I used to occasionally enjoy watching random videos online. But this trend of people attaching their annoying and obviously FAKE reactions on top of the video is happening a lot lately. Aren’t people bothered by this ? How is that even supposed to help with the content of the video ? I understand if they own the content of the video, but lately I see a lot of people doing it on completely random content.
One of the ways to avoid a copyright strike is if you copy other people’s work, then what you upload must be “transformative” i.e. you have alter that source content significantly. Satire / Parody are two ways to do that.
But the cheapest, laziest way to “transform” content is to do reaction videos to it. And some people don’t even do that. They’ll just sit there, eating their dinner . . . occasionally glancing at the screen and going, “huh.” Lazy jerks.
Some people like wwf wrestling, some people like fake reaction videos.
It’s absolutely awful and if I get clickbaited into one such videos I let it play for a few seconds before clicking it away. I hope this makes their bounce rate drop.
They steal content and provide nothing of value besides their fragile and fake personalities that a few people might like because they’re lonely.
Small correction: Bounce rate going UP is what you’re trying to achieve
Honestly I think there’s a strong difference between people reacting to content who are adding value (eg adding meaning information, elaborating on their opinion, etc) and people who “react to content” just to get away with reposting the content. The second group tends to try to obscure as little of the original video as they can get away with and if you subscribe to them you effectively get a pre-curated list of somewhat interesting videos (if you can ignore their heads or a silly automated voiceover).
Sadly both groups often don’t credit the original creators, so whoever actually made the original content tends to be out of luck regarding getting their fair share of revenue or digital traffic.
If you’re referring to the youtube thumbnail trend, it’s because it helps people choose videos without reading channel names. You know who it’s from just by looking, you see the title, you’re more likely to click.
In other words, the office nerds at Mr. Beast Inc. crunched the numbers and discovered that they get ??% more viewers by putting Jimmy’s face in the thumbnail, and every other youtuber took that as gospel.
I think he means how more and more YouTubers have face can on while they play. It seems to have picked up steam over the last few years. I find it annoying as hell. Sometimes it’s a cut-down Livestream, which I don’t know why anyone does face cam there either, though I hate watching unedited content, it’s boring AF.
Face cams on let’s play videos have been a thing for years. Even more so with livestreams. It’s rare for a live streamer to not have video when playing a game, and its detrimental to their growth and viewership to not have a face cam or vtuber.
I personally like no commentary let’s plays with no face cam. I’m here to check out a game I’m interested in, not to suck some influencers dick or join a community that is way to big to effectively communicate in.
I like reaction videos. If you don’t like them, don’t watch them, this isn’t complicated. I think football is stupid, but lots of people love it. It’s a big ol world, and it’s full of people with nervous systems all firing in different ways. Stop yucking other people’s yums.
Some of us are homebound with various disabilities. Some of us are too ill or too medicated to deal with actual social interaction. Reactions offer a parasocial experience that helps stave off loneliness. Lots of things that seem “stupid” turn out to be helpful for disabled people.
What if someone’s yum is yuking on someone else’s yum?
You may have missed the point of this post. It’s not about enjoying reaction videos. There are lots of creators putting effort into their videos. OP is focused on grifters intentionally forcing a strong reaction to boost engagement on their videos. its annoying that bad videos get pushed by some unknown algorithm.
“Look at this old lady. She wake up everyday to do old lady things. Like if you think that the old lady is doing great”
That’s one of the reasons I stopped using YouTube. I don’t want to see people’s stupid face, it adds nothing and it detracts from the video.
As in most social media apps, downvote and move on. Personally, I have a list of channels I subscribe to and mostly just stick to watching the content they produce. None of that is reaction videos, which I agree are lazy and stupid, but I guess some people like them or they wouldn’t keep making the rounds.
I like all the extra information. What I’d really like is for the subtitles to be in sync with the audio. Comedy is spoiled when the whole build up AND punch-line show up together 15 seconds early.
It’s been a trend for quite a while now, “reaction” videos. There was even a YouTube gremlin who wholesale stole content from everyone and did nothing on camera
I actively avoid videos with those awful thumbnails, but I figure it must result in a net gain in clicks.
I’m not sure what you mean… I haven’t really gotten much of that at all, thankfully, as it does sound pretty annoying.
I think he means reaction content. Where some influencer or some other reacts to viral stuff or whatever. Most are shit.
But if you managed to find it there are some good ones where they add good content on top.
I personally am following a chef doing this reaction content. He adds a lot of advice and suggestions for the normal home cooks.
I thought reaction videos were passé. Is this a short video thing I’m too old to get targeted by?
Since Google wants to take the TikTok crowd, they are boosting Shorts. So content creators are pushing Shorts.
In order to use someone elses content under fair use you have to make “meaningful commentary” so they do the bare minimum in order to use other people’s videos.
I had very recently come across a reactionary content left-wing YouTube channel, reacting to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reacting to Elon Musk’s interview… I thought that was pretty bizarre. (link).
It was a 30 second intro segment, then a 8 minute clip of the Maddow show, followed by a 1 minute outro commentary segment.
Fair use commentary generally requires as little of the actual original work to be used as possible. Summary may be ok, clips/recordings are ok, but they must be minimal. That commentary must also be substantive.
Reproducing a work in full (thus obviously limiting the commercial viability of the original work - another factor considered) with light commentary over the top probably wouldn’t hold up in court. The commentary just avoids automatic systems in the increasingly poorly moderated internet.
This is the correct answer here! People copyright strike reposted videos all the time, but turning it into commentary makes it a new artwork so it won’t get removed. They also often insert the commentary over the sections of video that include copyrighted music.
You should make one of those video with your reaction to the fake reaction videos
