Dan & Phil Part 82: now onto the future

[noodlebum]

Wow, this thread is becoming the opposite of fun

And i'm back at the top of the page
Anyway, new page, new leaf and all that...

[liola]

@Stakhanov you are talking of opinions and I'm talking of facts, of laws and regulations that dictate how influencers and people of high profile have to behave on their professional social media (their verified accounts). This is made by the companies, the FTC, and all other regulations institutes to protects audiences.

When you are watched by millions, whatever it is, whether you like it or not, your actions have a weight. It come with the definition of using the platform (that, again, has to follow regulations) with your professional account, the one that is part of your brand.

Daniel Howell and amazingphil, using those professional accounts on social media, are brands. And what the say have weight.

This isn't an opinion, this is how is, point and simple. It's not an academic opinion either. But by all means, come back to try and explain me my own professional setting, I shall burn my two degrees that you are calling interesting academic theories, because you jjust don't seem to accept the point that criticizing someone doesn't have to be a bad thing, and that you can still call yourself a fan of Dan and Phil even if for once in your life you admit that they're less than perfect.

What they do in their own, private life where fandom has no input and no insight is their own share of opinion. When they do it using public platforms with their own brand of it, is called endorsement and recommendation. That's the difference.

[knq]

Wow, this thread is becoming the opposite of fun

And i'm back at the top of the page
Anyway, new page, new leaf and all that...

It seems to be following the same pattern of the 'one day of happy, 7-14 days of unhappy' that follow Phil posting a video now.
Day 1 discussion: It's so rewarding to see Phil developing as a person and a creator UwU
Day 3 discussion: Is homophobia homophobic? Is sexism sexist? Does other people's suffering matter?

Day 2 alternates between "I miss Dan" and "Dan shot my dog and abandoned me by the side of the road what a dick"

This is meant to be a funny post

[thestigdrivesamini]

Off topic, but the Brits are tonight and I’m all nostalgic for the BTS videos. They were genuinely hilarious and it suited them so well. I miss the weird games they made actual celebrities play! I wonder if they miss events like that? Or if it wasn’t their favorite part of the job? I’m sure it’s not great for social anxiety, but they seemed to have fun. Idk... those were good times. (And I’m bitter because if they continued we would have gotten quiff + suit pics right about now)

[Birdie]

Can I just say, I hate how invested I am? I wanna care less and just live my damn life but I can't help it, I miss the gaming channel and Dan content. When did this even happen to me? And before this becomes way too negative again, even though that's my brand: I'm so grateful for Phil. I love that he's uploading regularly again and I love the videos he did so far. Wholesome Phil content is important to me and I only realised how much I missed it once he started providing it again. Just makes me smile and I need that in these trying times.

(Also literally cackling at the idea that the term mansplaining is hatespeech now but Dan's homophobia in 2012 wasn't homophobia and we don't get to be offended by Phil recommending sexist anime, like, cool, I guess?)

[noodlebum]

Can I just say, I hate how invested I am? I wanna care less and just live my damn life but I can't help it, I miss the gaming channel and Dan content. When did this even happen to me? And before this becomes way too negative again, even though that's my brand: I'm so grateful for Phil. I love that he's uploading regularly again and I love the videos he did so far. Wholesome Phil content is important to me and I only realised how much I missed it once he started providing it again. Just makes me smile and I need that in these trying times.

(Also literally cackling at the idea that the term mansplaining is hatespeech now but Dan's homophobia in 2012 wasn't homophobia and we don't get to be offended by Phil recommending sexist anime, like, cool, I guess?)

I miss the gaming channel too, I'm currently re-watching some favourites. I loved their pubg video, with their unlikely win while dressed as a gorilla/school girl and maid

Off topic, but the Brits are tonight and I’m all nostalgic for the BTS videos. They were genuinely hilarious and it suited them so well. I miss the weird games they made actual celebrities play! I wonder if they miss events like that? Or if it wasn’t their favorite part of the job? I’m sure it’s not great for social anxiety, but they seemed to have fun. Idk... those were good times. (And I’m bitter because if they continued we would have gotten quiff + suit pics right about now)

It's interesting isn't it, trying to work if they enjoyed that aspect of their job. I'm sure they were nervous, but whether it was good excited nerves or more like dread, who knows.

