I have no skin in this game other than the truth. I don't watch or subscribe to Crowder or the Daily Wire. I don't care how much or how little money they make. I care about what's right.

The contract IS fine

No, it's not. It lowballs Crowder's worth (this is moderately debatable). It gives Crowder all the risk and Daily Wire all the reward. It gives Daily Wire sole ownership of everything Crowder produces. It infringes on Crowder's free speech. If Crowder gets censored by Big Tech for saying anything verboten, Daily Wire punishes/fines him. That means Daily Wire isn't just acquiescing to Big Tech censorship, but actively enforcing it. They also hid how bad the contract was behind legalese, requiring a lawyer to tell Crowder how badly he'd be getting screwed, or negotiate it. That means the people at Daily Wire who wrote and approved that contract are liars, intentionally obfuscating the truth to screw someone else over. At best, it means Daily Wire prioritize money over truth. At worst, it means they're intentionally setting themselves up as a false choice to right wingers, providing milquetoast pre approved opinions and censored half truths.

Good people don't do that. Good people don't give out contracts like that. Don't try to sell me on the "well that's just the way it is". It's a fallacious argument, attempting to claim that just because something is that way, that it's right. Bull. It's only that way precisely because bad people continue to act badly, and aren't, at the minimum, called out, identified, and criticized by good people.

Daily Wire also admitted, after the fact, that it was a standard contract, which means all, or most, of their other content creators are bound by it. They also told their minions to attack Crowder after they were stupid enough to out themselves.

Crowder never said who it was, at first. His entire point is that those contracts were bullcrap, and that requiring a lawyer to unf*ck the legalese is bullcrap. Many newcomers can't afford a lawyer, and would end up getting screwed. Just because it could've been negotiated doesn't mean that offer was any less bad. If it was signed, it would've become a contract.

The fact that you defend this, all because of the monetary amount, proves that you're not a good person either. Your morality is based entirely around money.

No I didn't and you're a fucking idiot for accusing me of such.

I quoted your own words admitting as much in the previous reply. You failed to clarify it. Instead you opted to attack and ridicule me. That means you resort to logically fallacious arguments. Not only do you support bad people, bad practices, and bad morality, but you're a liar as well. Your behavior is consistent, pointing entirely one way. You've shown who you are. Thank you for doing that, at least.