According to Funk Podcast & Blog

Caught in the Drama Triangle: How YouTube Conflicts Feed the Psyche and Algorithms

‘From dispute to content machine: How psychology and algorithms keep the YouTube drama alive.”

Anyone who moves in the YouTube ecosystem for a long time knows a strange phenomenon: A channel starts with technology, true crime, politics, entertainment, lifestyle or social issues – and at some point everything seems to revolve around other creators.

KlarFunk-002 The indignation machinery, opportunists and the ‘stupid click cattle’

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	18 MB	Download
AAC m4a	10 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:06 It's clear. Not around it. Don't just go on. Not just loud.
0:00:06 – 0:00:09 Questions. questioning.
0:00:09 – 0:00:13 It's clear.
0:00:13 – 0:00:17 It's clear.
0:00:17 – 0:00:19 Let's talk about it.
0:00:19 – 0:00:26 Let's talk about it.
0:00:33 – 0:00:43 There is now so much outrage-
0:00:43 – 0:00:51 Yes, YouTuber, Indignation Instagrammer, Indignation TikToker,
0:00:51 – 0:00:56 Anywhere you can consume any kind of media.
0:00:56 – 0:00:58 Facebook doesn't matter anymore.
0:00:58 – 0:01:02 But I don't want to go out there.
0:01:02 – 0:01:10 And I've noticed something lately. For example, a term such as
0:01:10 – 0:01:19 The opportunist. It's opportunistic. Oh my God! What a fantastic word,
0:01:19 – 0:01:25 What can be used everywhere these days and what can grow inflationarily into the world
0:01:25 – 0:01:36 The question is, what does this mean? But I don't know, we're getting ready,
0:01:36 – 0:01:44 On this channel, on this podcast, has there ever been an explanation of what opportunists are? Also
0:01:44 – 0:01:54 the different forms. You don't need one, yeah, how do I best describe it now,
0:01:54 – 0:02:10 a stilt that likes to crack on rooftops. Think about it. I just think,
0:02:10 – 0:02:23 that someone trying to explain such complex dynamics and then not 20 minutes,
0:02:23 – 0:02:33 about 12 minutes crash-out goes after a said YouTube livestream was over,
0:02:33 – 0:02:42 on a Friday in the night to Saturday so at two o'clock at night somehow absolutely compelled
0:02:42 – 0:02:49 has seen to explain any terminology for itself just to listen back.
0:02:49 – 0:03:05 I'm trying to explain it again. Why did you or others paint such pictures?
0:03:05 – 0:03:14 of liars? So we're imprinting the picture. Why did people become public liars?
0:03:14 – 0:03:22 framed. It doesn't matter if he's a liar or not.
0:03:22 – 0:03:29 It's not a liar. It's just that in the future, and we're talking in
0:03:29 – 0:03:36 in the near or distant future, these people for all to all
0:03:36 – 0:03:46 Eternity as a liar. And why do you do that? Yes, maybe that could be
0:03:46 – 0:03:52 You don't want the other person, even though he has been in the past.
0:03:52 – 0:04:00 He had lied, perhaps then once spoke the truth and then more internally, from groups,
0:04:00 – 0:04:07 Shads and so on, which has been so popular lately.
0:04:07 – 0:04:13 And when these things, these little bastards you do, come to light,
0:04:13 – 0:04:18 He is the one for his own in-group.
0:04:18 – 0:04:23 It's a great word for the people you interact with.
0:04:23 – 0:04:28 Or maybe you're a content creator, because you're such a great content creator.
0:04:28 – 0:04:34 He is a liar and he does not speak the truth.
0:04:34 – 0:04:38 There is such a beautiful song, so with robber-hotzenplotz and so on.
0:04:38 – 0:04:45 He who lies is not believed when he speaks the truth.
0:04:45 – 0:04:50 Yeah? Does that seem familiar to you? Does that sound familiar to you?
0:04:50 – 0:04:56 I know there are people who say they ate the truth with spoons.
0:04:56 – 0:05:05 Absolutely with spoons! There is no room for any lies. Well, let's just look at
0:05:05 – 0:05:15 various areas of life, be it public, be it on the Internet, then come
0:05:15 – 0:05:21 So many lies on the table. But you have always understood it in the past,
0:05:21 – 0:05:33 To mark dangerous persons in such a way, to transfer a mask, an image, a frame
0:05:33 – 0:05:42 to make them unreliable in their own group. Boah, techniques,
0:05:50 – 0:06:02 Crazy in the Fanta. I have to smoke at least one cigarette right away.
0:06:02 – 0:06:15 This is the ingenuity of this technique. It's unbelievable. I mean
0:06:15 – 0:06:41 This ingenuity of this concept alone. So there's a noisy woman with a rolling R making a video where she's recording for several hours, then she can't actually use that, then she's recording something again, but in hindsight, even though she's telling a story that said otherwise, I've cut that,
0:06:41 – 0:06:51 In any case, various theses and claims were made in this shorter video.
0:06:51 – 0:06:56 And, among other things, that a certain person is a liar.
0:06:56 – 0:07:07 One or two days later, this podcast episode was reacted live on a balcony in Berlin.
0:07:07 – 0:07:18 And again a few days later came exactly this one spot from the podcast with the woman with the roles in R,
0:07:18 – 0:07:24 There's also another content creator who lives in a cheap neighborhood.
0:07:24 – 0:07:29 In any case, something interesting happened.
0:07:29 – 0:07:39 Due to the fact that two relatively large people repeated this for this little bubble
0:07:39 – 0:07:44 In addition to their comments, this image has been reinforced.
0:07:44 – 0:07:48 And you actually see, even if you look at the Shads,
0:07:48 – 0:08:00 how this image has solidified extremely cleanly into the mindset of the shed.
0:08:00 – 0:08:05 After all, three content creators have spoken about the fact that this one person,
0:08:05 – 0:08:09 That one person is a liar.
0:08:09 – 0:08:11 That's wow!
0:08:11 – 0:08:16 This is group dynamically fantastic and you could now spend hours on it
0:08:16 – 0:08:24 Talk about what this means in the end, who is the trigger, what psychology
0:08:24 – 0:08:27 It's about the mechanisms that serve it.
0:08:27 – 0:08:37 But in the end, it's just a small fine mist candle that stinks all over the room,
0:08:37 – 0:08:45 Just don't do it, if possible, but some dark secrets.
0:08:45 – 0:08:51 They will come to light from some strange cellar treasures.
0:08:51 – 0:08:56 And your own picture, which you have built up tediously, about volume, about
0:08:56 – 0:09:07 one, let's say, colored metaphors, the strong use of which has been used,
0:09:07 – 0:09:17 to raise other people above themselves. Yeah, yeah, just to shatter that,
0:09:17 – 0:09:24 For we have all now proved that this one person is a liar.
0:09:24 – 0:09:33 Boah, fantastic. That's so great that with all this "we against the" mechanisms
0:09:33 – 0:09:41 and so on, that it works great and if you still atominate somehow
0:09:41 – 0:09:49 If you apply principles, then you can really distract from your own problems and your own
0:09:49 – 0:09:58 Inconsistencies in the chronology of the recent past. It's great, especially if you can
0:09:58 – 0:10:03 To present oneself as a moral authority and thus rise above others in this way,
0:10:03 – 0:10:10 That you wouldn't have a problem with anyone going to shit you on the roof
0:10:10 – 0:10:18 In the end, the question is, who does that? Oh man, but I'm just realizing,
0:10:18 – 0:10:24 My blood pressure is rising again. Maybe I have too little sugar in it.
0:10:24 – 0:10:30 It's blood. I don't know. They are all such interesting mechanisms. So some people catch
0:10:30 – 0:10:36 then just to roll wilder and wilder with their R, that you almost have a whiplash trauma
0:10:36 – 0:10:43 You get it when you listen to it. Or the AI, which evaluates all this shit, also starts with
0:10:43 – 0:10:50 roll the R and half the display is now only full of Rs because the transcripts are so much
0:10:50 – 0:11:00 Give up errors. It's unbelievable. But to return to the original question. Why
0:11:00 – 0:11:06 A new podcast after a long livestream, the Saturday,
0:11:06 – 0:11:14 Friday, in the night was to Saturday, only to then again certain stories and little things
0:11:14 – 0:11:24 to pick up. You almost assume that you are just following the range. One
0:11:24 – 0:11:31 An opportunist is someone who takes care of himself first. And then it doesn't matter,
0:11:31 – 0:11:42 The motivation for what happens, the reason behind it. Such an opportunist
0:11:42 – 0:11:48 First and foremost, he takes care of his own concerns. This can even be healthy, because if
0:11:48 – 0:11:53 I give so much of myself, I give all my vinegar, I give out all my belongings,
0:11:53 – 0:11:59 because I'm such a person who likes to share or maybe even more than share,
0:11:59 – 0:12:04 At the end of the day, I feel worse when bad times come.
0:12:04 – 0:12:10 But someone who pays such a little attention, such a little money on the high edge
0:12:10 – 0:12:15 has that the pantry is full, that it may even have an emergency reserve, always a full
0:12:15 – 0:12:23 Reserve canister in the car. He plans ahead and he is careful. But if you do this now maliciously
0:12:23 – 0:12:32 would interpret, one would say, this opopulist man who takes away our gasoline,
0:12:32 – 0:12:39 He buys the shops empty because he is so selfish and he only pays attention to himself. You could
0:12:39 – 0:12:44 But I also saw that there are people who are really interested in their advantage.
0:12:44 – 0:12:51 You change jobs because there is more to earn. You're hooked on great content creators
0:12:51 – 0:12:56 Trying to build up some kind of reach. There is such a case today,
0:12:56 – 0:13:02 Tutu, oh I don't know the name anymore, is also attached to various
0:13:02 – 0:13:16 YouTubers who have a strong reach and are also trying their luck with beef content. Definitely
0:13:16 – 0:13:25 There are people who do this to get fame. And it is precisely this accusation that
0:13:25 – 0:13:37 He is a liar, and we are a liar. The question of whether to stop
0:13:37 – 0:13:43 moral reasons, there is no such thing, because that is not logical,
0:13:43 – 0:13:49 because we were, or we are, on the right side, and if the other
0:13:49 – 0:13:56 If we distance ourselves, then this can only be the error, then this must be the error. But maybe there was
0:13:56 – 0:14:02 there are any other reasons for radical expressions in advance and there's the roof shit
0:14:02 – 0:14:12 still the most harmless and still many other things, that this increases in the sum so much
0:14:12 – 0:14:21 I'm pretty much over 3000 here. Yes, 3000 plus 1. And that's a level, there's going to be
0:14:21 – 0:14:28 One is dizzy. You have to be careful at the moral level that you don't
0:14:28 – 0:14:35 Falling down. You know what I mean. That's really crazy when you think about it.
0:14:35 – 0:14:43 Yeah, what else is there to say? I find it interesting that such "action, reaction, reaction,
0:14:43 – 0:14:49 action, action, reaction, reaction, action" and then that runs and runs that and ping-pong, ping-pong,
0:14:49 – 0:14:55 Ping-pong and you can do a lot of content and get upset every time. I'm also stirring
0:14:55 – 0:15:05 Just about that. The question is, does it affect me? And you know what? No, me personally
0:15:05 – 0:15:12 Don't refuel it. I'm just upset that the stupid click cattle and that's what you love
0:15:12 – 0:15:19 Listeners and viewers who click on such content in places, these mechanisms simply
0:15:19 – 0:15:24 Don't look through and enjoy the attention economy. Also an interesting
0:15:24 – 0:15:30 Term, there is also a podcast to or on YouTube a video where I explain this.
0:15:30 – 0:15:38 Oh, my God, no. And you feed the algorithm, you reward the content creator with your attention
0:15:38 – 0:15:47 Absolute bullshit. You can sit in front of the microphone for 15 minutes.
0:15:47 – 0:15:55 Rotten and you just listen to people. It's fantastic. It's a win-win situation. Everyone,
0:15:55 – 0:16:02 who monetized the shit, is happy about 3,50€, you have 15 minutes of your life
0:16:02 – 0:16:12 YouTube is looking forward to advertising revenue. Win, win, win. Yeah, thanks for listening.
0:16:12 – 0:16:13 Goodbye, Sasha.
0:16:13 – 0:16:24 Thoughts remain, questions smoke, think on, ask on, talk on.
0:16:24 – 0:16:34 That was KlarFunk. Sure, sure, funk. ClearFunk. Let's talk about it.
0:16:34 – 0:16:41 [Music]