[Buddahbug]

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)

While I don’t agree with a lot of @Stakhanov opinions it doesn’t make them less valid then anyone else’s and I think that he had some interesting points this time. Dismissing his opinions with A gif about mansplaining and laughter is callous imo. I don’t think if it was reversed it would be well taken here.

[jesp]

Moderating

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.

I’m going to respond publicly since you’ve mentioned reporting the post.

IDB has always welcomed opinions that are not held by the majority of the user base - this helps foster discussion and keeps the forum alive. Our rules, as you quoted, do allow disagreements provided that name calling and hate speech aren’t involved. We generally allow discussions to become a little heated, since our jumping in at the slightest sign of disagreement would turn posters away.

However, your posts have led to many pages of posters explaining why your opinions are not acceptable and/or correct, with your response being - without fail - “okay, but here’s why I’m right”. Along with this, as discussions progress, the condescension and self-righteousness in your posts increases to the point that other posters feel that they have no choice but to take a harsher tone with you.

The mod team has discussed this situation, and we’re not going to take any direct action against any person involved. While the post you reported does brush up against the rules, it certainly does not break them. “Mansplaining” is most certainly not a pejorative word, as you described it in your report, and the post was not excessively inflammatory. On a personal note, I wrote rule ten {edit- which was quoted by you in your report}, and did not have this kind of post in mind when writing it.

We’re happy for this discussion to continue, but I will ask that everyone does their best to keep discussions civil, although I recognise that this is a difficult situation. A good rule of thumb, and how I personally moderate the forum, is to “attack the post, not the poster”.

I usually end posts and private messages with “If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me or another moderator know”, and I’m happy to receive messages about this too, but I do need to say here that we’re not likely to change this decision.

[Stakhanov]

@liola

"Stakhanov: you are talking of opinions and I'm talking of facts, of laws and regulations that dictate how influencers and people of high profile have to behave on their professional social media (their verified accounts). This is made by the companies, the FTC, and all other regulations institutes to protects audiences."

So what does these laws and regulations pertain that define how Phil should behave in making that instagram story and what he has said about that anime series?. I gave the example of a youtuber being banned because of violation of the ToS, and talked earlier about how they are bound by advertising standards (like the issue they had with ADA about the Oreo vid) that obligate them to disclose sponsored content.

On the site of the FTC, I see guidelines about disclosing sponsorships too, regulation to protect the audience against consumer fraud etc. I have never denied those are facts. But i thought we were talking about content of Phil's instagram story about the anime, how it could be problematic and the responsibility he would have to address that?
If you could point me to any relevant regulation that defines how Phil should behave when he makes his story and says that he finds that anime wholesome (outside consumer fraud/advertising standards) I'd be happy to say that there is more than an opinion that regulates his responsibility on what he said in that concrete situation. That's all i'm saying. I'm not trying to explain your professional setting I didn't even know your professional setting. I'm not calling your two degress academic theories, I'm just said that every profession has theories about the appropriate deontology and that any academic theories or thoughts about it are not the same as enforceable regulation or legislation.
This isn't about how criticism is a bad thing I don't know how you come to that conclusion, I have criticized Dan and Phil on plenty of occasions and I have stated just a couple of posts ago that I think it's important to have critical discussion in the fandom, though I disagree it's always done in a healthy or constructive way. You don't have to convince me they aren't perfect, part of why I plead for nuance in the terms we use and leniency, even when they post something that some in the fandom find objective, i based exactly on the idea that they are flawed humans that sometimes make mistakes or just wanted to share something. Without having to take into account every possible criticism that could be leveraged or sharing the exact same moral convictions as their audience.

[knq]

@jesp and other mods, I applaud the transparent approach to moderation.

Off topic, but the Brits are tonight and I’m all nostalgic for the BTS videos. They were genuinely hilarious and it suited them so well. I miss the weird games they made actual celebrities play! I wonder if they miss events like that? Or if it wasn’t their favorite part of the job? I’m sure it’s not great for social anxiety, but they seemed to have fun. Idk... those were good times. (And I’m bitter because if they continued we would have gotten quiff + suit pics right about now)

Dan talked about this in a liveshow, although it's only a few days from being 5 years ago now. A lot of things he says about presenting in that liveshow are interesting, the most relevant of which I'm quoting from @idk's amazing timestamps.

It does seem like they moved away from presenting work over the years. Around the 10 minute mark Dan talks about the process of interviewing celebrities on a red carpet and it sounds wild.

Dan liveshow – February 25th, 2014

21:14 Cringey interviews. There’s a divide between presenters and artists.

