Seriously thinking of unsubscribing due to cancel culture

[starbase218]

So... when a YouTuber releases a video that is critical of, say, Nikon (but it can be anything I suppose, depending on what brand you use) it seems that the current Trent is to immediately cancel said YouTuber. It doesn't matter how many positive videos he might have made about that brand before. If he doesn't keep up the positive tone, he must be wanting clicks. Case in point, this reaction to a video by Vahagraphy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66576247.

Doesn't anyone else think that what this is about, what art is about, what photography is about, is directly opposite to anything even resembling cancel culture? Or has everyone here become infected with this infestation that is rooting in the modern world?

And I've commented on Tony and Chelsea Northrup's videos regarding Nikon. Or more specifically, the Nikon Z9. But then their message has been negative for quite some time, in some cases their bias could be verified, and others offer a far more nuanced perspective. So, I felt that was at least reasonable to point out.

Am I the only one who thinks like this? If so, I will unsubscribe. So this is me wanting to know.

Thank you.

 

[Graham Meale]

I will never unsubscribe. That's because I've never subscribed. Life's too short to get worked up on social media.

 

[Messier Object]

I will never unsubscribe. That's because I've never subscribed. Life's too short to get worked up on social media.

What, you don’t consider this forum to be a social medium ?

You log in and (presumably) give us your real name and even a photograph of your face.

You post your thoughts and ideas, enter into discussions and maybe arguments.

You maybe even post samples of your photographic work and receive comments and critique

This is a social medium and you are an active member:

Graham Meale • Veteran Member • Posts: 3,807

Peter

 

[JasonTheBirder]

So... when a YouTuber releases a video that is critical of, say, Nikon (but it can be anything I suppose, depending on what brand you use) it seems that the current Trent is to immediately cancel said YouTuber. It doesn't matter how many positive videos he might have made about that brand before. If he doesn't keep up the positive tone, he must be wanting clicks. Case in point, this reaction to a video by Vahagraphy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66576247.

Doesn't anyone else think that what this is about, what art is about, what photography is about, is directly opposite to anything even resembling cancel culture? Or has everyone here become infected with this infestation that is rooting in the modern world?

And I've commented on Tony and Chelsea Northrup's videos regarding Nikon. Or more specifically, the Nikon Z9. But then their message has been negative for quite some time, in some cases their bias could be verified, and others offer a far more nuanced perspective. So, I felt that was at least reasonable to point out.

Am I the only one who thinks like this? If so, I will unsubscribe. So this is me wanting to know.

I think the main problem is not being critical of Nikon. It's doing it brand-war style for entertainment. Besides, complaining on a forum is not exactly trying to cancel someone. I also think some of the responses are justified. I for one wish there was less sensationalism in the world.

 

[Howard V]

So... when a YouTuber releases a video that is critical of, say, Nikon (but it can be anything I suppose, depending on what brand you use) it seems that the current Trent is to immediately cancel said YouTuber. It doesn't matter how many positive videos he might have made about that brand before. If he doesn't keep up the positive tone, he must be wanting clicks. Case in point, this reaction to a video by Vahagraphy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66576247.

Doesn't anyone else think that what this is about, what art is about, what photography is about, is directly opposite to anything even resembling cancel culture? Or has everyone here become infected with this infestation that is rooting in the modern world?

And I've commented on Tony and Chelsea Northrup's videos regarding Nikon. Or more specifically, the Nikon Z9. But then their message has been negative for quite some time, in some cases their bias could be verified, and others offer a far more nuanced perspective. So, I felt that was at least reasonable to point out.

Am I the only one who thinks like this? If so, I will unsubscribe. So this is me wanting to know.

I think the main problem is not being critical of Nikon. It's doing it brand-war style for entertainment. Besides, complaining on a forum is not exactly trying to cancel someone. I also think some of the responses are justified. I for one wish there was less sensationalism in the world.

 

[Graham Meale]

What, you don’t consider this forum to be a social medium ?

That's correct.

 

[Chris Noble]

I don't feel sorry for you.

You could be living without your dead relatives in a bombed-out building in Ukraine or Syria.

 

[starbase218]

I don't feel sorry for you.

You could be living without your dead relatives in a bombed-out building in Ukraine or Syria.

Ok… so, explain to me, what have I done to deserve this response?

But I guess you’re canceling me, so I already have a response.