It's enough! The YouTube, TikTok and Instagram bubbles are once again bursting with outrage, ‘crash-outs’ and hours of reaction videos in the middle of the night. But what is the psychological and group dynamic behind these dramas?

In this episode of KlarFunk, we look at the perfidious mechanisms of the content creator. We clarify why unwelcome people are often strategically framed as liars by their own ‘in-group’ (keyword: Mist candle!) to distract from your own little secrets and inconsistencies.

We are also talking about the wonderful word ‘opportunism’. When is it reprehensible range hunger and when is it just healthy self-care?

In the end, there is a small announcement to the ‘stupid click-cattle’ (yes, exactly, you are meant!), which feeds the algorithm and the cash registers of the indignation machinery through its undivided attention. Win-win-win … or not?

Topics in this episode:

The outrage bubble: Action, reaction and ping-pong content
How the framing of liars works and who benefits from it
Opportunism: Self-protection or reprehensible range hunting?
Attention economy: How we all feed the bullshit algorithm

Thoughts remain, questions too. Keep thinking, keep asking, keep talking. This is KlarFunk.

Masked person on a control console with social media icons and a conveyor belt full of masks and money bags

Thematic breakdown:

The Indignation Machine on the Net

The inflationary use of terms such as ‘opportunism’ by drama creators on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.
Nocturnal streams and the ongoing production of artificial excitement for content generation.

Framing and the Liar Trap

Targeting uncomfortable voices as "liars" within an in-group.
The preventive framing to protect your own secrets, internal chat history and past lies.

Group dynamics and toxic echo chambers

Reinforcing narratives when multiple high-reach content creators repeat unconfirmed claims.
The psychological consolidation of these manipulated images in the mindset of the respective community.

The fog candle as a distraction maneuver

The staging as the highest moral authority using the ‘we against’ principle.
Loud outrage as a tactical means to distract from one's own inconsistencies of the recent past.

True Opportunism vs. Strategic Allegation

Definition of Opportunism: The difference between meaningful self-precaution and selfish range hunting.
The systematic attachment to larger creators in order to gain awareness through staged beef content.

Attention Economy and the Role of the Audience

The lucrative ping-pong of constant action and response that keeps social media algorithms running.
The bitter reality: How the audience with valuable lifetime finances the monetization of contentless content, while platform and creator benefit

Advertising:

Related episodes:

Leave feedback on the issue? ✍️ Then write a comment Audio feedback on the show? ☎️ 0231 53075818

Trustpilot

Contributors to this episode

Sascha

Anzahl der Downloads: 124
Playing time: 0:16:41
Date of admission: 21.09.26
This episode is from season 4, there are a total of 4 seasons.

One According to Funk Publication Cartel Production - Where stories are transmitted unmistakably.

Podcast license:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Note: This post contains affiliate links. If you shop through these links, I'll get a small commission at no extra cost to you.

