Dan & Phil Part 82: now onto the future

[noodlebum]

the bulging-boobed anime IG was pretty weird
mind you, so was the DAPG video where the cartoon men with large appendages mounted each other

(what a delightful top-of-the-page post )

[obvsly]

I laughed too loud at...

large appendages

Sorry. Carry on.

PS. I love Phil.

[alittledizzy]

[Stakhanov]

It seems like a lot of people heard Dan say that nothing besides DAPG would change. Where?

I think the only other place other than that liveshow where they tangentially mentioned the future and change is in an answertime answer which I'm going to quote bc I can't get it to embed:

Question: When is Dan going to post again?

short yet chunky answer: i took a break from posting on youtube this year (and thus the prophecy of dan’s diss track entirely came true) as i’m at a point in my life where i want to grow as a person (and creatively) and the thing about youtube is that it never stops - as opposed to a musician’s album cycle or a tv show with seasons that has natural breaks that allow for the creator to be inspired, the culture (and algorithm) of youtube expects you to constantly create with no pause. more than that, i feel when you make a youtube video you are putting a version of yourself out there almost like a snapshot in time defining who you are. i felt i could only really develop if i took a pause to think about how i want to grow. now that we’ve finished our tour and put ‘interactive introverts’ out into the world - which is a piece of work i think is very important and i’m incredibly proud of, i intend to think about how i can be more like the person i want to be. (which is why ‘trying to live my truth’ was the last real video i uploaded!) but don’t worry, nothing’s changing that much and i have no plans of going anywhere anytime soon, thank you for caring!

Dan says ‘nothing’s changing that much’ which, again, doesn’t deny that things are changing just that people shouldn’t worry/panic about it.

I do think that we’re in the midst of change. Things are changing. As Knq said, they haven’t denied things are changing. They’ve only ~denied/downplayed the magnitude of the change.

I do think that they say and do things (and also don’t say and don’t do things) to mitigate immediate and dramatic mass panic and hysteria with their audience. And I feel like if they were to address all of the things that were changing or ending etc in that one liveshow there would have been mass hysteria and panic. More than there already was.

I also think they rely on implicature and assumptions too. The way they talked about the end of pinof and the ‘hiatus’ of dapg was so telling imo.

Preface to announcing the dapg ‘hiatus’:

‘Some of you probably guessed because of the Dan versus Phil video…’ (titled ’Dan vs. Phil - THE FINAL BATTLE’)

Talking about pinof ending:

Phil: ‘I thought- I thought it was like-’
Dan: ‘You can’t assume it’s obvious’
Phil: ‘I thought it was obvious enough- like a- it was like a subtle- like a closing- that was the last Phil is not on fire as well…’

Dan and Phil say things in the moment to placate/calm their audience and then don’t address it for a long time (or ever again) and it just gets to a point where they assume their audience has caught on. They have a history of this. Dan and Phil have a history of letting their audience down ~gently if you will. For example, saying that the end of the radio show was a ‘hiatus’ and then letting people realise in their own time/of their own accord that it was a permanent thing.

And I do actually think this does work regardless of whether or not it’s arguably the ~best way they could do things.

Each and every day that goes by more and more people are less inclined/less resolute in thinking that dapg is coming back. They’re less sure about [xyz] relating to Dan and Phil and, imo, that’s what Dan and Phil, whether consciously or unconsciously, want. It’s ~easier for lack of a better word for them to let people realise things in their own time and of their own accord.

It’s even happening with liveshows imo. The more time that goes on without a liveshow the more people are realising that either liveshows aren’t coming back or if they are, they won’t be like they used to be.

I think it’s about slowly acclimating their audience to changes through a lack of communication and a lack of stuff/content (ie. liveshows) if you will. And I’m not saying this is how they should be doing things or that this is the best way to navigate all this stuff but if having people slowly but surely realise that [xyz] has changed, it’s working.

But I also think that at that point in December they didn’t have answers to a lot of things. I’d bet they have those answers now. And I think they’re laying down the groundwork for these changes now regardless of whether they’re directly talking about it.

It was an odd liveshow because I think they were trying to reassure the audience that they weren’t breaking up without confirming there was anything to breakup from

I agree with this

Nicely detailled post. I agree with all of it.
Change was to be expected, and it already started in the beginning of 2018.
While it would be nice if they communicated more openly and extensively about their plans, I agree it's wise for them not to do so, especially if they don't have a clearly defined plan themselves. It just leads to people making all kinds of wrong interpretations and building up expectations.

[sonicgreen]

ok great we get to see his face but laPTOP IN THE BATH I FUCKING HATE THAT AHHHHHHH

[kavat]

That looks so wobbly oh my god. But I find it hilarious that this is the first picture of his face in like 20 days.

