The Internet has a strange feature: It distorts not only the perception of closeness and distance, but also the definition of loyalty and morality. In recent weeks, as the operator of this opinion blog, we have had an experience that has allowed us to look deeply – not only into the abysses of the actors we criticise, but above all into the group dynamics of our own audience.
We're in a bubble dedicated to critical engagement with other content creators. We analyze, we criticize, we uncover contradictions and are not afraid of sharp, sometimes biting formulations. But what happens if you suddenly act humanely as a critic? What happens if you publicly reject someone but remain civilized in a direct conversation? The answer is as frightening as it is revealing: You are declared an enemy yourself.
This article is a review of the events of recent weeks, a look behind the scenes of the parasocial proxy wars and a final demarcation on our part.
1. Breaking the taboo of courtesy
The trigger for the massive headwind we experienced from our own ranks was banal. We hosted a spontaneous and unplanned livestream. Out of pure nostalgia, we wanted to spend some time with our community. But then suddenly the creator appeared in the chat, who has been at the center of our sharpest criticism for months.
We opted for transparency and direct dialogue: We took him to the stream. What happened next was apparently an intolerable culture shock for some viewers. We had an almost two-hour conversation at eye level. We talked to each other normally, but we asked the hard questions that move our community. No one was yelled at. There were no insults.
2. Fact check: The alleged ‘snuggling course’ in the wording
The reaction from the community was a parasocial outcry. We were accused of being ‘too nice’ and of taking a cuddly course because we did not perform radically and aggressively enough. A quick look at the transcript of the livestream, however, exposes this accusation as completely baseless. We have never given up on our content edge.
On the subject of debts (11,000 euros in dispute) & installment payment: We did not let the creator off the hook, but confronted him directly with the absurdity of his offer:
Sascha: “Yes, but that's what you have to say […] when you calculate that with compound interest and the waiting interest over it, then you're almost 11 years old. […] I mean, you could have just said, yes, then just start paying. Let's see what happens next.” Sarah: “Only I think the rate is extremely low. Even if you paid $300 a month, it would take a long time. You don't want to run after your money for many years.”
On the subject of transparency in donations: Instead of giving him a stage for a sacrificial staging, we put him directly in debt:
Sarah: "Now you are asked, when do you show the invoices for the donations to your lawyer? Ah, transparency is therefore required.” Sascha: “If I were you now, I might consider making a video on the channel where you go and, of course, blacken sensitive data, but that you actually just show a bit of transparency. […] This would also show that you actually used the donations for what they were donated to.”
On morality and relations with minors: Despite the polite tone, we did not give in to a millimeter in the moral evaluation:
Frank: “Yes, I do not think the statement on issue 14 is acceptable. […] And from today's point of view, I would say absolutely no, no go.” Sarah: "So we don't like it when adults have underage relationships. This is how we have addressed it again in general.”
3. The rhetorical fog candle: How the stream really went
If you look at the conversation analytically, you will immediately see why some viewers have been seized with the illusion of a ‘snuggling course’. The creator used very skilfully classic rhetorical maneuvers in the stream to defuse the situation – a dynamic that we moderated, but by no means adapted:
- The ‘love bombing’: He entered the stream not defensively, but offensively with virtual gifts (roses in chat). This is a well-known ‘icebreaker’ that immediately creates artificial proximity and parasocial commitment in the digital space.
- Whataboutism: When we confronted him with his 11-year payoff period, he did not justify it in terms of content. Instead, he immediately shifted the focus to third parties: ‘By the way, did you notice that here […] the lady from the other side said yes, that she paid her €1500 court costs with €50 instalments …’ A classic diversionary maneuver.
- Future Faking: He did not respond to our harsh demand for evidence of his legal fees with blockade, but with euphoric approval: He will "will be happy to make a video soon". This costs nothing in the live situation, makes him appear extremely cooperative and takes the wind out of the sails of acute criticism. Whether this video will ever come is on a different page.
To be clear at this point: Our criticism remains. A polite conversation does not delete any previous analysis. We ran the stream without being dazzled by its fog candles. But criticism loses its value if it only demands blind escalation.
4. We are not a rental megaphone for foreign revenge fantasies
A central allegation after the stream was that we should have used the situation to leak private screenshots and internals about the creator in question (to ‘doxxen’). Viewers regularly send us private material, intimate chat histories and financial details. And they're seriously angry if we don't talk about these things publicly.
Let's take a pragmatic look at this dynamic: Material that has never been intended for the public is subject to personal rights and data protection. A publication makes us vulnerable to warnings, civil lawsuits and criminal consequences.
It is significant how lightly it is demanded that we should risk our professional and financial security. Those who want to see blood from the cover of anonymity often strictly refuse to take responsibility themselves. It becomes particularly grotesque when informants give us material, but demand panic: ‘Woe, you call my name!’.