 

[JohnSil]

So... when a YouTuber releases a video that is critical of, say, Nikon (but it can be anything I suppose, depending on what brand you use) it seems that the current Trent is to immediately cancel said YouTuber. It doesn't matter how many positive videos he might have made about that brand before. If he doesn't keep up the positive tone, he must be wanting clicks. Case in point, this reaction to a video by Vahagraphy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66576247.

Doesn't anyone else think that what this is about, what art is about, what photography is about, is directly opposite to anything even resembling cancel culture? Or has everyone here become infected with this infestation that is rooting in the modern world?

And I've commented on Tony and Chelsea Northrup's videos regarding Nikon. Or more specifically, the Nikon Z9. But then their message has been negative for quite some time, in some cases their bias could be verified, and others offer a far more nuanced perspective. So, I felt that was at least reasonable to point out.

Am I the only one who thinks like this? If so, I will unsubscribe. So this is me wanting to know.

Thank you.

Star, I went to the link you posted. I see what you mean. I clicked on play and he didn't even get the first word out. I immediately clicked OFF, done , CANCELLED!!! I have no idea what the video was about but he was wearing a Laker's T-shirt...., NO WAY I would watch that guy!

I don't really watch camera videos, I find them boring and a waste of time but that's just me. I wouldn't cancel a guy just because he spoke badly about my brand. I'm quite capable of sorting a deserving review, good or bad from a crappy personal conspiracy theory. I would get the good when it's offered and ignore what doesn't pertain to me. If it's always garbage I would no business there and just move on!

John

 

[Joe Hotshoe]

You keep using the word "cancel" but neither you or the Youtuber are being cancelled. If the Youtuber were cancelled he would not be able to publish new videos, which is not the case. Likewise, if you were being cancelled you would not be able to leave new comments. That is almost certainly not the case as you are free to leave a comment responding to me, anyone else on this discussion, or to make a new comment anywhere else on DPReview.

What the two of you have been subjected to is criticism. That criticism may be some combination of juvenile, content-less, over-the-top and generally useless criticism but none of that adds up to being cancelled.

I only lasted about a minute into that video but in that minute his criticism of Nikon was all those things: juvenile, content-less, over-the-top and generally useless. Did he in any way cancel Nikon? No, of course not! He just had some, to my mind bizarre and pointless, criticism of Nikon for not immediately responding to Sony's release of a new camera. Of course they didn't because that is not how product cycles work! No other camera company had an immediate response so why single out Nikon? (Perhaps he mentioned this but his premise was so dumb that I couldn't take any more of it).

 

[PhotoFactor]

I just don't know why this is even a thread. We all should do whatever we feel is right for ourselves regarding social media and forums, etc.

 

[Djehuty]

While you’re at it, I wonder where the stray cat that hangs around the carpark lot went to. It has been a week.

 

[UsherFellig]

The problem grew exponentially when so-called "reviews" went video rather than written. Everyone's forgotten media researcher Marshall McCluan coiner of the maxim, "the medium is the message," but it's pretty well-documented that communication that makes people into passive receptors of video images and sound, is not conductive to analytical thinking or discourse. Written ideas take a lot more work and intellect by the sender as well as the recipient, and that medium is more conducive to critical analysis and questioning by the reader. Yes, there's a lot of nonsense in "comments" to written content online. But that is nothing compared to the idiocy of the vidiots and those who sit there watching them.

 

[justmeMN]

So... when a YouTuber releases a video that is critical of, say, Nikon (but it can be anything I suppose, depending on what brand you use) it seems that the current Trent is to immediately cancel said YouTuber. It doesn't matter how many positive videos he might have made about that brand before. If he doesn't keep up the positive tone, he must be wanting clicks. Case in point, this reaction to a video by Vahagraphy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66576247.

If he has been cancelled, then why is his video still on YouTube?

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

So... when a YouTuber releases a video that is critical of, say, Nikon (but it can be anything I suppose, depending on what brand you use) it seems that the current Trent is to immediately cancel said YouTuber. It doesn't matter how many positive videos he might have made about that brand before. If he doesn't keep up the positive tone, he must be wanting clicks. Case in point, this reaction to a video by Vahagraphy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66576247.

Doesn't anyone else think that what this is about, what art is about, what photography is about, is directly opposite to anything even resembling cancel culture? Or has everyone here become infected with this infestation that is rooting in the modern world?

And I've commented on Tony and Chelsea Northrup's videos regarding Nikon. Or more specifically, the Nikon Z9. But then their message has been negative for quite some time, in some cases their bias could be verified, and others offer a far more nuanced perspective. So, I felt that was at least reasonable to point out.