21.49 “My- mine and Phil’s struggle is that when we do stuff like the Brits- I’m not saying that our fricking back stage tour was the epitome of art in the universe but it was- it felt a bit creative, you know what I mean? I mean, it’s like, I don’t know if you saw the, uh, back stage tour of the O2 arena video that I made with Phil but that’s basically why we did it. They asked us to make cool videos for their awards ceremony and we said, “Yeah. We’ll do a back-stage tour.” And it was- that’s basically why- why we wanted to do it. So, we didn’t so much want to do the red carpet interview-y things cause I find it extremely cringe but we kinda had to but then I loved the back stage tour.”

44:01 “Me and Phil were asked to host a Pokémon event for actual Nintendo the other day. Um, I don’t know enough details about it but I got an email from someone and they were like, ‘Hey, so Nintendo want you to host this Pokémon event.’ And I was like, “So, I’ve been having this kind of internal debate recently about me and Phil not really wanting to do things where we’re just presenting cause really we like- we like creating things and making content.’ But then when someone was like, ‘Pokémon would like you to host a Pokémon event.’ I was like, “Fuck everything. Yes. [laughs] I will sell out so hard.”

[liola]

@liola

"Stakhanov: you are talking of opinions and I'm talking of facts, of laws and regulations that dictate how influencers and people of high profile have to behave on their professional social media (their verified accounts). This is made by the companies, the FTC, and all other regulations institutes to protects audiences."

So what does these laws and regulations pertain that define how Phil should behave in making that instagram story and what he has said about that anime series?. I gave the example of a youtuber being banned because of violation of the ToS, and talked earlier about how they are bound by advertising standards (like the issue they had with ADA about the Oreo vid) that obligate them to disclose sponsored content.

On the site of the FTC, I see guidelines about disclosing sponsorships too, regulation to protect the audience against consumer fraud etc. I have never denied those are facts. But i thought we were talking about content of Phil's instagram story about the anime, how it could be problematic and the responsibility he would have to address that?
If you could point me to any relevant regulation that defines how Phil should behave when he makes his story and says that he finds that anime wholesome (outside consumer fraud/advertising standards) I'd be happy to say that there is more than an opinion that regulates his responsibility on what he said in that concrete situation. That's all i'm saying. I'm not trying to explain your professional setting I didn't even know your professional setting. I'm not calling your two degress academic theories, I'm just said that every profession has theories about the appropriate deontology and that any academic theories or thoughts about it are not the same as enforceable regulation or legislation.
This isn't about how criticism is a bad thing I don't know how you come to that conclusion, I have criticized Dan and Phil on plenty of occasions and I have stated just a couple of posts ago that I think it's important to have critical discussion in the fandom, though I disagree it's always done in a healthy or constructive way. You don't have to convince me they aren't perfect, part of why I plead for nuance in the terms we use and leniency, even when they post something that some in the fandom find objective, i based exactly on the idea that they are flawed humans that sometimes make mistakes or just wanted to share something. Without having to take into account every possible criticism that could be leveraged or sharing the exact same moral convictions as their audience.

You always seem to forget that you use words, people respond to you by using the words and you turn them up against them.

Phil mentioning that anime falls into recommendation and endorsement. It isn't a sponsorship, it isn't paid advertisement, so it's pointless for you to point out the example of the YouTuber violating ToS because they're different things. How do I point you out to an entire degree? How can I explain to you, point per point, the rules of public communication, of brand endorsement and how it falls into the regulations of platforms and country rules? It's not like it's a line of text that I can copy and paste n here like you love to do so much in every post, it doesn't work like that. There isn't a bullet point list where I can pluck out the one thing you're looking for, because it's an entire branch of a complicated subject that spans marketing, economics, communication and Media.

We could be here for hours and you would still not want to see the point that just because he isn't making a sponsorship, it doesn't mean that the opinion he's sharing on his public profile doesn't fall under the same kind of regulations (again, think of the now common use of #notspon)

my problem with yours posts so far is that you frame your opinions as facts. If you don't think that what they share is wrong or problematic, good for you. That doesn't mean it can't influence people.