[Ablissa]

Is he balancing it on the tap?
Risking the life of your expensive laptop just so that you can watch something in the bath? Us non-millionaires
can't relate.

[knq]

Me: I wonder if Dan is on a technology break.
Dan: *photographing his laptop with his iPhone from the bath and then tweeting about it*

[Catallena]

Oh would you look at that, Dan is still alive. Maybe not for long tho, if he's gonna keep testing fate by keeping electrical appliances near a filled bathtub.

Sorry for changing the topic so drastically but I meant to post about this days ago when Phil actually dropped the IG story related to that, then forgot about it, then read someone on here saying they had to google the slime anime to see if Phil had gotten into yet another problematic anime show and remembered what I wanted to talk about.

So... I felt really uncomfortable when I saw him recommending the slime anime and even calling it “wholesome”. Like, the cover he posted alone shows about 5 things that are the opposite of wholesome — lolicon “aesthetics” included.
A friend forwarded me his IG story and asked why he’s watching sexist trash like that and I shrugged my shoulders, going “They do that quite a lot I think and they don’t seem to really see the many problems with it”.
It’s something that has been bothering me for ages because I do really despise that side of anime culture, the constant objectification of female characters and endlessly sexualising literally everything, the marketed pedophilia that’s just, ya know, “part of anime”, haha weird Japanese people and their funny 12yos with titty jiggle animations!! It’s gross. And I find it weird that dnp seem to brush it off so easily.
I remember Dan talking about it in a liveshow briefly, about how sexist anime is etc., but it all boiled down to “That’s just the way their culture is” and it bothers me. He’s usually so progressive but when it comes to anime and dweeb culture they’re both so ignorant. I wonder why that is?

Like, what about this lolita nightmare screams “wholesome”?

That was me!

I ended up watching a review on YouTube, and the anime does seem a lot tamer compared to what I assume is the cover of a light novel in your post. The review said it plays around with tropes and has more of a comedy side to it instead of taking itself to seriously. If that's true, then cool but I'll also immediately believe that it's still problematique. While the slime thing is a 'twist' it's still your basic male wish fulfillment trapped-in-a-fantasy-world-where-only-I-am-the-hero show. Even if it's not complete garbage like some others, any isekai anime will probably still maintain most standard problematic elements that make this genre so popular.

I think at least Phil quite likes some isekai. He's talked about liking Ready Play One (basically a western isekai) and we know both him and Dan are fans of Sword Art Online. So it's not surprising that Phil (and maybe Dan, I assume they still watch anime together but rn we're not sure whether he even has a face anymore and you can't watch anime without eyes which are a part of your face) would like this one as well I guess? I get the appeal of the genre and I'm sure that a lot of people just like the more 'wholesome' themes to series like that, but the problematic side of that genre can't be ignored and I really do wonder what Phil's reasoning behind liking that genre is. But alas, we'll never know because it's 2019 and we just gotta roll with minimal communication.

[rizzo]

all that money and he can't afford a bathtub tray.... smh. must be rough.

nice to see he exists though. i appreciate the photo evidence.

[Snowboy]

He’s usually so progressive but when it comes to anime and dweeb culture they’re both so ignorant. I wonder why that is?

Controversial opinion for a first post, but here we go: I don't think they're ignorant of it, I think they like it.

In the same way that a lot of us feel like there's romantic chemistry between Dan and Phil (despite having no objective way to quantify what that feeling is), I've picked up quite a pro-kink vibe and believe that they're quite kinky themselves.

Not saying I agree with what they're into, but I feel like it's an opinion worth putting out there.

[lefthandedism]

@Snowboy !

In avoiding getting palpitations from examining the precariously placed laptop too closely, all I could notice was that Dan's tub could use some fresh grout. I guess I'm just old.

[plinthofmylife]

all I could notice was that Dan's tub could use some fresh grout. I guess I'm just old.

I think you get relatable adulting post of the month for that.

[knq]

Whatever it was Phil said about not critiquing Friends for their storyline about a male nanny somewhat recently it probably applies to, or excuses depending on your perspective, anime as well.

[MythicalPinkTrashCan]

This isn't how I wanted to learn Bernie was running again.

[Stakhanov]

He’s usually so progressive but when it comes to anime and dweeb culture they’re both so ignorant. I wonder why that is?

Controversial opinion for a first post, but here we go: I don't think they're ignorant of it, I think they like it.

In the same way that a lot of us feel like there's romantic chemistry between Dan and Phil (despite having no objective way to quantify what that feeling is), I've picked up quite a pro-kink vibe and believe that they're quite kinky themselves.