KlarFunk-001 How hate connects us

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	25 MB	Download
AAC m4a	11 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:07 Yes, welcome to "Klarfunk", a new format. Some issues are too important for the
0:00:07 – 0:00:16 quick response. Some questions only start where others stop looking. "Klarfunk",
0:00:16 – 0:00:27 We're talking about it. How do I get to the topic of today's podcast for the beginner sequence?
0:00:27 – 0:00:40 Ha! That's super easy. I saw last Sunday how hatred connects.
0:00:40 – 0:00:48 And I've always thought all my life, love connects people. But no,
0:00:48 – 0:00:52 I was taught better. I've seen how hate connects.
0:00:52 – 0:01:01 Sure, clear sparks. Not around it. Don't just go on. Not just loud. questioning.
0:01:01 – 0:01:11 Clearly sparks. Let's talk about it.
0:01:11 – 0:01:24 One or the other will notice this if he also follows the blog. I have one
0:01:24 – 0:01:33 I wrote this blog post a month ago where it was posted.
0:01:33 – 0:01:46 It's about love and hate and whether hate is the opposite of love. And that's what I tried
0:01:46 – 0:01:54 to be broken down into philosophical senses or even psychological senses and also have a
0:01:54 – 0:02:02 A bit of society as it is seen from a social point of view. This
0:02:02 – 0:02:08 What's interesting about this is whether you're talking about social media or social media.
0:02:08 – 0:02:20 YouTube, where my entry just comes from, what have the biggest fans and the
0:02:20 – 0:02:28 The biggest hater of a social media account or a YouTube channel together. White
0:02:28 – 0:02:40 Does anyone know? Biola? Biola? Okay. Both watch each video to the end, subscribe to the
0:02:40 – 0:02:50 Notifications and comments very diligently. That's the way it is. And that's also somehow
0:02:50 – 0:03:00 Such an everyday paradox. As I said earlier, many believe hatred is the opposite of love or love.
0:03:00 – 0:03:10 affection. If we don't like someone, we should avoid them. This is the real
0:03:10 – 0:03:24 It's a matter. Some are so smart and avoid these people or on social media, YouTube and have
0:03:24 – 0:03:31 If you don't see them, then you avoid this channel or this account and then you also have
0:03:31 – 0:03:41 A little more calm. But somehow it's different on the internet. On social media, on YouTube,
0:03:41 – 0:03:53 It's the other way around. People look at other people for hours and consume
0:03:53 – 0:04:01 Everything, even though they hate it. I mean, it's clear why they do that. You need
0:04:01 – 0:04:10 Hold on to input to get excited about it again. Same with your favorite content creators.
0:04:10 – 0:04:22 This works for the hate object, for the hate-watching victims. You have things,
0:04:22 – 0:04:28 What you can exchange. You can participate in the livestream or even discuss your
0:04:28 – 0:04:39 express opinions. You can take part in discussion forums – ok, that used to be – nowadays you will stop
0:04:39 – 0:04:49 discuss it on Instagram groups, in WhatsApp groups, in private groups,
0:04:49 – 0:04:58 what you see right now, almost like live tickers and get upset about it and just like stop
0:04:58 – 0:05:08 The content creator you admire is also the one you don't like.
0:05:08 – 0:05:23 Or even already have. This is also a kind of connection. It's an anti-fandom bond.
0:05:23 – 0:05:29 Some people don't even know what hate-watching is. Hate-watching is conscious.
0:05:29 – 0:05:36 Consuming content just to get excited about it. You can do that on Trash TV.
0:05:36 – 0:05:50 see if controversial influencers do strange things on the Internet or even with opinion bloggers
0:05:50 – 0:05:52 or YouTube content creators.
0:05:52 – 0:05:55 You can get really upset about it.
0:05:55 – 0:06:03 We also have our experience with it, because we ourselves were once part of such a, yes,
0:06:03 – 0:06:13 The anti-fan construct. The interesting thing is, structurally speaking, the antifan behaves
0:06:13 – 0:06:22 Just like the superfan. Only the fan who watches everything because he likes to watch and like it or even
0:06:22 – 0:06:32 He also loves and the anti-fan looks at everything because he is looking for mistakes to indignate himself about it.
0:06:32 – 0:06:43 The interesting thing is that the algorithms do not care if you look and comment
0:06:43 – 0:06:51 or write in the live chat, give a thumb up, a thumb down. Everything is an interaction
0:06:51 – 0:07:05 It gives and evaluates the channel's benefits. Because any kind of interaction, even if it's just that
0:07:05 – 0:07:13 hours of watching live streams, shows the algorithm that what is happening there,
0:07:13 – 0:07:21 It has some relevance. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative. interaction;
0:07:21 – 0:07:31 Action right where the video or post is important. I think some people are unaware of that.
0:07:31 – 0:07:46 Ignorance would be the way to go. Do not consume, do not comment and in no case like or
0:07:46 – 0:07:56 which is also particularly bad, the link to the post or the YouTube video or the live stream to
0:07:56 – 0:08:05 share. After all, if you look at this, you have the URL to the post in question.
0:08:05 – 0:08:14 and behind it a special identifier. And so the origin is made visible who shared what
0:08:14 – 0:08:22 has. That's why you can also see in the statistics on YouTube, on Instagram and so on,
0:08:22 – 0:08:35 how many visitors or how much traffic internally via the feed, via the subscribers or even
0:08:35 – 0:08:43 It comes externally. And even there you can resolve whether it just comes from WhatsApp or you don't have
0:08:43 – 0:08:53 seen. Many simply forget this and every interaction is positive for the algorithm.
0:08:53 – 0:09:03 But why do people do it? Well, the super fan who loves his content creator, who makes
0:09:03 – 0:09:13 It's because he has a connection with you. I don't want to go parasocial yet.
0:09:13 – 0:09:22 Connections out. But in general, if you like someone, you support them and you want to do it.
0:09:22 – 0:09:30 see. Why does the anti-fan do this? Well, that's kind of a community. community
0:09:30 – 0:09:42 through hatred. There is this talk of in-group and out-group, we against them. Yes, it makes special
0:09:42 – 0:09:52 Have fun when a reaction is made on a video or on a livestream of a content creator
0:09:52 – 0:10:00 It's about the content of someone you don't like. Then you can even stay in the
0:10:00 – 0:10:09 Community upset about it and a very strong we-feeling arises. It doesn't have to either
0:10:09 – 0:10:17 be a video of the content creator you don't like or a post,
0:10:17 – 0:10:22 Which is being disassembled. It can also be easy to get together.
0:10:22 – 0:10:31 When someone else, a third or a fourth person, looks at something and reacts to it.
0:10:31 – 0:10:40 About the one you're an anti-fan of, what they say. This simply strengthens the sense of togetherness. Find
0:10:40 – 0:10:48 I am very fascinated to look at these dynamics and analyze them. As I said,
0:10:48 – 0:10:56 We were, or still are, part of it, just different. An interesting thing about it is yes
0:10:56 – 0:11:06 Even if you are only dealing with a content creator monothematically, be it in the
0:11:06 – 0:11:17 positive senses or even negative senses, then this can even go so far that the identity
0:11:17 – 0:11:30 It becomes a central pillar, so that this person almost lives in the head. There is yes
0:11:30 – 0:11:39 In fact, this saying "I believe person X lives in person Y in the head" is there every day. And
0:11:39 – 0:11:47 Yes, I can confirm this and this is a very big issue, especially with the anti-fans. Since then
0:11:47 – 0:11:58 my partner and I have changed sides in the spirit of our anti-fans,
0:11:58 – 0:12:07 We actually live in some people's minds and have to deal with every content, every video,
0:12:07 – 0:12:15 They are mentioned at least once in each livestream. Even if it's not about us or with
0:12:15 – 0:12:22 A topic about us. We have to be mentioned at least once and that's really revealing.
0:12:22 – 0:12:29 Sorry, that's really debunked. In addition, there is also the statement constantly,
0:12:29 – 0:12:40 this guy is irrelevant and stupid or not important, but you watch all the videos yourself,
0:12:40 – 0:12:50 All posts, all posts everywhere and get excited about it. So that's the one
0:12:50 – 0:13:00 Extremely relevant to you because you consume everything from them. Yes, it's difficult,