In your previous posts you asked, where does it say it, where is the job description? Where is the job description for any other job? It is what it is, you just gotta accept that that's the job, there isn't an all mighty God that engraved the job description in the big notebook in the sky. The rules to follow fall under the usage of each platform and that's it, and it's even more complex with instagram stories (Which caused a ruckus only a couple of years ago when they started being used as "Oh look at the things I just bought and like" by influencers and then turned out to be a way ti share subtle opinions about brands and then it was introduced the paid content badge even on there)

Believe me, If I could give you just oneline of text to show you the exact point of where the behaviour turns from opinion to recommendation, I would - I wouldn't love anything more if it meant that you accepted a professional point of view for exactly what it is instead of fighting against it. Alas, there is none - because years of disciplines cannot be summarised in one line.

This is my last post on the matter, because I personally find exhausting to discuss with someone my line of work and have that someone try and dispute it with their opinion and keep the discussion open when people present their points. Flat-earthers have interesting opinions and theories as well but it doesn't mean the earth isn't still round.

[Stakhanov]

Moderating

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.

I’m going to respond publicly since you’ve mentioned reporting the post.

IDB has always welcomed opinions that are not held by the majority of the user base - this helps foster discussion and keeps the forum alive. Our rules, as you quoted, do allow disagreements provided that name calling and hate speech aren’t involved. We generally allow discussions to become a little heated, since our jumping in at the slightest sign of disagreement would turn posters away.

However, your posts have led to many pages of posters explaining why your opinions are not acceptable and/or correct, with your response being - without fail - “okay, but here’s why I’m right”. Along with this, as discussions progress, the condescension and self-righteousness in your posts increases to the point that other posters feel that they have no choice but to take a harsher tone with you.

The mod team has discussed this situation, and we’re not going to take any direct action against any person involved. While the post you reported does brush up against the rules, it certainly does not break them. “Mansplaining” is most certainly not a pejorative word, as you described it in your report, and the post was not excessively inflammatory. On a personal note, I wrote rule ten {edit- which was quoted by you in your report}, and did not have this kind of post in mind when writing it.

We’re happy for this discussion to continue, but I will ask that everyone does their best to keep discussions civil, although I recognise that this is a difficult situation. A good rule of thumb, and how I personally moderate the forum, is to “attack the post, not the poster”.

I usually end posts and private messages with “If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me or another moderator know”, and I’m happy to receive messages about this too, but I do need to say here that we’re not likely to change this decision.

I reported the post and asked clarification about the rules, in particular about the use of gifs with a term like mansplaining, and spoiler descriptions such as "TLDR and "wall of text". I let the person knew I reported the post because I think it's more honest to directly tell a person when I think they break a forum rule, instead of having to find out your post suddenly has changed because someone reported a word you used as a slur.
Fine, it's good to know that just responding with gifs and terms like "mansplaining" are not pejorative in the eyes of the moderators. Perhaps I just need to see it as a compliment then! I have to say it's getting pretty confusing for me what is considered respectful, name calling and slurs. "Asshole" apparently isn't a slur either and now you say that the reported post "does brush up against the rules" but doesn't break them. I'm not even sure what that means. It breaks the rules a little but not really? Duly noted.

What I find pretty offensive though, especially since you do post this in public and go into quite a bit of detail about your reasoning, is your characterization of my posts. If you read my posts, there are many instances where I try to find common ground and say I agree, or partly agree. To reduce my posts to "ok, but here's why I'm right" is a really biased view. These discussions always spontaneously got going among multiple forum viewers and I've only always tried to better articulate and expand upon my views. You could just as well label the responses to my post as "ok, but here's why i'm right".
There have been people who shared similar views, and they were also met with a lot of criticism. If multiple users find my view on an issue controversial and they offer their own opinions, I can't help it either that you get a couple of pages of discussion that can get heated.

What I find really one-sided is when you call my posts "condescending and "self-righteous" and seem to find it ok that other people just take a harsher tone with me. On the basis of what, frankly? My writing style as a non English-speaker? Some vocabulary and phrasing I use? I do my very best to be civil and engage with the arguments of the people and discuss with them in a point - counter point way, and you just put that away as condescending and self-righteous? Disregarding any response that you could characterize in the same way.
Sorry that's a very biased and hurtful "modsplaining" of the discussion that took place, which isn't even directly connected to the post I reported which talks about a whole different issue.
I'm very disappointed at the moderating. You state yourself " A good rule of thumb, and how I personally moderate the forum, is to “attack the post, not the poster”. Just after you attack me as a poster and characterize my posts in all kinds of subjective ways. Looks like this forum is no different than the one we moved from. If the moderating team thinks your contributions are X or Y, the rules don't apply.