Not saying I agree with what they're into, but I feel like it's an opinion worth putting out there.

Welcome Snowboy

I agree in that I don't think they're "ignorant" about it. They do look a good amount of anime and chances are they are aware of ethical questions that can be raised about certain anime shows. Doesn't mean they agree with the interpretations and conclusions that are being made about it.

In general I don't think it's a good thing to scrutinize their viewing habits, or the music they listen to, or the games they play and expect them to have the exact same moral framework as you do. I'm pretty sure I would vehemently disagree with Dan and Phil on some political and philosophical issues, but I think in every (audience-creator) relationship (and society as a whole) we have to be able to disagree about things without immediately charging the person with ignorance or being oblivious to some moral evil we feel attuned to.

I don't know if they're driven to watch out of a kinky vibe (I'm imagining the fanfic potential ) but I do think you touch upon an interesting comparison. The fandom sure does at times romanticize and sexualize, even objectify the Dan and Phil relationship. Maybe that's worthy of reflection too. To what extent are some viewers watching their own "Dan and Phil" cartoon?

~ Dan's picture: he's an absolute mad lad for balancing his laptop on the tap, but I do love how he seems to be into a lot of political channels and I think it's a brilliant way to bring attention to Sanders' presidential bid. All my uwu's to Bernie because Trump has just been wrecking this world in a way no anime villain ever could. Let's hope he actually wins the nomination this time. '

[Birdie]

I mean... yes, we kind of have to scrutinise their viewing habits and music taste as long as they keep sharing them with us and therefore recommending it to thousands of (young) people? This is not about different opinions and it's not about attacking or cancelling them. I can like them, very much so, and still think it's kinda sad they're recommending sexist anime to their fanbase. In fact, I think talking about this isn't only a good idea, it's absolutely important and healthy for a fandom to do so and to be critical of what our faves recommend, especially when some of us are uncomfortable with it for very good reasons.

I don't know if they're driven to watch out of a kinky vibe (I'm imagining the fanfic potential ) but I do think you touch upon an interesting comparison. The fandom sure does at times romanticize and sexualize, even objectify the Dan and Phil relationship. Maybe that's worthy of reflection too. To what extent are some viewers watching their own "Dan and Phil" cartoon?

Um yeah, and that's why there's been discourse about this since basically day one? It's not like no one's talking about this. We've even had long discussions about it on here in the past so...?

[Stakhanov]

I mean... yes, we kind of have to scrutinise their viewing habits and music taste as long as they keep sharing them with us and therefore recommending it to thousands of (young) people? This is not about different opinions and it's not about attacking or cancelling them. I can like them, very much so, and still think it's kinda sad they're recommending sexist anime to their fanbase. In fact, I think talking about this isn't only a good idea, it's absolutely important and healthy for a fandom to do so and to be critical of what our faves recommend, especially when some of us are uncomfortable with it for very good reasons.

I don't know if they're driven to watch out of a kinky vibe (I'm imagining the fanfic potential ) but I do think you touch upon an interesting comparison. The fandom sure does at times romanticize and sexualize, even objectify the Dan and Phil relationship. Maybe that's worthy of reflection too. To what extent are some viewers watching their own "Dan and Phil" cartoon?

Um yeah, and that's why there's been discourse about this since basically day one? It's not like no one's talking about this. We've even had long discussions about it on here in the past so...?

I can understand and respect that opinion. What I argue for in this context is nuance and an understanding that even when you consider something subjectively problematic, it ought not always to be judged in terms that imply ignorance or a strong moral condemnation of the behavior or people doing it. Phil in the end just made a short instagram story about an anime show he was watching and liked. This is not equal to "recommending sexist anime to their fanbase" to me. Is everything they share and describe in positive terms automatically a recommendation? I am sure that if I were to analyze the cultural products the thousands of (young) people enjoy, there isn't one where I couldn't also leverage a strong principled criticism and say they are recommending something that could be understood to be sexist, racist, homophobic, heterophobic, bigoted, privileged, self-absorbed, eurocentric, nationalistic, problematic and so forth. I think they have just as much right as a viewer to express themselves and should be afforded a similar amount of leniency when they share their opinion. I agree it's important for a fandom to be critical of their idols, I don't think the way they are criticized is always healthy or fair.
I am not talking about this forum specifically but the criticism that sometimes gets raised in the fandom I also find terrible selective and lacking self-awareness. I have seen little moral outcry about all the terribly sexist and often problematic songs that they played as DJ's. I'm not always here on IDB but in the one discussion I do remember about fanfiction, most seemed to be fine with it and the fact that it romanticizes and sexualizes two real people doesn't seem to stop the fandom at large from writing tons of fanfic and making sometimes very explicit art.