We are not a rental megaphone for foreign revenge fantasies. We base our criticism on publicly available material. And the fact that we were fortunately able to settle a long, exhausting court case out of court has made us painfully aware once again: Real life has legal and financial consequences that go far beyond an angry comment.
5. Private screenshots are not public ammunition
Anyone who wants to publish explosive internals does not need a million-dollar budget today. A smartphone and an anonymous account are enough. Do it yourself. But don't expect us to bear the legal risk for things that are secretly put at our disposal. Anyone who requests these things from us, please transfer the legal and court costs to us in advance. Doesn't that happen? Then accept our limits.
6. When criticism becomes fixation
The bubble in which we move is increasingly leaving the path of objective reporting. We observe behaviors and patterns that show how quickly justified criticism can turn into an unhealthy fixation.
An example is staged reporting: There are actors who only make arrogant jokes about colleagues for weeks because they report on popular topics – only to read exactly the same news tickers themselves a little later when it promises clicks. There are co-hosts who blindly defend their channel partner and speak to him in such a way that a stream becomes a pure echo chamber of denial of reality. And there are formats where people spend hours debating out-of-place jokes, while real misconduct is overlooked.
Even more revealing is the moral flexibility of self-proclaimed critics. When people who have vehemently rejected each other suddenly unite just because the focus on a common target organ is greater than any of their own convictions, it primarily serves their own need for reach. Questions become catching questions, criticism becomes permanent pressure, enlightenment becomes a stage for personal reckoning.
7. Violence is not a punchline
The moment when we, as opinion bloggers, finally had to draw a hard line was the reaction of parts of the community to real, physical violence.
There was an incident where the creator we criticized fell victim to a bodily injury. Our position on this is unequivocal: We hate violence. Point. There is no justification for physical attacks.
Instead of condemning this border crossing, however, the violence was partially relativized. Sentences were dropped implying that this attack was ‘deserved’. If a digital beef causes adult people to justify the physical attack on another person, then this pattern has reached a dangerous level. Anyone who approves of such acts and condemns us for meeting the victim of this violence in a civilized way in a livestream, with whom we do not want to share a common platform.
8. Platform frustration, algorithm anger and your own valve
To understand why the emotions are so overcooked, one must also see the frustration about the platforms themselves. A faithful commentator recently summed it up aptly: People spend almost two decades of academic training, real craftsmanship, specially written scripts and almost 1,000 euros per month in satirical niche projects. Thanks to the platform? A machine demonetization by the algorithm, because the work honor of real artists is mistakenly equated with soulless spam.
This injustice leads to extreme tension. If one cannot win against the algorithm, this frustration often discharges into internal dramas. Criticism of others becomes an outlet for one's own powerlessness. This doesn't excuse the toxic behavior within the bubble, but it does explain why the tone is becoming more bitter, radical, and ruthless.
9. Our digital house cleaning
We have learned from these incidents that a loud minority is trying to hijack the discourse. They don't want analysis, they want escalation.
For us as LautFunk In the future, there will be a clear credo: We stick to criticism with edge, but we demand a loss of control with sources. We will continue to show moral misconduct, double standards and controversial actions. But we will not engage in hate campaigns, doxxing or dismantling human rights. And we will never give up our humanity at the cloakroom just to please a bloodthirsty chat.
To all those who accuse us of betrayal or cowardice, we finally address our very personal Call to Action:
If you don't like that we put facts above blind hatred. If it disgusts you that we can still talk normally to people we criticize. Then do yourself and us a favor: Follow us. Don't leave a like there anymore. No more comments. Block us on all platforms.
We stand for harsh criticism, not digital chases. And if this is too boring, he has enough other abysses on the wide Internet, into which he can stare.
Your Sarah and Sascha
The transcript of the TikTok live stream for download.
The continuation:
Discover more from LautFunk Podcast & Blog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
English
This Is Really Gaslighting and Guilt Reversal and Confirms Human Disappointment . We have been with you in almost daily exchanges to accuse us of violence, doxxing, escalation and other moral misconduct just because we have said that you have been manipulated by Mr. B is unfair.
There is a big difference between talking normally and allowing victims to be mocked.
Exactly the abysses that I have predicted of this person , you can now see daily where other creators are offended as Heulvinci and the mother as well as the friend of a murder victim .For such persons one understands , for others not and now also tries to spread untruths. No one has allied himself or justifies a physical attack-but one can say that it is not surprising if someone acts to that extent .
Of course you didn't let his fog candles dazzle you ,, it's a pity that no one can convince you anymore because the live is not uploaded.
That was our criticism, but that, too, would be humanly understandable. The stream immediately had a different dynamic than it had left it .Why can't you admit any mistakes or at least accept other opinions.