0:13:00 – 0:13:08 If you think about it and just realize that you have a lot of
0:13:08 – 0:13:16 Lifetime invested, all too often, if you then also go and then every event quasi
0:13:16 – 0:13:23 commented live in a live stream in groups, like a live ticker from a court hearing.
0:13:23 – 0:13:30 Oh my God, now she's been drinking from the bottle. Oh my God, did you see?
0:13:30 – 0:13:40 He pobbled in his nose. Unbelievable how important the smallest actions of the
0:13:40 – 0:13:50 can become an object at once, which in the beloved Content Creator as a flattering peculiarity,
0:13:50 – 0:14:00 as a special feature, taken as a unique selling point, is high in the hate objects
0:14:00 – 0:14:07 Discussable. If one person opens one can of cola after another and gets upset about it,
0:14:07 – 0:14:14 that there are only overweight people everywhere, then that's perfectly fine,
0:14:14 – 0:14:22 That is his opinion. But woe to the other, who says something against multi-weighted
0:14:22 – 0:14:33 People, then that's immediately body shaming, fat shaming. It can all be so paradoxical.
0:14:33 – 0:14:45 Or is he like Schroeder? Death and life at the same time? Hm, that's kind of like that.
0:14:45 – 0:14:53 Double standards? The one behavior, which is equivalent, in the one admirable and totally normal
0:14:53 – 0:15:03 is and with the others totally derogatory, already disgusting or highly reprehensible. The one begging
0:15:03 – 0:15:12 after donations and that is not possible and he must necessarily disclose everything and the other begs
0:15:12 – 0:15:21 After donations for him to have pocket money on vacation, but that's totally legitimate. And the other begs
0:15:21 – 0:15:27 and is compelled to do so in order to keep the cost out of a
0:15:27 – 0:15:33 Settlement of litigation. One is valued this way, the other is valued this way.
0:15:33 – 0:15:40 Only one is judged to be particularly bad and reprehensible, and the other is
0:15:40 – 0:15:47 They need support, help. So rather positively rated.
0:15:47 – 0:15:54 And that's double moral, through and through. But let's get to this
0:15:54 – 0:16:02 Interesting topic "parasocial hate relationship". Parasocial is one such word. I think
0:16:02 – 0:16:06 We started doing this about a year ago.
0:16:06 – 0:16:16 Introduce them in these circles. And now this is almost being used inflationarily. The people
0:16:16 – 0:16:20 They are now throwing it around. For some, I actually feel like
0:16:20 – 0:16:28 You know what you're talking about and to others, it sounds intellectually high-quality. So use
0:16:28 – 0:16:38 I have such words. It's caustic. You should be able to use these things properly. Now
0:16:38 – 0:16:44 I'm someone who can't always pronounce the words exactly correctly. Bad stroke,
0:16:44 – 0:16:52 Evil, evil, evil stroke. I wouldn't have had it. Maybe I could use these
0:16:52 – 0:17:01 Pronounce words correctly. I have problems with so many things. I never did that again
0:17:01 – 0:17:10 I got there, even though I had very intensive speech therapy or training.
0:17:10 – 0:17:17 But no, I can't really do that. That's why I avoid x-constructs
0:17:17 – 0:17:25 words. Xanten is, that's still halfway, but if you just crush an old king or
0:17:25 – 0:17:31 This can be extremely difficult in certain situations. And I speak it now
0:17:31 – 0:17:40 Also very indistinct. It's just difficult when you have a slight facial spasm in places
0:17:40 – 0:17:49 He has, and still has, a word-finding disorder. Well, there's a bit of dwindling everywhere,
0:17:49 – 0:17:54 They say so nicely. But I'm digressing, and we're not digressing here,
0:17:54 – 0:18:02 We are here at Klarfunk. But we were in parasocial relationships or parasocial relationships.
0:18:02 – 0:18:10 The hate relationship. We build one-sided relationships with people on social media, on TV,
0:18:10 – 0:18:23 On the screen, on the internet. This not only works in a positive sense, but also with
0:18:23 – 0:18:33 Sympathy, which also works with antipathy, even goes right up to hatred and that is also
0:18:33 – 0:18:40 such a fascinating aspect, because if I sit there now and then get upset about it,
0:18:40 – 0:18:50 Indignant, then my body releases hormones, very popular is dopamine. The whole thing
0:18:50 – 0:18:57 activates us, gives us the feeling of being morally superior. According to the motto "Look,
0:18:57 – 0:19:07 What stupid people do or say. It's almost the addiction to the next excitement,
0:19:07 – 0:19:15 After my own excitement. It works in a positive sense as well as
0:19:15 – 0:19:22 Negative sense. If you watch a nice livestream of someone you like,
0:19:22 – 0:19:29 That's a strong sense of us. I can confirm. I've been watching for a very long time
0:19:29 – 0:19:38 Livestreams of other people. Someone who plays Minecraft and there a beautiful city
0:19:38 – 0:19:50 builds up or a nice base and then works with automation while doing a little
0:19:50 – 0:19:58 Explained and then collected materials. Another who builds a city with a city simulation
0:19:58 – 0:20:04 Trying to keep it in balance. Yes, that's positive content. And yes,
0:20:04 – 0:20:08 I also like this content creator.
0:20:08 – 0:20:12 Only he doesn't know I exist.
0:20:12 – 0:20:16 He has no idea of, not at all.
0:20:16 – 0:20:20 But there are also people I consume where I get upset.
0:20:20 – 0:20:24 And I have the same feeling,
0:20:24 – 0:20:28 Maybe even a little stronger, with the people I don't like,
0:20:28 – 0:20:32 Because I can get upset, I can get upset.
0:20:32 – 0:20:38 That said? No, she didn't. But now on to the initial question
0:20:38 – 0:20:46 To come back with the opposite of love and hate and so on. What is the True Opposite
0:20:46 – 0:20:57 To be a lover or a fan on the net? The answer, as I said at the beginning, is indifference.
0:20:57 – 0:21:10 This is algorithmic death. The real letting go, that's actually the real thing.
0:21:10 – 0:21:23 The true, the true opposite of offense or love. So we remember,
0:21:23 – 0:21:33 No longer angry press the dislike button or 500 or 1000 character "Hate" comments
0:21:33 – 0:21:41 Leave it there. The opposite would be something like "Continue scrolling", not clicking, de-subscribing.
0:21:41 – 0:21:48 Without saying a word, not so much according to the motto "I can't even look at this,
0:21:48 – 0:21:55 I'll go now. You disappointed me so much. I know such theatrical news.
0:21:55 – 0:22:04 Or we know. Well, it was just another comment. Again the confirmation for the
0:22:04 – 0:22:12 Algorithm, how relevant all this shit is. Or to put it philosophically,
0:22:12 – 0:22:21 The true emotional and algorithmic distance arises at the moment when the Creator
0:22:21 – 0:22:30 no longer triggers a reaction when we stop giving it in our most precious resources,
0:22:30 – 0:22:37 Our time and our attention. And here we are again on the subject
0:22:37 – 0:22:46 The attention economy. The more outrageous the content, the more people get upset,
0:22:46 – 0:22:55 The more we see it. Look again to see if there are any new comments.
0:22:55 – 0:23:03 Do other people see it the same way as I do? Are others of the same opinion as me? Has
0:23:03 – 0:23:09 Someone else has already commented on my bubble. And these are all clicks,
0:23:09 – 0:23:15 Clicks, clicks and that's what the algorithm is happy about. And here we are already
0:23:15 – 0:23:22 Let's talk about something, let's call it culture action. Have you seen Hate Watching?
0:23:22 – 0:23:33 Which channels do you give your attention to, yes, even though you don't actually pay attention to them?
0:23:33 – 0:23:39 You want to look, even though you are upset about it, even though you are indignant about what you see,
0:23:39 – 0:23:49 Hear. You can write that in the comments. And maybe we could have a
0:23:49 – 0:23:57 We talk a little bit about it when we pay attention to everything in this way, even though we
0:23:57 – 0:24:05 They don't like it at all. Yeah, I'd say that's it now, and I'd like to thank you for
0:24:05 – 0:24:15 your attention and wish you all a good time and above all do less
0:24:15 – 0:24:20 hate watching. bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye by
0:24:20 – 0:24:31 Thoughts remain, questions smoke, think on, ask on, talk on.
0:24:31 – 0:24:41 That was KlarFunk. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, ye Let's talk about it.
0:24:41 – 0:24:48 [Music]