[liola]

I mean... yes, we kind of have to scrutinise their viewing habits and music taste as long as they keep sharing them with us and therefore recommending it to thousands of (young) people? This is not about different opinions and it's not about attacking or cancelling them. I can like them, very much so, and still think it's kinda sad they're recommending sexist anime to their fanbase. In fact, I think talking about this isn't only a good idea, it's absolutely important and healthy for a fandom to do so and to be critical of what our faves recommend, especially when some of us are uncomfortable with it for very good reasons.

I don't know if they're driven to watch out of a kinky vibe (I'm imagining the fanfic potential ) but I do think you touch upon an interesting comparison. The fandom sure does at times romanticize and sexualize, even objectify the Dan and Phil relationship. Maybe that's worthy of reflection too. To what extent are some viewers watching their own "Dan and Phil" cartoon?

Um yeah, and that's why there's been discourse about this since basically day one? It's not like no one's talking about this. We've even had long discussions about it on here in the past so...?

I can understand and respect that opinion. What I argue for in this context is nuance and an understanding that even when you consider something subjectively problematic, it ought not always to be judged in terms that imply ignorance or a strong moral condemnation of the behavior or people doing it. Phil in the end just made a short instagram story about an anime show he was watching and liked. This is not equal to "recommending sexist anime to their fanbase" to me. Is everything they share and describe in positive terms automatically a recommendation? I am sure that if I were to analyze the cultural products the thousands of (young) people enjoy, there isn't one where I couldn't also leverage a strong principled criticism and say they are recommending something that could be understood to be sexist, racist, homophobic, heterophobic, bigoted, privileged, self-absorbed, eurocentric, nationalistic, problematic and so forth. I think they have just as much right as a viewer to express themselves and should be afforded a similar amount of leniency when they share their opinion. I agree it's important for a fandom to be critical of their idols, I don't think the way they are criticized is always healthy or fair.
I am not talking about this forum specifically but the criticism that sometimes gets raised in the fandom I also find terrible selective and lacking self-awareness. I have seen little moral outcry about all the terribly sexist and often problematic songs that they played as DJ's. I'm not always here on IDB but in the one discussion I do remember about fanfiction, most seemed to be fine with it and the fact that it romanticizes and sexualizes two real people doesn't seem to stop the fandom at large from writing tons of fanfic and making sometimes very explicit art.

Yes. Everything they do talk about or even mention with us is a recommendation, it comes with being an influencer, it's LITERALLY why creators like them are called influencers, because they're able to influence their audience. It's why product placement is such a strong marketing strategy that at this point in time has to be disclosed, because even if you don't give an opinion on that product, audiences will see and get curious and buy it/talk about it. It's why them talking positively about something will make people go check it out.

Whether they like it or not, whether it's fair, there's a responsibility with what they share to their audience that is still at large made out of young women. If you post something on your instagram story to your millions of followers, rating a show you just watched it and call it good, your followers will watch it. It's how it works. It's a recommendation.

[Stakhanov]

I agree they have influence. Considering the size of their audience and the fan-idol relationship (or viewer-influencer if you prefer) I don't doubt that when they talk about something people go check it out. I don't see how that makes every single thing they describe positively a recommendation. I think there's a distinction between the fact that people will get curious and talk or buy something and the specifics of what a youtuber does. The result or effect is not the only relevant aspect and doesn't determine the whole nature of the interaction.
When they just wear clothing in a video, they usually don't mention it much and they might have just put on 'the first next thing in the rack (to use Phil's words) without giving it much further thought. Or they might have been trying to promote a certain article of clothing. In both cases the effect will be that people are influenced and some will buy the clothing.
But what they have actually done and their intent was different. I wouldn't equal the bare act of wearing clothing to recommending something even while it's true that in both scenario's they have exerted influence on their audience.
In this case, I think Phil was just sharing his opinion about a show he watched. That's entirely different to me than e.g. Dan's video where he recommends anime in the wake of a sponsored video by Crunch Roll.

Raising the question of responsibility, there's multiple ways you can look at it. As you pointed out, professional youtubers like Dan and Phil do have certain obligations, e.g. when it comes to making clear what content is sponsored. Afaik that's not even a real legal responsibility but part of the regulations and standards set by advertiser organizations (ADA? I don't remember the specifics of the UK and youtuber regulatory framework but have a sudden inexplicable desire to drink milk and eat Oreo cookies ). Imo they are citizens just like us and deserve to be treated just like us when they share something personal (and most of us do hope and would like they share more private stuff with us). They don't wield power the way politicians do and I don't think it's fair to put them to the same level of scrutiny like we do with magistrates in the court system. We can't even apply the same standards to them as we would with for example news anchors on publicly paid broadcasting services in my opinion.
On balance, while I think they do have a certain amount of responsibility that comes with their status, I don't agree it works along the lines of they share anything=they recommend it and are responsible for the effects it creates or
if the things they share can be criticized = it's their responsibility to take into account and address every criticism that can be leveraged.