Am I the only one who thinks like this? If so, I will unsubscribe. So this is me wanting to know.

Thank you.

I find this post quite interesting. I subscribe to several different photography YouTube channels, and I haven’t seen any of them bashing on any one particular brand of camera gear…. Even if they are primarily a Canon, or Nikon shooter ?

And even if they did, I couldn’t care less. In this day and age, if you go online for anything, you better have some thick skin.

--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
Website
www.LightInEveryCorner.com
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809
No time or attention given for negativity or trolls.

 

[New Day Rising]

It seems to me that "cancel culture" is one of those terms that very quickly starts getting used so broadly and indiscriminately that it loses almost all meaning.

It might help if you could explain how you are using the term - how you see the reviewer and/or yourself being "cancelled".

 

[New Day Rising]

What, you don’t consider this forum to be a social medium ?

That's correct.

 

[techjedi]

So... when a YouTuber releases a video that is critical of, say, Nikon (but it can be anything I suppose, depending on what brand you use) it seems that the current Trent is to immediately cancel said YouTuber. It doesn't matter how many positive videos he might have made about that brand before. If he doesn't keep up the positive tone, he must be wanting clicks. Case in point, this reaction to a video by Vahagraphy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66576247.

Doesn't anyone else think that what this is about, what art is about, what photography is about, is directly opposite to anything even resembling cancel culture? Or has everyone here become infected with this infestation that is rooting in the modern world?

And I've commented on Tony and Chelsea Northrup's videos regarding Nikon. Or more specifically, the Nikon Z9. But then their message has been negative for quite some time, in some cases their bias could be verified, and others offer a far more nuanced perspective. So, I felt that was at least reasonable to point out.

Am I the only one who thinks like this? If so, I will unsubscribe. So this is me wanting to know.

Thank you.

Unsubscribing because you personally don't agree or don't enjoy anymore isn't cancel culture. If a content creator isn't producing content you enjoy seeing, then cancelling your sub is how you communicate to them and is reasonable and appropriate. Would someone really expect you to keep someone you wont watch in your subscription feed just to avoid the idea that you are cancelling them?

The real cancel culture is when a creator says something that disagrees with a controlled narrative and those in control of that narrative use their broadcast power to shame the public en masse to unsubscribe from a creator that they would still otherwise enjoy all of their content from. Cancel culture is about leveraging consumer perception of their own virtue to make them abandon something they like because someone told them they shouldn't like it anymore.

So, if you think someone is trashing your favorite brand, and it ruins your ability to be entertained by their content, then unsubscribe. Sadly, youtubers look at their metrics as to which content produces the most views and comments. This content is what drives their commission and they are making those videos as a job, its not just because they want to help the public. Most youtubers after some amount of time on the platform know that toxic content like "10 reasons you shouldn't buy camera X" will be clicked far more than "10 cool tricks with camera X". The toxic video will be clicked by both haters of camera X and fans of camera X while the positive video will only be clicked by fans.

There is this old law on the internet called "Cunningham's Law" which states that the fastest way to find a correct answer is not to ask a question, but to post an incorrect answer, and then people will line up to correct the falsehood with passion. Simply asking for help will result in ambivalent silence. Toxic content on youtube capitalizes on this. The best way to get people to interact with your content is to post over the top hyperbolic conclusions about things people care about. Positive content will be appreciated, but not interacted with in the same ferocity.

Until youtube incentivizes healthy interactions to generate revenue for youtubers, you are going to see seasoned creators slowly trending towards critical content instead of content genuinely designed to help people. Just look at most youtubers early content vs the most popular youtubers later content.

--
http://www.instagram.com/foundry412

 

[Mika Y.]

It seems to me that "cancel culture" is one of those terms that very quickly starts getting used so broadly and indiscriminately that it loses almost all meaning.

It might help if you could explain how you are using the term - how you see the reviewer and/or yourself being "cancelled".

Have to agree in this case. The comments I browsed in the other thread weren't really what I'd think as cancel culture; I doubt anyone will decide to stop following that person's YouTube presence just based on them. Actually "cancelling" someone would be a more widespread and coordinated effort than just a thread of mostly somewhat cynical comments on DPR.

 

[bastibe]

I do the opposite. An upvote to almost every video I watch, and I subscribe profusely, as well. That's the currency of YouTube, and it doesn't cost me a thing, so I might as well give freely.

That said, I don't use YouTube subscriptions for following channels.