Chapeau
It is significant that a rhetorical mask of psychological terms such as ‘gaslighting’ and ‘blame reversal’ is chosen here, which is diametrically opposed to real action. When we talk about human disappointment, we need to reflect the perspective above all: Disappointment is entirely on our side.
It is particularly absurd when it comes to the accusation of ‘doxxing’. While we have consciously preserved the identities of former companions for protection reasons at all times and have never published them, it is the author of this commentary himself who - presumably out of pure frustration - continuously unmasks himself here and under various YouTube videos by acting completely voluntarily with his clear name and known username. To want to blame us for the consequences of our own self-chosen visibility is a remarkable piece of denial of reality.
For months we were in almost daily exchange. This makes it all the more difficult to understand how quickly moral standards erode when it serves one's own group dynamics. The fact that those former companions, who were said internally for months to never work with this person, now interact diligently, cheerfully and publicly in the live chat of ‘tresh time’ (Sabrina), exposes the proclaimed moral integrity as a pure community of purpose.
The attempt to reduce our well-founded media criticism to an alleged ‘manipulation by Mr B’ (Frank Battermann) is a clear diversionary manoeuvre. It is a convenient attempt to avoid contentual debate by denying us autonomy. It's never about defending individuals, it's about analyzing a dynamic.
And this dynamic within the bubble has far exceeded any limit of tolerability. The absolute red line is reached exactly where physical violence in real life is contextualised with a raucous ‘not surprising’ and thus ultimately relativised. Violence is not a legitimate level of escalation in a digital dispute – it is an absolute no-go.
The fact that there is still no insight or reflection on one's own behavior and participation in this digital chase, but instead the perpetrator-victim reversal is perfected, confirms the analysis of our blog post to the last word.
Sascha with all love, let go of the AI , these foreign words you bring in are supposed to distract from the topic and the first podcasts of you were never so analytical. Probably the AI hasn't been properly fed my Antort or doesn't understand it-where did I accuse you of Doxxing ? We were told that, or I never asked for it.
Mr. B. is advertised and Sabrina wrong but ok, I wrote to Sabrina because criticism is allowed there . My cooperation does not take place with it either, on the contrary !
Who gets out of the way of an argument by blocking everything?If you put the live online or at least the transcript with time stamp then you can see who reacted when he could make fun of Lexi. Even if you have changed your mind about the Lord from the Allgäu, but please stop spreading lies.I would never tell anything bad about you and it is not so that was not asked what was going on.
You don't need to unlock this comment because it's not intended for the public.
Really ,to impute to me a diversionary maneuver where I have always tried to explain what we are about and then to impute glorification of violence and frustration …
In return, I assume that you are trivializing bullying and psychological violence, because he continues to do so every day.
No and stay true to your opinion, but reflect on something.The human disappointment referred to our months of exchange and you don't always have to agree.I can admit mistakes and of course you say things that were about it , but I don't impute other people such things as you do.
Media criticism funny, I do not know that we have discussed in your group analyses about the editorial content of him.
I also have no frustration, I am humanly disappointed and would not have expected anything like that. We've been in exchange for months and you don't have to agree, but don't try (as the last voice messages from you show) to bring some understanding to others. You kicked me out of the group and blocked me - but I don't let anything impute to me .If Frank Battermann is more important to you ok but we or I don't have to be insulted.
For us, a border has also been crossed
The fact that you are now working on the linguistic form is a transparent distraction maneuver. On each page of this blog, it is completely transparent that an AI is used to correct spelling and grammar. Anyone who knows me knows that it is necessary. As far as the supposedly complicated technical terms are concerned: As a trained psychologist, these terms are part of my everyday language – and that is exactly how I used them for months in private exchange. Frame it now as a ‘distraction’ only shows how uncomfortable the content analysis is for you.
Let's come to the very core and the reason why an irrefutable limit has been reached for us here: Your reaction demonstrates exactly the unhealthy, almost paranoid fixation that has been poisoning this entire bubble for months.
This compulsive clinging to micro-events – who watched, breathed or laughed at whom and when in which stream, the constant demand for transcripts, recordings and evidence – has lost all connection with reality. You have gotten caught up in a digital obsession that is no longer about facts or real criticism, but about the ongoing cultivation of enemy images for your own moral self-elevation.
Distancing oneself from Sabrina, but at the same time happily using her live chat, because it allows ‘criticism’, is pure hypocrisy. There is no criticism allowed, there the same destructive group dynamic is fed, from which you have distanced yourself internally for months, if it was just opportune.
The fact that you are now calling for this comment not to be unlocked because it is ‘not intended for the public’ fits the picture: Only publicly on the blog is attacked, and as soon as a precise, content-related disassembly takes place, one flees flight back to the private space to build up emotional pressure again.