[liola]

I agree they have influence. Considering the size of their audience and the fan-idol relationship (or viewer-influencer if you prefer) I don't doubt that when they talk about something people go check it out. I don't see how that makes every single thing they describe positively a recommendation. I think there's a distinction between the fact that people will get curious and talk or buy something and the specifics of what a youtuber does. The result or effect is not the only relevant aspect and doesn't determine the whole nature of the interaction.
When they just wear clothing in a video, they usually don't mention it much and they might have just put on 'the first next thing in the rack (to use Phil's words) without giving it much further thought. Or they might have been trying to promote a certain article of clothing. In both cases the effect will be that people are influenced and some will buy the clothing.
But what they have actually done and their intent was different. I wouldn't equal the bare act of wearing clothing to recommending something even while it's true that in both scenario's they have exerted influence on their audience.
In this case, I think Phil was just sharing his opinion about a show he watched. That's entirely different to me than e.g. Dan's video where he recommends anime in the wake of a sponsored video by Crunch Roll.

Raising the question of responsibility, there's multiple ways you can look at it. As you pointed out, professional youtubers like Dan and Phil do have certain obligations, e.g. when it comes to making clear what content is sponsored. Afaik that's not even a real legal responsibility but part of the regulations and standards set by advertiser organizations (ADA? I don't remember the specifics of the UK and youtuber regulatory framework but have a sudden inexplicable desire to drink milk and eat Oreo cookies ). Imo they are citizens just like us and deserve to be treated just like us when they share something personal (and most of us do hope and would like they share more private stuff with us). They don't wield power the way politicians do and I don't think it's fair to put them to the same level of scrutiny like we do with magistrates in the court system. We can't even apply the same standards to them as we would with for example news anchors on publicly paid broadcasting services in my opinion.
On balance, while I think they do have a certain amount of responsibility that comes with their status, I don't agree it works along the lines of they share anything=they recommend it and are responsible for the effects it creates or
if the things they share can be criticized = it's their responsibility to take into account and address every criticism that can be leveraged.

No, let's break this down. Being a regular citizen doens't mean that you don't have certain rules you have to follow in your professional line. There's been a lot of controversial issues in the past two years in particularly when it comes to FTC, paid promotions and more generally product placement and recommendations. There's a reason why the use of #notspon has become so used even in a sarcastic way in between normal users, and that's because you have to be careful.

They are influencers, point and simple. They have an audience of millions and they carefully choose what to share and not share with us among the entirety of their lives. As such, when it comes to them actively choosing to share something that could influence their audience in a negative way, it comes with the job. They don't tell us EVERYTHING they enjoy or watch, they choose what to share and if what they choose to share is controversial and people call them out on it, so be it. Hell we can expand this discourse to tv shows and such and why the case of 13 reasons why was so controversial because it could influence and affect viewers.

They have a responsibility because it's the job, this isn't an opinion, this is a matter of fact. Like I said, it's literally why this type of job took that name.

Since you do like your academic definitions, in marketing influencer is described as a person or group that has the ability to influence the behaviour or opinions of others. They fit. They're influencers. They influence the audience. We can discuss whether we like it or not or think it's fair or not, but I'm of the opinion that you gotta look at the whole cake and not just the icing, if you like the good parts of your job you gotta realize the bad parts.


You can't pick and choose.

[Stakhanov]

No, let's break this down. Being a regular citizen doens't mean that you don't have certain rules you have to follow in your professional line. There's been a lot of controversial issues in the past two years in particularly when it comes to FTC, paid promotions and more generally product placement and recommendations. There's a reason why the use of #notspon has become so used even in a sarcastic way in between normal users, and that's because you have to be careful.

They are influencers, point and simple. They have an audience of millions and they carefully choose what to share and not share with us among the entirety of their lives. As such, when it comes to them actively choosing to share something that could influence their audience in a negative way, it comes with the job. They don't tell us EVERYTHING they enjoy or watch, they choose what to share and if what they choose to share is controversial and people call them out on it, so be it. Hell we can expand this discourse to tv shows and such and why the case of 13 reasons why was so controversial because it could influence and affect viewers.