I ask you to reconsider your decision and interpret the rules objectively, separate from whether you agree with the content of my posts or not and whatever you describe my writing style as. I would also like to know what constitutes a "condescending" or "self-righteous" post, since they seem to guide your decsion and so this notion doesn't get arbitrarily applied and user posts labeled as such. I would hope for fairness, but have to say it's not encouraging to ask for a review when you already state it's not likely you will change your mind.




I have to say that i find it pretty

[Birdie]

Off topic, but the Brits are tonight and I’m all nostalgic for the BTS videos. They were genuinely hilarious and it suited them so well. I miss the weird games they made actual celebrities play! I wonder if they miss events like that? Or if it wasn’t their favorite part of the job? I’m sure it’s not great for social anxiety, but they seemed to have fun. Idk... those were good times. (And I’m bitter because if they continued we would have gotten quiff + suit pics right about now)

Dan talked about this in a liveshow, although it's only a few days from being 5 years ago now. A lot of things he says about presenting in that liveshow are interesting, the most relevant of which I'm quoting from @idk's amazing timestamps.

What do you mean, five years ago? I'm... I need a moment. I loved them doing the BRITs, those were the good times.

[fieldoflovers]

Off topic, but the Brits are tonight and I’m all nostalgic for the BTS videos. They were genuinely hilarious and it suited them so well. I miss the weird games they made actual celebrities play! I wonder if they miss events like that? Or if it wasn’t their favorite part of the job? I’m sure it’s not great for social anxiety, but they seemed to have fun. Idk... those were good times. (And I’m bitter because if they continued we would have gotten quiff + suit pics right about now)

I think Tyler Oakley once said that interviewing on red carpets is awkward because it's very much a professional exchange, i didn't describe that well but basically if you get to interview a big name then you also end up interviewing a few newcomers that you might not know anything about and have just been told the name of. I can totally see why that setting is so weird especially with the social anxiety that dnp have. That being said, i think their interviews were really well done, i think they do quite well when Phil has a game to focus and drive the conversation instead of having to be so on the spot and Dan is not that awkward.

My favourite interview with their dynamic was probably the one they did with Ant and Dec, I guess four presenters together really left no room for awkwardness.

They might be too big to do that again, but god would I love some red carpet pics to fawn over. I don't think we've gotten any since the star wars premiere rip

[jesp]

Moderating

Moderating

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.

I’m going to respond publicly since you’ve mentioned reporting the post.

IDB has always welcomed opinions that are not held by the majority of the user base - this helps foster discussion and keeps the forum alive. Our rules, as you quoted, do allow disagreements provided that name calling and hate speech aren’t involved. We generally allow discussions to become a little heated, since our jumping in at the slightest sign of disagreement would turn posters away.

However, your posts have led to many pages of posters explaining why your opinions are not acceptable and/or correct, with your response being - without fail - “okay, but here’s why I’m right”. Along with this, as discussions progress, the condescension and self-righteousness in your posts increases to the point that other posters feel that they have no choice but to take a harsher tone with you.

The mod team has discussed this situation, and we’re not going to take any direct action against any person involved. While the post you reported does brush up against the rules, it certainly does not break them. “Mansplaining” is most certainly not a pejorative word, as you described it in your report, and the post was not excessively inflammatory. On a personal note, I wrote rule ten {edit- which was quoted by you in your report}, and did not have this kind of post in mind when writing it.

We’re happy for this discussion to continue, but I will ask that everyone does their best to keep discussions civil, although I recognise that this is a difficult situation. A good rule of thumb, and how I personally moderate the forum, is to “attack the post, not the poster”.

I usually end posts and private messages with “If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me or another moderator know”, and I’m happy to receive messages about this too, but I do need to say here that we’re not likely to change this decision.

I reported the post and asked clarification about the rules, in particular about the use of gifs with a term like mansplaining, and spoiler descriptions such as "TLDR and "wall of text". I let the person knew I reported the post because I think it's more honest to directly tell a person when I think they break a forum rule, instead of having to find out your post suddenly has changed because someone reported a word you used as a slur.
Fine, it's good to know that just responding with gifs and terms like "mansplaining" are not pejorative in the eyes of the moderators. Perhaps I just need to see it as a compliment then! I have to say it's getting pretty confusing for me what is considered respectful, name calling and slurs. "Asshole" apparently isn't a slur either and now you say that the reported post "does brush up against the rules" but doesn't break them. I'm not even sure what that means. It breaks the rules a little but not really? Duly noted.