Welcome to KlarFunk, the new format for topics that are too important for quick answers. In this entry-level episode, we dedicate ourselves to a fascinating everyday paradox of the social media world: Why do people spend hours consuming content from people they hate?

We take a close look at the phenomenon of hate-watching and the so-called parasocial hate relationship. We analyse why anti-fans behave structurally exactly like super-fans – they watch videos to the end, subscribe to notifications and comment diligently. You will learn why the algorithms of YouTube and Co. don't care about your excitement, because every form of interaction is considered positive..

In addition, we talk about in-group and out-group dynamics and how common enemy images create a strong sense of togetherness in communities.. When hatred of a person becomes the central pillar of one's own identity, that person lives in one's own head almost rent-free.

The most important learning of this episode: The true opposite of being a fan is not hate, but indifference.. Algorithmic and emotional death only occurs when we stop giving our time and attention away..

Ask the community: Do you catch yourself hate-watching? Write it in the comments and let's discuss it!

Is hate really the opposite of love? – Why the answer is more complicated than it seems

Thematic breakdown:

1. Introduction & The Everyday Paradox

The format ‘KlarFunk’: Space for in-depth topics that cannot be dismissed with a quick response.
The initial observation: The surprising realization that hatred connects people on social media as much as love.
Fans vs. Hater: Why the biggest anti-fans and super-fans show identical consumer behavior, as both videos watch, subscribe and comment to the end.

2. Hate-Watching & The Cold Logic of Algorithms

What is hate-watching? Conscious consumption of content – such as trash TV or controversial influencers – only to be outraged.
The Blind Algorithm: Why platforms don't differentiate between positive and negative criticism, and every form of interaction increases reach.
The tracking trap: How the reckless sharing of posts and videos via Messenger additionally pushes the relevance of the unloved content.

3. Group dynamics & The parasocial hate relationship

Community by demarcation: How in-group and out-group mechanisms create a strong ‘we-feeling’ through common enemy images.
Rent-free in mind: When observing the opponent becomes a central pillar of one's identity and this must be mentioned constantly.
The Search for Outrage: Why parasocial hate relationships spill dopamine and convey a sense of moral superiority.
Double standards: Why exactly the same behavior is legitimized in the favored content creator, but immediately devalued in the hate object.

4. Conclusion: The True Counterpole

The only solution: Why not the angry dislike, but the complete indifference (non-observance and de-subscription) is the true algorithmic and emotional death.
Call to Action: The open question to the community on which channels she catches herself hate-watching.

Links to the issue:

Is hate really the opposite of love? – Why the answer is more complicated than it seems - LautFunk Podcast & Blog

Advertising:

Related episodes:

Leave feedback on the issue? ✍️ Then write a comment Audio feedback on the show? ☎️ 0231 53075818

Trustpilot

Contributors to this episode

Sascha

Number of downloads: 147
Playing time: 0:24:48
Date of admission: 29.08.26
This episode is from season 4, there are a total of 4 seasons.

One According to Funk Publication Cartel Production - Where stories are transmitted unmistakably.

Podcast license:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Note: This post contains affiliate links. If you shop through these links, I'll get a small commission at no extra cost to you.

The anatomy of the digital mob: When Factual Criticism Becomes a Betrayal

“We are not a rental megaphone for foreign revenge fantasies. We stand for harsh criticism, not digital chases."

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.

The digression 81 Demonetarises – and now?

