TBA" weighing in like "so and so was a bit rude to me after i tried to ride their tailcoats to success" Like it's either the vtweeters who blow it out of proportion or people who have nothing to do with the person getting cancelled.
Whenever i see various small time creators weather they be artists or rigger or etc, and they say "i'm never gonna work with so and so because they had an opinion trend that was out of context!" and then you open their feed and they have a go-fund-me for something like rent or medical bills and i'm just thinking "bro, you're in dire straits. why are you burning bridges that could be your saving grace?"
Getting "cancelled" on twitter amounts to "some people get mad and loudly say you suck because they know they have zero actual power to do anything about the wrongs in society."
I'm not gonna say names, but I know of someone who was cancelled on Twitter and Reddit, and that psrson attempted to take drastic actions you often can't take back when things went extremely south (avoiding the s word due to censoring). They are alive thankfully, but after that, I have absolute vitrol towards anyone trying to cancel another, regardless of the problem.
People need to stop calling online harassment "cancelling" someone. Cancelling someone is when the internet collectively says "nope, I'm out" and fucking unsubs/unfollows/whatever someone, not harassing them to the point of attempting to take their own life.
this approach is very good for personal dignity. i also think it's fair however to ring the public alarm bell for others if the evidence is conclusive but community consensus is either not so or isn't aware at all. Mr. Beast for example is still holding strong despite the mountains of evidence, as his core audience are not people who would be readily exposed to this information. the only way they would know en masse is if Mr beast acknowledged it himself, which is why he hasn't.
Someone is WRONG on the internet
What happens if they doing it and keep getting away with it?
I have friends who have opinions and ideas that don't quite line up with mine. I have friends who do things that I wouldn't do, and have done things that would cause a stranger to be concerned. They're still my friends, because disagreement is not supposed to be a deal-breaker. You're *supposed* to be different people, with some similar ideas and some different ideas. This is healthy. Having points in common is how you relate, and having points of difference is how you challenge and expand your perspective of things.
And I'll never understand the people who will hear their current favorite entertainer say the "wrong" opinion, and immediately try to go as nuclear burnt-bridges as possible about it.
This is the internet, nobody here understands nuance!
I HAVE AN OPINION AND YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR IT
That's fine if you're willing to face whatever comes if your opinion is wrong
@@Jason_Singe NO. YORE OPINION IS WRONG
What is it?
Unsubbed and unfollowed!
This "creep" conversation is very necessary, if you dig up what actually happened with lab zero and mike_Z you would see it's just some autistic dude said some stuff and got cancelled, nothing actually happened
Honestly, when someone alleges (keyword: *alleges)* someone doing illegal shit, our first question should be "Did you go to the cops first before you made this post?"
I don't fucking trust Gabbie Hannah or Tana Mongoose, but if a court of law can prove what they're saying about Cody Ko is true so be it. Same for Dogpack and the shit he said about Mr. Beast.
I think the same can't exactly apply when the person being accused is rich(aka mr beast). Money is too powerful
This might be a little long and weird, but Im kinda confused with how to feel about some of what she is saying. For example at 2:56 to 3:11. Is she saying she is indifferent or tolerant of someones actions and words unless it has to do with her or is bad enough? As an example, like if someone was rude to people regularly but they werent a racist or bigot, then she is okay with that because she doesnt know them and is just there for the content. I understand not needing to care about an entertainer's life, but I feel its weird to be okay with certain things because you arent their friend. Im just confused. Maybe someone could help clarify things I may have misinterpreted.
I also want someone who understands better cause yeah that's weird
It's not indifference, it's admitting you don't know the person and that the schoolyard squabbles are not something you are in a position to ascertain. When creators are accused of genuinely terrible crimes etc there is a lot more in place for that creator to defend themselves and it matters a lot more. But when someone accuses creator X of being rude to a waiter offstream and wants the world to shun them for it (for example) 1) you can't prove or disprove 2) you aren't aware of the full circumstance (perhaps the waiter tried to scam them and they just raised their voice) 3) none of this matters to any extent compared to accusations of violence or sa 4) allowing people to cancel over trivialities with no falsifiable information gives a massive opportunity for fakers to try it for creators they don't like.
That's why people urge this sort of public shaming to be reserved for the truly heinous stuff that actually needs to be out there for the welfare of an audience (whether it's an r accusation or a creator scamming their audience) rather than "was a bit of a bastard to me personally" type stuff
@@gigitrixI understand not jumping to conclusions especially on smaller issues without proof, but that is only a thing she talked about at the start. In the part that I timestamped she is talking as though something on the smaller side was in fact the situation and how it doesn't matter because even though she watches them she doesn't know them and that makes it okay. With that being said I'm not saying that people can't make mistakes and can't be forgiven, but the way she is talking about it makes her sound indifferent to the actions of someone she spends time watching
@@gigitrix thank you a lot
@Kodabear6275 Again, you are misinterpreting the point. She is not saying that bad actions are okay if they actually did a bad thing. What she is saying is:
1. She doesn't have full context of the situation to make a call whether that person did a bad thing or not so she can't make an informed decision on whether the person is guilty or innocent. And instead of accusing the person over assumptions and little to no facts, she will instead remain impartial until more info is brought to light.
2. She doesn't know the person well enough to waste her time getting the full context or info over some petty online drama that is not going to matter to her or her community. If it was a more serious allegation or affected her friends or community in some way, then she could justify spending her time looking into it.
3. If she can avoid the mindless dogpile/witch hunt the internet seems to enjoy with their putchforks and tin foil hats and their need to cancel everybody over small and trivial things, then she would much rather avoid all that and do something much more productive with her life.
It's really not that difficult to understand really and is actually the healthier and more mature action to take in these types of situations.
THIS LADY IS TOO LOAD
I will always go after J.K. Rowling anti's, they never learn and never apologize DAYO!