What I find pretty offensive though, especially since you do post this in public and go into quite a bit of detail about your reasoning, is your characterization of my posts. If you read my posts, there are many instances where I try to find common ground and say I agree, or partly agree. To reduce my posts to "ok, but here's why I'm right" is a really biased view. These discussions always spontaneously got going among multiple forum viewers and I've only always tried to better articulate and expand upon my views. You could just as well label the responses to my post as "ok, but here's why i'm right".
There have been people who shared similar views, and they were also met with a lot of criticism. If multiple users find my view on an issue controversial and they offer their own opinions, I can't help it either that you get a couple of pages of discussion that can get heated.

What I find really one-sided is when you call my posts "condescending and "self-righteous" and seem to find it ok that other people just take a harsher tone with me. On the basis of what, frankly? My writing style as a non English-speaker? Some vocabulary and phrasing I use? I do my very best to be civil and engage with the arguments of the people and discuss with them in a point - counter point way, and you just put that away as condescending and self-righteous? Disregarding any response that you could characterize in the same way.
Sorry that's a very biased and hurtful "modsplaining" of the discussion that took place, which isn't even directly connected to the post I reported which talks about a whole different issue.
I'm very disappointed at the moderating. You state yourself " A good rule of thumb, and how I personally moderate the forum, is to “attack the post, not the poster”. Just after you attack me as a poster and characterize my posts in all kinds of subjective ways. Looks like this forum is no different than the one we moved from. If the moderating team thinks your contributions are X or Y, the rules don't apply.

I ask you to reconsider your decision and interpret the rules objectively, separate from whether you agree with the content of my posts or not and whatever you describe my writing style as. I would also like to know what constitutes a "condescending" or "self-righteous" post, since they seem to guide your decsion and so this notion doesn't get arbitrarily applied and user posts labeled as such. I would hope for fairness, but have to say it's not encouraging to ask for a review when you already state it's not likely you will change your mind.




I have to say that i find it pretty

Posts spoilered, because jeeze.

I'm not going to be drawn in to a protracted discussion here about the rules, their application, your posting style, or anything along those lines. The main thread is not the place for it. If you absolutely feel the need to continue the discussion, send a PM or, preferably, post a thread in About this Forum.

I want to say again that the post you reported did not break the rules, and no part of the post was hate speech {gif or not - seriously, that makes no difference}.

I feel that you should take some time away from IDB to really think about your continued participation here. I say this because you regularly end up in discussions with users here, on many topics, that end with you refusing to budge even in the face of facts. Your posts do give people both a bad impression of the forum, and a bad impression of you, and they have made people feel less welcome.

[plinthofmylife]

In Dan and Phil news:

Phil just sent a members-only post out where he asked for random dates, and said his next video would come out this weekend. I worked very hard to not suggest any demon dates.

[Stakhanov]

@liola

"Stakhanov: you are talking of opinions and I'm talking of facts, of laws and regulations that dictate how influencers and people of high profile have to behave on their professional social media (their verified accounts). This is made by the companies, the FTC, and all other regulations institutes to protects audiences."

So what does these laws and regulations pertain that define how Phil should behave in making that instagram story and what he has said about that anime series?. I gave the example of a youtuber being banned because of violation of the ToS, and talked earlier about how they are bound by advertising standards (like the issue they had with ADA about the Oreo vid) that obligate them to disclose sponsored content.

On the site of the FTC, I see guidelines about disclosing sponsorships too, regulation to protect the audience against consumer fraud etc. I have never denied those are facts. But i thought we were talking about content of Phil's instagram story about the anime, how it could be problematic and the responsibility he would have to address that?
If you could point me to any relevant regulation that defines how Phil should behave when he makes his story and says that he finds that anime wholesome (outside consumer fraud/advertising standards) I'd be happy to say that there is more than an opinion that regulates his responsibility on what he said in that concrete situation. That's all i'm saying. I'm not trying to explain your professional setting I didn't even know your professional setting. I'm not calling your two degress academic theories, I'm just said that every profession has theories about the appropriate deontology and that any academic theories or thoughts about it are not the same as enforceable regulation or legislation.
This isn't about how criticism is a bad thing I don't know how you come to that conclusion, I have criticized Dan and Phil on plenty of occasions and I have stated just a couple of posts ago that I think it's important to have critical discussion in the fandom, though I disagree it's always done in a healthy or constructive way. You don't have to convince me they aren't perfect, part of why I plead for nuance in the terms we use and leniency, even when they post something that some in the fandom find objective, i based exactly on the idea that they are flawed humans that sometimes make mistakes or just wanted to share something. Without having to take into account every possible criticism that could be leveraged or sharing the exact same moral convictions as their audience.