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	27 MB	Download
AAC m4a	14 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:02 Music
0:00:02 – 0:00:31 [Music]
0:00:31 – 0:00:39 Hello and welcome to a new episode of digression, where I occasionally actually
0:00:39 – 0:00:47 Almost always deviate from the topic. I'm Sascha Machmann and say hello. Today's topic is
0:00:47 – 0:00:56 Something, yes, it affects us in some way. There's always been YouTube in the past.
0:01:03 – 0:01:11 Battery calypse. Thousands of subscribers were deleted on each channel. At that time there were
0:01:11 – 0:01:21 I was 160 when I had 500, 600. And that was real for some channels.
0:01:21 – 0:01:30 It's a disaster because they've lost monetization. Then there were again and again
0:01:30 – 0:01:39 Adjustments, then people just lost their monetization for various reasons and that gave
0:01:39 – 0:01:48 always such waves and currently there is a demonetization wave for channels that stop
0:01:48 – 0:01:55 They don't produce authentic content, and that's what happened to us. Yes, I know we communicate
0:01:55 – 0:02:03 Always outward. We are not monetizing. We don't monetize either. But we could.
0:02:03 – 0:02:09 We have little monetization. This is where you can get channel membership. And that,
0:02:09 – 0:02:17 The most important thing for me personally was that you can integrate the shop. Why? I mean,
0:02:17 – 0:02:24 The shop does not make a profit. It is a no-profit shop. These are the series prices of
0:02:24 – 0:02:33 Spreadshirt. It was all about annoying Frank by keeping them bad.
0:02:33 – 0:02:43 And make badly designed cups visible over it. There was no other reason and before all
0:02:43 – 0:02:52 Things like being able to do channel fines is never real.
0:02:52 – 0:02:58 has been communicated. Yes, it is there, you can click on it, but there are also
0:02:58 – 0:03:04 Make a comment, a reference to it. But advertised or something
0:03:04 – 0:03:10 Active, great? No, it's not because we monetize it.
0:03:10 – 0:03:15 It's not. And even if we regularly receive an e-mail from YouTube
0:03:15 – 0:03:20 got it. Guys, you could do so and so much sales
0:03:20 – 0:03:28 Doing it? Monetize it! One click takes 15 minutes, you don't need more. Let's do this
0:03:28 – 0:03:39 It's not. So, so much for that. This was last week. I believe in one day, in the
0:03:39 – 0:03:47 In the early hours of the morning, after we uploaded the last video, this happened.
0:03:47 – 0:03:56 We have been demonetized. With the usual hints, non-authentic content, AI, Slop and
0:03:56 – 0:04:03 so on. Maybe now I have to explain briefly what AI-Slop is. AI-Slop is cheaply produced,
0:04:03 – 0:04:16 Contentless, automatically generated AI. Shit. To put it this way. And so I thought to myself,
0:04:16 – 0:04:23 jo, you've heard about it because I'd gotten messages where some people
0:04:23 – 0:04:29 They complained that they had lost their monetization. Then hold on
0:04:29 – 0:04:33 Consider making a disagreement with a lawyer and so and I've thought
0:04:33 – 0:04:40 "Shit happens", you simply write a two-liner according to the motto. I find it difficult,
0:04:40 – 0:04:47 We make a podcast that usually lasts longer and uses a static
0:04:47 – 0:04:56 Background image and just a bit of AI music to underline it thematically. Intro,
0:04:56 – 0:05:04 Outro's done. And that's how I wrote it. There was, of course, an automatic
0:05:04 – 0:05:12 The generated response. Yes, thank you very much, we'll do it, we'll check it out. We will contact you at the latest
0:05:12 – 0:05:21 Two or three weeks. Within 24 hours I got a response from a person,
0:05:21 – 0:05:30 from a support representative and he said, "We've checked it. A warm welcome,
0:05:30 – 0:05:38 Congratulations. Monetization is back. Can you reactivate." Yes, and there I have
0:05:38 – 0:05:45 I thought, cool. Then, of course, came the automatic e-mail. Yeah, you're in. And then
0:05:45 – 0:05:51 Again came an apology from a co-worker and with the kind thank you,
0:05:51 – 0:05:57 It would have helped to make the automated process better.
0:05:57 – 0:06:12 Yes, thank you very much. And what do I see? The last few days are constantly popping up new community posts
0:06:12 – 0:06:20 or even theatrical videos where creators write "I don't do anything anymore,
0:06:20 – 0:06:28 Now I'm not going to post my creative posts on YouTube anymore.
0:06:28 – 0:06:36 The question is, "Why did you do it? is it just about the money you can earn?"
0:06:36 – 0:06:43 And let's be honest, as a small channel you can only make a few hundred euros a month,
0:06:43 – 0:06:49 If you then look at all the costs you have, taxes, bla bla bla,
0:06:49 – 0:07:01 Half of it goes away. Then what do you have? From 150, from 200, 100? Good,
0:07:01 – 0:07:07 It's nice if you can make a little money with a hobby, but is
0:07:07 – 0:07:16 Is it what you want? Is that why they did it and don't do it anymore? And
0:07:16 – 0:07:22 Above all, where do you not reject your contributions now? So the things where you still have money
0:07:22 – 0:07:32 could earn, have no meaning and the things where you can upload something for free,
0:07:32 – 0:07:44 they have no range or are too cryptic or too strange to use via tube and so on
0:07:44 – 0:07:57 continue. So what to do? Most podcasts don't make a profit. So what was the
0:07:57 – 0:08:05 That's why on YouTube, if it wasn't out there, maybe it was.
0:08:05 – 0:08:12 The money? Questions about questions. You'll still be able to ask where ever, if some of you would
0:08:12 – 0:08:24 I've been doing it for years and I'm still doing it today for plus minus zero the podcast. I operate
0:08:24 – 0:08:34 a blog for plus minus zero and the other formats with plus minus zero. There are a few
0:08:34 – 0:08:40 nice people who just throw a few euros in a big pot and with it the
0:08:40 – 0:08:50 Deployment costs paid for the server. And that's it. There's no more than that, which somehow
0:08:50 – 0:09:00 It would make a profit. For me, it's a nice hobby, a job. I know,
0:09:00 – 0:09:07 that every day for one or two hours I can sit down on a computer and use the material
0:09:07 – 0:09:13 busy, a little thought, a little research, the recordings, the editing
0:09:13 – 0:09:21 and so I get continuously over the week, above all, a nice,
0:09:21 – 0:09:29 Varied pastimes. And that's all. It's a hobby. Hobbies usually cost
0:09:29 – 0:09:36 Money. Well, if I buy the new software, I have to pay, it costs money. When I'm new
0:09:36 – 0:09:43 Buying equipment. It costs money. But these are all things for my hobby. That's the same,
0:09:43 – 0:09:50 It's like buying a new instrument. A new software synthesizer or, what?
0:09:50 – 0:09:56 It hasn't been for ages, a new hardware synthesizer. It's for my hobby.
0:09:56 – 0:10:03 And I don't make any money from that. I mean, you can read on my music blog,
0:10:03 – 0:10:10 there I have in irregular time stops – I would have to update that again – how much
0:10:10 – 0:10:19 I made money with music. And there we are in, yes, let's say, in double digits
0:10:19 – 0:10:26 Cent range, regularly. There was also a month where there were maybe two euros. Da
0:10:26 – 0:10:34 In an Asian country, someone bought something. So these are amounts,
0:10:34 – 0:10:44 Those who are far away from anyone, yes, that it would be worth it. When I think about it, I
0:10:44 – 0:10:53 must accumulate at least 50 euros, so that I get the first payout, yes hello, how many years
0:10:53 – 0:11:00 Should I wait there? This is not something I expect from you and this is like I said hobby and the
0:11:00 – 0:11:09 The pay I draw from this hobby is interaction, people who listen to the music,
0:11:09 – 0:11:15 Streams, people who listen to the podcast and then, if necessary, a review
0:11:15 – 0:11:25 Leave a comment or leave a comment. That's the pay, reach and interaction, as they say so beautifully
0:11:25 – 0:11:38 in German "Engagement". So, if there is now this wave of demonetization because of
0:11:38 – 0:11:42 unauthentic content, I don't know if this wave already has a name,
0:11:42 – 0:11:56 And little creatures stop creating content because they can't silver it anymore. What was
0:11:56 – 0:12:03 Then the reason why they did it? YouTube has a saying like that.
0:12:03 – 0:12:14 How was that again? Anything about "yourself"? "Broadcast yourself" as much as
0:12:14 – 0:12:27 "Send your own". Be authentic, do what you want. Same with podcasts. Of course
0:12:27 – 0:12:32 There are a lot of people who still have the dollar signs in their eyes, but these are
0:12:32 – 0:12:40 least of them. There are so few people who can live off their podcast business. Be it,
0:12:40 – 0:12:49 because they are funded from somewhere or because they advertise, product placement and so on
0:12:49 – 0:12:58 continue. I mean, that's perfectly okay if someone makes money from what they do. And
0:12:58 – 0:13:01 What's better than making money with your hobby?
0:13:01 – 0:13:06 But then it's not a hobby anymore, then it's work and you have to.
0:13:06 – 0:13:08 And yet I see it again and again
0:13:08 – 0:13:13 any young influencers who then stop after five years
0:13:13 – 0:13:18 live stream every day, totally burned out,
0:13:18 – 0:13:23 Take a short break with a burnout