They have a responsibility because it's the job, this isn't an opinion, this is a matter of fact. Like I said, it's literally why this type of job took that name.

Since you do like your academic definitions, in marketing influencer is described as a person or group that has the ability to influence the behavior or opinions of others. They fit. They're influencers. They influence the audience. We can discuss whether we like it or not or think it's fair or not, but I'm of the opinion that you gotta look at the whole cake and not just the icing, if you like the good parts of your job you gotta realize the bad parts.


You can't pick and choose.

Ok let's break this down.

Being a regular citizen doens't mean that you don't have certain rules you have to follow in your professional line.

As a citizen, it means you have to stick to the law, which are the rules that bind all of us (within country borders).
In your professional line, there's usually your employment contract and the working regulations / labor code / ... whatever the exact term is in English. Plus any laws or binding restrictions specific to your profession or statute. Plus, arguably, some (voluntary) regulations or standards in your industry or discipline which might not technically be a legal obligation but has such influence that you must adhere to them or suffer crippling professional consequences (like athletes not respecting the rules of anti-doping agencies and getting exluded or youtubers not respecting the terms of service of youtube/google and getting banned).

What rules of his professional lines bind Phil exactly when he shared that story? Does he have a contract with us? With google? Is there anything that is required of him as influencer that goes beyond him voluntarily meeting our expectations or standards?

In second order, Is everything they share by default something they do in the function and capacity of them being professional entertainers? Or do we except they also share things as private individuals expressing themselves?
I would say there are distinctions in what they share. Their private and professional roles mix and mingle but that doesn't mean there is no difference and that everything they share fits their professional line .

They have an audience of millions and they carefully choose what to share and not share with us among the entirety of their lives.

I agree this is the case most of the time, but there are also moments where they slip up or aren't careful at all in what they share. I don't expect them to be careful in everything, to the contrary I hope they would throw caution into the wind more and just say what they really think. Though I guess this conversation shows that opening up might be professionally unwise as you will be held to different standards by different people and they can't always be compatible with your personal convictions.


As such, when it comes to them actively choosing to share something that could influence their audience in a negative way, it comes with the job.

I understand that this is your view of their professional responsibility, but where in their job description is this stated? I just mean to make the point that even if a lot of their audience would expect them to share and behave in a certain way they find responsible, In effect they have almost all the freedom they want in defining their responsibility.


they choose what to share and if what they choose to share is controversial and people call them out on it, so be it.

Indeed so be it and that is what already happens since people call them out on a whole lot of things, sometimes in direct contradiction with each other and unaware of the objections that could be raised about their own opinions and behaviors.
I think we agree here though in my previous posts the main point I wanted to make is that even when disagree with what they share I would plead for a discourse that insists less on calling out the concrete instagram story Phil shared as problematic and denouncing an anime cartoon as morally corrupt and is more self-aware with similar behavior that is common within the fandom and the diversity of opinion that exists about this anime and what we think it stands for.

They have a responsibility because it's the job, this isn't an opinion, this is a matter of fact. Like I said, it's literally why this type of job took that name.

I don't see how it's a fact. What is the job here and how is it defined that is more than an opinion of what you think the job ought to be? I see no legal or otherwise binding documents that define this responsibility? I don't doubt that there is interesting (academic) theories and books about what entertainers / influencers ought to act responsibly about ( or artists, bankers and teachers ... you can basically construct a deontology for every profession). But unless they become coded in some official and binding set of regulations, they are almost by definition opinions that people have that can't be relied upon as general facts of the job and can just be viewed as optional by the person in the profession.

I just call youtubers youtubers, and don't really see the added value of calling them influencers, but regardless of how you call them they historically have pretty much defined their own responsibility. That is why there is so much variance in the sort of content influencers make, what they talk about and how, and the opinions they have. Unless they really do cross the lines set by the terms of service by the platform itself, youtubers tend to take on the responsibility they see fit for themselves.

And even if they violate the companies norms it can take a while before action is taken (I'm thinking of the despicable content of that "daddy of 5" channel, that also let to real legal repercussions)

[Ablissa]

Ok let's break this down.

Being a regular citizen doens't mean that you don't have certain rules you have to follow in your professional line.
As a citizen, it means you have to stick to the law, which are the rules that bind all of us.
In your professional line, there's usually your employment contract and the working regulations / Labor code or whatever the exact term is in English. Plus any or all laws or binding restrictions on your profession or statute. Plus, arguably, some (voluntary) regulations or standards in your industry which might not technically be a legal obligation but has such influence that you must adhere to it or suffer crippling professional consequences (like athletes not respecting the rules of anti-doping agencies or youtubers not respecting the terms of service of youtube/google).