You always seem to forget that you use words, people respond to you by using the words and you turn them up against them.

Phil mentioning that anime falls into recommendation and endorsement. It isn't a sponsorship, it isn't paid advertisement, so it's pointless for you to point out the example of the YouTuber violating ToS because they're different things. How do I point you out to an entire degree? How can I explain to you, point per point, the rules of public communication, of brand endorsement and how it falls into the regulations of platforms and country rules? It's not like it's a line of text that I can copy and paste n here like you love to do so much in every post, it doesn't work like that. There isn't a bullet point list where I can pluck out the one thing you're looking for, because it's an entire branch of a complicated subject that spans marketing, economics, communication and Media.

We could be here for hours and you would still not want to see the point that just because he isn't making a sponsorship, it doesn't mean that the opinion he's sharing on his public profile doesn't fall under the same kind of regulations (again, think of the now common use of #notspon)

my problem with yours posts so far is that you frame your opinions as facts. If you don't think that what they share is wrong or problematic, good for you. That doesn't mean it can't influence people.

In your previous posts you asked, where does it say it, where is the job description? Where is the job description for any other job? It is what it is, you just gotta accept that that's the job, there isn't an all mighty God that engraved the job description in the big notebook in the sky. The rules to follow fall under the usage of each platform and that's it, and it's even more complex with instagram stories (Which caused a ruckus only a couple of years ago when they started being used as "Oh look at the things I just bought and like" by influencers and then turned out to be a way ti share subtle opinions about brands and then it was introduced the paid content badge even on there)

Believe me, If I could give you just oneline of text to show you the exact point of where the behaviour turns from opinion to recommendation, I would - I wouldn't love anything more if it meant that you accepted a professional point of view for exactly what it is instead of fighting against it. Alas, there is none - because years of disciplines cannot be summarised in one line.

This is my last post on the matter, because I personally find exhausting to discuss with someone my line of work and have that someone try and dispute it with their opinion and keep the discussion open when people present their points. Flat-earthers have interesting opinions and theories as well but it doesn't mean the earth isn't still round.

The goal posts of this discussion have completely moved. I have at no point said Phil wasn't bound by rules around truth of advertising, or having to disclose when something is sponsored. We must have completely misunderstood each other, because I thought we were talking about Phil's anime story being problematic and the responsibility they would have as youtubers to address the content of what he said, and not whether Phil has to abide by the FTC or other regulators when it comes to things like sponsorship. When you said recommend, I took the word "recommending" the anime in colloquial terms. As in "I recommend you to watch this movie, i think it's really good" or "that person is a really good writer, i would recommend her". Not in the meaning it takes on in this specific context of an influencer using verified accounts to recommend or endorse a product which is subject to regulation.
I don't expect you to link me to single line and I don't argue your professional point of view or suggested anything about your profession. But if there is concrete and binding regulation about the what Phil can or can't say about the content of an anime show with respects to how wholesome or what he thinks about it I would be happy to know of it. It might explain other opinions they have about shows, music etc. I don't mean rules and regulations that pertain to the regulation of consumer fraud or at what point his sharing becomes and endorsement according to the rules.
I get that point, if everything they bring up on a verified account counts as an endorsement the moment they say it's good or wholesome or rate when they rate it 13/10 , that's an interesting fact I didn't know about. However nothing I've seen and found yet would prescribe what Phil ought to think about the content of the anime show. I also have a degree and profession that deals with dense regulatory environments, and to the best of my knowledge (but I could be wrong) there is nothing outside the ToS or otherwise that would regulate whether he can find an anime wholesome or not.

I'm also feeling pretty exhausted about the matter so maybe we can end on the idea that flat-earthers can have interesting opinion but that that still doesn't mean the earth isn't round. I don't think it's bad if we both like to frame that as a fact

[rizzo]

In Dan and Phil news:

Phil just sent a members-only post out where he asked for random dates, and said his next video would come out this weekend. I worked very hard to not suggest any demon dates.