0:13:23 – 0:13:25 three months, six months,
0:13:26 – 0:13:36 so that they are again so fit that they can then go back to work and have to be careful.
0:13:36 – 0:13:41 It's hard. It's really hard.
0:13:41 – 0:13:47 I also did a lot more for a while and did a lot more.
0:13:47 – 0:13:51 And that's exhausting. That's at work.
0:13:51 – 0:13:56 And even if that's only 20 minutes of stuff you get out of it.
0:13:56 – 0:14:02 But when I look at some people, I always wonder,
0:14:02 – 0:14:07 Do you do this because you want to make money?
0:14:07 – 0:14:09 And is it worth it at all?
0:14:09 – 0:14:14 Or because you just want to tell people something?
0:14:14 – 0:14:17 I mean, we're sitting here now.
0:14:17 – 0:14:36 Some hear me driving, others on the bus, on the way to work, the next stop at home, the others on YouTube, the one on PearTube, any other platform where you can consume podcasts, even on Spotify.
0:14:36 – 0:14:42 And follow my thoughts.
0:14:42 – 0:14:45 And that's already horny.
0:14:45 – 0:14:52 Let's be honest, you listen to me sin in front of me.
0:14:52 – 0:14:55 And that's a great pay.
0:14:55 – 0:15:01 I mean, if you assume now, and I mean, so many a content creator seals
0:15:01 – 0:15:07 If you have a narcissism, it's a bit difficult to get a borderline diagnosis.
0:15:07 – 0:15:08 to be agreed.
0:15:08 – 0:15:12 But that's a topic for another podcast.
0:15:12 – 0:15:25 Then you might think, yes, that already has racist traits. And I'll tell you a secret, every human being has such a little racist.
0:15:25 – 0:15:28 The only question is how well trained he is.
0:15:28 – 0:15:37 And I think in one of the next editions I'll talk about
0:15:37 – 0:15:46 Let's talk about healthy selfishness. In conjunction with
0:15:46 – 0:15:56 overtones. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, ye There will be so many times
0:15:56 – 0:16:09 Finding new thoughts. I find it interesting that the topic, so attention and reach,
0:16:09 – 0:16:19 It's always taken as the ultimate manslaughter argument when you criticize someone else. How often
0:16:19 – 0:16:24 we have recently, especially since we launched the Akter Flattermann series and
0:16:24 – 0:16:30 some also use the format rectal-digital more strongly again, heard, you only do that
0:16:30 – 0:16:42 Because of the attention. But even generate this attention by stopping
0:16:42 – 0:16:53 certain topics that have a certain topicality, make content themselves. Or question rounds
0:16:53 – 0:17:00 Do what you can talk about in the next live or video. And that closes this
0:17:00 – 0:17:08 Circle of Thought. No one wants to make content that no one looks at, so no one consumes.
0:17:08 – 0:17:19 So you do what the target group wants to consume. So you ask or
0:17:19 – 0:17:28 Do what you see most, click or something else. And then you do that,
0:17:28 – 0:17:35 What matters, what pleases. But it is actually considered the ultimate manslaughter argument
0:17:35 – 0:17:42 made. He's just doing it because of the reach and the clicks. If you do this
0:17:42 – 0:17:51 would now monetize that there are at least a few numbers popping out, such a few money numbers,
0:17:51 – 0:17:58 Then you would understand. But such little people who can't monetize at all
0:17:58 – 0:18:04 or others who don't want to do that, you can't ultimately blame them,
0:18:04 – 0:18:13 Because there's no greater reason than that you might want to be heard.
0:18:13 – 0:18:20 I said earlier, it's almost a reward for us. For me it is a reward.
0:18:20 – 0:18:27 If someone writes a comment on the blog post and says you, I think it's okay.
0:18:27 – 0:18:33 I think I'm horny. You, I have a completely different opinion. I see it differently. This
0:18:33 – 0:18:39 I am now critical. I think it's great if there's an interesting exchange and
0:18:39 – 0:18:46 There is discourse. I also see this on YouTube with certain videos and topics. Then it pops
0:18:46 – 0:18:56 Sometimes right in the comments and I know that many of them claim that I don't delete any
0:18:56 – 0:19:05 Comments, especially on YouTube. That's what so many people say. I am transparency in persona. me
0:19:05 – 0:19:13 I am consistently honest. Just like the Berserkers. When I look at the fact that some
0:19:13 – 0:19:26 Channels so have deleted 5,000, 4,000, 1,700 comments in the last 30 days and I'm talking now
0:19:26 – 0:19:32 Not from any big ones, but from channels in such a small side bubble. So
0:19:32 – 0:19:41 such a side arm on YouTube and then hold such a small branch and there such a small bud on it. From
0:19:41 – 0:19:51 I'm talking about a bubble like that. So from channels that have 30,000, 40,000 subscribers, where maybe
0:19:51 – 0:19:59 5,000 are active, or perhaps less than 10,000 for channels that have even fewer
0:19:59 – 0:20:07 Subscribers. Well, I think it's tough. Sure, comments also disappear with us,
0:20:07 – 0:20:13 because people delete it themselves, because the main comment, under which I say 100 or
0:20:13 – 0:20:23 200 comments are deleted by the one who created it himself, because every now and then we
0:20:23 – 0:20:30 delete a comment where something is extremely insulted, something is extremely doxed or where we
0:20:30 – 0:20:37 would be asked to delete this because it is a personal attack on another commentator
0:20:37 – 0:20:45 was. But we always weigh this up and then you can just go and say yes, but you say
0:20:45 – 0:20:53 But you always don't delete. Yeah, but we never said that. We said yes we delete
0:20:53 – 0:20:59 Also, but only a little. Most of it stops, except for hard insults, doxen of
0:20:59 – 0:21:07 Data and there are unfortunately a few candidates who like to outweigh first names of women,
0:21:07 – 0:21:17 Yes, doxen, without the stop being visible from the username stop. And if not the
0:21:17 – 0:21:23 Who says you can delete this please, of course we do. But let's say
0:21:23 – 0:21:31 so, for a video, where there are 400 comments and there we delete maybe 5,
0:21:31 – 0:21:40 Sometimes ten, that's not exactly as much as other people who delete within 24 hours.
0:21:40 – 0:21:57 Hours - what did I draw the analysis before - delete 1200, 500, 300 comments. This is an
0:21:57 – 0:22:04 A small difference. Of course they will all say, "No, no, no, no, no, no, I don't do that!"
0:22:04 – 0:22:12 But yes, this happens regularly, because I see these numbers regularly.
0:22:12 – 0:22:23 That's the point about this "I'm authentic" because I only do it because I like to do it,
0:22:23 – 0:22:29 because I want to clarify and I don't care if this is seen here
0:22:29 – 0:22:34 Will or something. But the others, they do it only because of the reach and because of the attention
0:22:34 – 0:22:41 They don't have their own issues anyway. Yes, you hear that over and over again and then you see
0:22:41 – 0:22:53 suddenly that videos, channels are deleted and disappear because YouTube stops
0:22:53 – 0:22:59 Content that isn't authentic at the moment, I think that's stupid.
0:22:59 – 0:23:11 It is demonetized. Now I have you again 20 minutes, after 23 minutes of your
0:23:11 – 0:23:20 cost a valuable life and I just wanted to say if someone really does that because they
0:23:20 – 0:23:29 What he has to say is that he wants to be heard and he does it.
0:23:29 – 0:23:36 Even if he doesn't make any money for it. 'Cause it's never been so easy and so cheap,
0:23:36 – 0:23:45 make videos, podcasts and even publish them quite inexpensively,
0:23:45 – 0:23:52 as we have now. You can buy reasonable equipment for small money and be there
0:23:52 – 0:24:00 200 Euro already damn high and can then just pursue an interesting hobby,
0:24:00 – 0:24:12 where you get to know many interesting people, but also toxic and people,
0:24:12 – 0:24:18 Where you think, no, I wouldn't have known them better in my life. But this is
0:24:18 – 0:24:30 everywhere like that. This can happen to you in the carnival club, this can happen to you in the hobby remote controlled
0:24:30 – 0:24:38 Cars Club pass, RC Racing Club. But this can also happen to you in the chess club or at the
0:24:38 – 0:24:48 Linen actor troupe. With this in mind, thank you for listening and bye, your Sasha.
0:24:48 – 0:24:51 [Music]
0:24:51 – 0:24:54 [Music]
0:24:54 – 0:25:00 [Music]
0:25:00 – 0:25:06 [Music]
0:25:06 – 0:25:12 [Music]
0:25:12 – 0:25:18 [Music]
0:25:18 – 0:25:21 [Music]
0:25:21 – 0:25:27 [Music]
0:25:27 – 0:25:33 [Music]
0:25:33 – 0:25:39 [Music]
0:25:39 – 0:25:45 [Music]
0:25:45 – 0:25:52 [Music]
0:25:52 – 0:25:57 [Music]
0:25:57 – 0:26:04 [Music]
0:26:04 – 0:26:11 [Music]
0:26:11 – 0:26:14 [Music]
0:26:14 – 0:26:20 [Music]
0:26:20 – 0:26:26 [Music]
0:26:26 – 0:26:32 [Music]
0:26:32 – 0:26:38 [Music]
0:26:38 – 0:26:41 [Music]
0:26:41 – 0:26:47 [Music]
0:26:47 – 0:26:53 [Music]
0:26:53 – 0:26:59 [Music]
0:26:59 – 0:27:05 [Music]
0:27:05 – 0:27:08 [Music]
0:27:08 – 0:27:15 [Music]
0:27:15 – 0:27:22 [Music]
0:27:22 – 0:27:30 [Music]
0:27:30 – 0:27:33 [Music]
0:27:33 – 0:27:40 [Music]
0:27:40 – 0:27:48 [Music]
0:27:48 – 0:27:55 [Music]
0:27:55 – 0:27:58 [Music]
0:27:58 – 0:28:04 [Music]
0:28:04 – 0:28:10 [Music]
0:28:10 – 0:28:16 [Music]
0:28:16 – 0:28:22 [Music]
0:28:22 – 0:28:25 [Music]
0:28:25 – 0:28:31 [Music]
0:28:31 – 0:28:37 [Music]
0:28:37 – 0:28:43 [Music]
0:28:43 – 0:28:49 [Music]
0:28:49 – 0:29:07 [Music]
0:29:07 – 0:29:09 [Music]