What rules of his professional lines bind Phil exactly when he shared that story? Does he have a contract with us? With google? Is there anything that is required of him as influencer that goes beyond him voluntarily meeting our expectations or standards?

In second order, Is everything they share by default something they do in the function and capacity of them being professional entertainers? Or do we except they also share things as private individuals expressing themselves?
I would say there are distinctions in what they share. Their private and professional roles mix and mingle but that doesn't mean there is no difference and that everything they share fits their professional line .

They have an audience of millions and they carefully choose what to share and not share with us among the entirety of their lives.

I agree this is the case most of the time, but there are also moments where they slip up or aren't careful at all in what they share. I don't expect them to be careful in everything, to the contrary I hope they would throw caution into the wind more and just say what they really think. Though I guess this conversation shows that opening up might be professionally unwise as you will be held to different standards by different people and they can't always be compatible with your personal convictions.


As such, when it comes to them actively choosing to share something that could influence their audience in a negative way, it comes with the job.

I understand that this is your view of their professional responsibility, but where in their job description is this stated? I just mean to make the point that even if a lot of their audience would expect them to share and behave in a certain way they find responsible, In effect they have almost all the freedom they want in defining their responsibility.


they choose what to share and if what they choose to share is controversial and people call them out on it, so be it.

Indeed so be it and that is what already happens since people call them out on a whole lot of things, sometimes in direct contradiction with each other and unaware of the objections that could be raised about their own opinions and behaviors.
I think we agree here though in my previous posts the main point I wanted to make is that even when disagree with what they share I would plead for a discourse that insists less on calling out the concrete instagram story Phil shared as problematic and denouncing an anime cartoon as morally corrupt and is more self-aware with similar behavior that is common within the fandom and the diversity of opinion that exists about this anime and what we think it stands for.

They have a responsibility because it's the job, this isn't an opinion, this is a matter of fact. Like I said, it's literally why this type of job took that name.
I don't see how it's a fact. What is the job here and how is it defined that is more than an opinion of what you think the job ought to be? I see no legal or otherwise binding documents that define this responsibility? I just call youtubers youtubers, and don't really see the added value of calling them influencers, but regardless of how you call them they historically have pretty much defined their own responsibility. That is why there is so much variance in the sort of content influencers make, what they talk about and how, and the opinions they have. Unless they really do cross the lines set by the terms of service by the platform itself, youtubers tend to take on the responsibility they see fit for themselves.

And even if they violate the companies norms it can take a while before action is taken (I'm thinking of the despicable content of that "daddy of 5" channel, that also let to real legal repercussions)

[noodlebum]

Ok let's break this down.

Being a regular citizen doens't mean that you don't have certain rules you have to follow in your professional line.
As a citizen, it means you have to stick to the law, which are the rules that bind all of us.
In your professional line, there's usually your employment contract and the working regulations / Labor code or whatever the exact term is in English. Plus any or all laws or binding restrictions on your profession or statute. Plus, arguably, some (voluntary) regulations or standards in your industry which might not technically be a legal obligation but has such influence that you must adhere to it or suffer crippling professional consequences (like athletes not respecting the rules of anti-doping agencies or youtubers not respecting the terms of service of youtube/google).

What rules of his professional lines bind Phil exactly when he shared that story? Does he have a contract with us? With google? Is there anything that is required of him as influencer that goes beyond him voluntarily meeting our expectations or standards?

In second order, Is everything they share by default something they do in the function and capacity of them being professional entertainers? Or do we except they also share things as private individuals expressing themselves?
I would say there are distinctions in what they share. Their private and professional roles mix and mingle but that doesn't mean there is no difference and that everything they share fits their professional line .

They have an audience of millions and they carefully choose what to share and not share with us among the entirety of their lives.

I agree this is the case most of the time, but there are also moments where they slip up or aren't careful at all in what they share. I don't expect them to be careful in everything, to the contrary I hope they would throw caution into the wind more and just say what they really think. Though I guess this conversation shows that opening up might be professionally unwise as you will be held to different standards by different people and they can't always be compatible with your personal convictions.


As such, when it comes to them actively choosing to share something that could influence their audience in a negative way, it comes with the job.

I understand that this is your view of their professional responsibility, but where in their job description is this stated? I just mean to make the point that even if a lot of their audience would expect them to share and behave in a certain way they find responsible, In effect they have almost all the freedom they want in defining their responsibility.


they choose what to share and if what they choose to share is controversial and people call them out on it, so be it.