Any guesses? Is he gonna try and be a remember-everything-that-happened-that-day person again?

Bless his heart for posting frequently. I really really appreciate it.

[LtrllySusan]

Chiming in on the current situation: I made use of the "add foe"/ignore list function a long time ago and I don't regret it.

On-topic;
Is the non-IDB phandom expecting Dan to upload on 3/3? I'm curious.

[rizzo]

On-topic;
Is the non-IDB phandom expecting Dan to upload on 3/3? I'm curious.

While I can't answer your exact question, I did actually want to chat about this new post date we seem to have unintentionally set for Dan.

It makes me uncomfy, because I don't think we should expect Dan to post.... ever. On any date. No matter how significant. Even "Daniel and Depression" was a day late (I don't begrudge him that, I'm just pointing it out).

The key is to just assume he's not gonna post any time soon. That way, any new video beats expectation!

This post is in part to convince myself, but also because TTLMT wasn't the last video he posted, so I feel like it wouldn't really be a 1-year-anniversary type deal? IDK. Feels arbitrary to me. But I'd love to be wrong.

[glitterintheair]

A video involving dates? Hmm, interesting.

So, who's gonna suggest October 19th?

[firsttimeposter]

I would just say that compared to nearly all of those creators (Shane excluded perhaps) Deppy have the most extra fanbase that gets the most... upset... if we don't get fed.

Rookie's editor letter about the shut down and her personal creativity and how the business model has changed is one of the best long-reads on this.

1+ for pretty much everything you said, however this part, I have some thoughts on. What irks me the most about dans “hiatus”, “break” or just “not being online” is the communication which is really lacking. With shane, he has started spending much more time on his videos (I don’t watch them, though they’re almost impossible to miss hearing about), and he talks on twitter with his fan base about what he’s feeling, what his process is, or even just posts a tweet saying he’s tired. Communication like this doesn’t take much, but let’s his fan base know he’s still out there, and still cares about his viewers though he might not post any content. that’s what I’m really missing from Daniel. Though I’d love for him to do Instagram stories, Instagram posts, liveshow, a video or a video appearance, just telling us where’s he’s at in his thought progress through twitter or whatever would make my brain stop craving his content to much. Right now, it feels as though he had completely chosen to ignore us, which feels rotten I guess haha:/

[Amiaw]

Dan and dates: I’ve seen a lot of people wanting a video on 3/03 but personally I do not. To think that he put off uploading and then chose to upload a year after TTLMT, especially with all of his silence, would just seem to be an attention grab that his video doesn’t need.

But honestly I’ll still be completely shocked if we get a video from Dan at all. He says he’s got a video coming and maybe he does but I do agree that with him no expectations are the best.

Thank goodness we have Phill (seriously, what’s up the extra “L”) and he’s uploading on a regular schedule

[fancybum]

I would just say that compared to nearly all of those creators (Shane excluded perhaps) Deppy have the most extra fanbase that gets the most... upset... if we don't get fed.

Rookie's editor letter about the shut down and her personal creativity and how the business model has changed is one of the best long-reads on this.

1+ for pretty much everything you said, however this part, I have some thoughts on. What irks me the most about dans “hiatus”, “break” or just “not being online” is the communication which is really lacking. With shane, he has started spending much more time on his videos (I don’t watch them, though they’re almost impossible to miss hearing about), and he talks on twitter with his fan base about what he’s feeling, what his process is, or even just posts a tweet saying he’s tired. Communication like this doesn’t take much, but let’s his fan base know he’s still out there, and still cares about his viewers though he might not post any content. that’s what I’m really missing from Daniel. Though I’d love for him to do Instagram stories, Instagram posts, liveshow, a video or a video appearance, just telling us where’s he’s at in his thought progress through twitter or whatever would make my brain stop craving his content to much. Right now, it feels as though he had completely chosen to ignore us, which feels rotten I guess haha:/

And even beyond being occasionally alive on social media, Shane still regularly shows up in other people’s videos....... like his boyfriend’s...... cough cough etc

(as other people have said though, showcasing Dan outside his channel shouldn’t be Phil’s responsibility or concern but urgghh then #bringbackDAPG , we’re dying out here)

[noodlebum]

Ooh, a video involving random dates?
Maybe he talks about or acts out famous events of those dates? I don't know, doesn't sound very Phill though (I'm going to continue calling him Phill because it's amusing)

Seriously though, I have no clue what he could need them for!