YouTube cleans up – or at least tries. Currently, a new wave of demonetisation is hitting many small channels that are flying out of monetisation due to allegedly ‘non-authentic content’. AI Slop, Automatically Acting Content, Static Images, Artificial Music, Podcast Formats on YouTube: Suddenly, the question arises as to what is actually considered real content.

In this episode, the divergence Sascha addresses precisely this question – not from a safe distance, but from her own experience. His own channel was also affected for a short time. The monetisation was gone, the contradiction was examined, one person from the support looked at it – and suddenly everything was reactivated. But that's where the bigger question comes from: What does this whole situation say about small creators, YouTube, reach and motivation?

Is it really about expression, exchange and one's own hobby? Or is there more to money than is publicly admitted? What does it mean when creators immediately announce that they don't want to publish anything as soon as content can no longer be silvered? And is attention really a bad thing – or is it often the real reward for small formats?

This episode is an honest digression about hobby content, small channels, podcast work, AI suspicion, algorithm logic, deleted comments, reach as payment and the old YouTube idea: Broadcast Yourself.

In the end, the uncomfortable but important question remains:
If you really have something to say, do you keep going even if there is no money around?

Breakdown of topics

1. Getting started: Welcome to the new digression

The sequence begins with the typical classification of the format: Sascha welcomes the listeners and introduces them to a topic that is not only of general interest, but also directly affects their own channel.

2. Review: YouTube and previous "battery calypses"

Sascha is reminiscent of earlier waves where YouTube has mass purged subscribers or made channels through changes to monetization. Even then, small channels could noticeably lose reach or revenue opportunities.

3. The current wave of demonetization

The focus is on the new wave where channels are demonetised for allegedly ‘non-authentic content’. Terms such as AI slop, automatically generated content and artificial content become the basis for YouTube's evaluation.

4. Disturbance of the channel

Sascha explains that his own channel was also affected for a short time. Although it was always clearly communicated to the outside that LautFunk is not actively monetized, certain features such as small monetization, channel memberships and shop integration were available.

5. Why Monetization Was Activated

It follows the classification that it was not about profit intention. In particular, shop integration is described as a rather humorous and symbolic purpose – for example for cups and other deliberately trashy fan articles – not as a serious source of income.

6. The contradiction on YouTube

Sascha describes his own objection to demonetization. Instead of large legal steps, there was a factual explanation: The channel produces longer podcast content with static image, intro, outro and thematically supporting AI music.

7. The quick response from support

Surprisingly quickly came a human feedback from YouTube. After review, monetization was reactivated, including apologies and an indication that feedback would help improve automated processes.

8. Observation of Creator Reactions

Then look at other creators. In community posts and videos, some announce that they will no longer publish anything on YouTube because they have been deprived of monetization.

9. The central question of motivation

From these reactions arises the guiding question of the following: Why was the content made? Was it about communication, exchange, hobby and reach – or, in the end, more about money than many openly admit?

10. Small Channels and the Reality of Revenue

Sascha argues that small channels rarely make significant profits. Even a few hundred euros a month are put into perspective very quickly due to costs, taxes, effort and the actual time consumption.

11. Hobby, cost and creative work

The result changes to a personal perspective: Podcasting, blogging, music making and content production are primarily a hobby for Sascha. As with synthesizers, software or other equipment, this hobby costs money rather than making a reliable profit.

12. Music releases as an example

As an example, Sascha mentions his own music releases, where revenues are often only in the cent range. Visibility, streams, comments and real feedback are more important here than a payout.

13. Reach and interaction as actual payment

The result is that attention is not automatically negative. For small formats, a comment, an evaluation or a serious exchange can be the real reward.

14. When hobby becomes work

Sascha talks about the pressure to produce content on a regular basis. Especially with influencers and streamers, a hobby can quickly turn into a day-to-day work, which can lead to exhaustion, overwork or burnout.

15. The old YouTube idea: "Broadcast Yourself"

The following is a reference to the original YouTube idea: Send yourself, show what you want to say. This is exactly what Sascha measures today's creator culture and the question of how much authenticity remains when money and algorithm dominate.

16. Attention as a manslaughter argument

Another focus is the allegation that someone is making content ‘just because of attention’ or ‘just because of reach’. Sascha argues against this: Of course, anyone who publishes content also wants to be heard, seen or read – otherwise they would not have to be made public.

17. Target group, choice of topic and click logic

The result is that content is almost always created according to what people are interested in. Creators see which topics are clicked, which discussions are ongoing and what their own target group reacts to. This alone does not make content dishonest.

18. Authenticity and Commentary Culture

Sascha addresses the discrepancy between public assertion of transparency and the actual behaviour of some channels. In particular, deleting large amounts of comments contrasts with statements such as ‘nothing is deleted in my case’.

19. Own moderation and limits

Even with your own channel, it is arranged that comments do not remain completely unfiltered. Hard insults, doxing, personal attacks or posts deleted at the request of data subjects will be removed – but not as a means of opinion control.

20. Return to the key question: What is real content?

In the end, the circle closes to the wave of demonetization. If YouTube rates content as ‘non-authentic’ and creators want to stop, the question of what real motivation, real expression and real creativity mean becomes even clearer.

21. Conclusion: If you have something to say, go ahead.

The episode ends with the thought that it's easier and cheaper than ever to publish podcasts, videos or other content today. If you really want to communicate something, you can do so without much monetization.

22. farewell

Sascha thanks for listening and ends the episode by pointing out that content production can bring many interesting people – but like any hobby, it also brings with it strenuous, toxic or strange encounters.

Advertising:

Leave feedback on the issue? ✍️ Then write a comment Audio feedback on the show? ☎️ 0231 53075818

Trustpilot

Contributors to this episode

Sascha

Number of downloads: 187
Playing time: 0:29:09
Date of admission: 03.05.26
This episode is from season 4, there are a total of 4 seasons.

One According to Funk Publication Cartel Production - Where stories are transmitted unmistakably.

Podcast license:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Note: This post contains affiliate links. If you shop through these links, I'll get a small commission at no extra cost to you.

The architecture of escalation: How YouTube's Drama Backend Overrides Our Ethics and Triggers Real Violence

How the YouTube backend rewards toxic drama and triggers real violence. An uncompromising system analysis of algorithms, doxing and the price of clicks.

Introduction: The End of Innocence in the Video Ecosystem

YouTube is no longer just a hosting service for music videos, tutorials or cat clips. With over 500 hours of video uploaded to servers every minute, it is arguably the most powerful infrastructure in the global attention economy. It's a highly complex, data-driven ecosystem where billions flow daily, careers are forged overnight through viral spikes, and just as quickly destroyed by orchestrated shitstorms. In this gigantic digital space, ethical boundaries are not only regularly renegotiated, they are systematically, calculatingly and algorithmically driven.