Indeed so be it and that is what already happens since people call them out on a whole lot of things, sometimes in direct contradiction with each other and unaware of the objections that could be raised about their own opinions and behaviors.
I think we agree here though in my previous posts the main point I wanted to make is that even when disagree with what they share I would plead for a discourse that insists less on calling out the concrete instagram story Phil shared as problematic and denouncing an anime cartoon as morally corrupt and is more self-aware with similar behavior that is common within the fandom and the diversity of opinion that exists about this anime and what we think it stands for.

They have a responsibility because it's the job, this isn't an opinion, this is a matter of fact. Like I said, it's literally why this type of job took that name.
I don't see how it's a fact. What is the job here and how is it defined that is more than an opinion of what you think the job ought to be? I see no legal or otherwise binding documents that define this responsibility? I just call youtubers youtubers, and don't really see the added value of calling them influencers, but regardless of how you call them they historically have pretty much defined their own responsibility. That is why there is so much variance in the sort of content influencers make, what they talk about and how, and the opinions they have. Unless they really do cross the lines set by the terms of service by the platform itself, youtubers tend to take on the responsibility they see fit for themselves.

And even if they violate the companies norms it can take a while before action is taken (I'm thinking of the despicable content of that "daddy of 5" channel, that also let to real legal repercussions)

[Stakhanov]

Ok let's break this down.

Being a regular citizen doens't mean that you don't have certain rules you have to follow in your professional line.
As a citizen, it means you have to stick to the law, which are the rules that bind all of us.
In your professional line, there's usually your employment contract and the working regulations / Labor code or whatever the exact term is in English. Plus any or all laws or binding restrictions on your profession or statute. Plus, arguably, some (voluntary) regulations or standards in your industry which might not technically be a legal obligation but has such influence that you must adhere to it or suffer crippling professional consequences (like athletes not respecting the rules of anti-doping agencies or youtubers not respecting the terms of service of youtube/google).

What rules of his professional lines bind Phil exactly when he shared that story? Does he have a contract with us? With google? Is there anything that is required of him as influencer that goes beyond him voluntarily meeting our expectations or standards?

In second order, Is everything they share by default something they do in the function and capacity of them being professional entertainers? Or do we except they also share things as private individuals expressing themselves?
I would say there are distinctions in what they share. Their private and professional roles mix and mingle but that doesn't mean there is no difference and that everything they share fits their professional line .

They have an audience of millions and they carefully choose what to share and not share with us among the entirety of their lives.

I agree this is the case most of the time, but there are also moments where they slip up or aren't careful at all in what they share. I don't expect them to be careful in everything, to the contrary I hope they would throw caution into the wind more and just say what they really think. Though I guess this conversation shows that opening up might be professionally unwise as you will be held to different standards by different people and they can't always be compatible with your personal convictions.


As such, when it comes to them actively choosing to share something that could influence their audience in a negative way, it comes with the job.

I understand that this is your view of their professional responsibility, but where in their job description is this stated? I just mean to make the point that even if a lot of their audience would expect them to share and behave in a certain way they find responsible, In effect they have almost all the freedom they want in defining their responsibility.


they choose what to share and if what they choose to share is controversial and people call them out on it, so be it.

Indeed so be it and that is what already happens since people call them out on a whole lot of things, sometimes in direct contradiction with each other and unaware of the objections that could be raised about their own opinions and behaviors.
I think we agree here though in my previous posts the main point I wanted to make is that even when disagree with what they share I would plead for a discourse that insists less on calling out the concrete instagram story Phil shared as problematic and denouncing an anime cartoon as morally corrupt and is more self-aware with similar behavior that is common within the fandom and the diversity of opinion that exists about this anime and what we think it stands for.

They have a responsibility because it's the job, this isn't an opinion, this is a matter of fact. Like I said, it's literally why this type of job took that name.
I don't see how it's a fact. What is the job here and how is it defined that is more than an opinion of what you think the job ought to be? I see no legal or otherwise binding documents that define this responsibility? I just call youtubers youtubers, and don't really see the added value of calling them influencers, but regardless of how you call them they historically have pretty much defined their own responsibility. That is why there is so much variance in the sort of content influencers make, what they talk about and how, and the opinions they have. Unless they really do cross the lines set by the terms of service by the platform itself, youtubers tend to take on the responsibility they see fit for themselves.

And even if they violate the companies norms it can take a while before action is taken (I'm thinking of the despicable content of that "daddy of 5" channel, that also let to real legal repercussions)

I would like you to observe the first rule of this forum. I don't think you are being respectful responding with this gif and using a term like mansplaining. I have reported your post and asked clarification.

1. Be respectful of fellow users, moderators and the administration. Disagreements are permitted, but no name calling or hate speech of any kind will be tolerated.