"We underestimated influencers in 2016. How do we neutralize them?"
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (95)
sorted by:
This is a really bad take.
This is the US government going after independent creators.
Agreed. Lauren Chen was just some innocent Christian lady that was as mundane as it really came.
Apparently they weren't independent at all, were they?
Where the fuck do you expect their money to come from? Perfectly symmetrical sources spread out evenly across the world?
It would have to be from the audience for them to be independent. Once you have a big benefactor or investor, you're not longer independent.
My only problem is with calling them independent. They're not independent.
What if someone in the audience has more disposable money than the rest of it. Is he an investor now?
You're an idiot. I'll let other people tell you why since you clearly can't figure it out for yourself.
I didn't want it to be me, but he's being so thick I had to step up.
So no different than usual?
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/17ty2oGNSi/x/c/4ZDu3lAhqDL
Thank you for your service. I know tard wrangling is a difficult endeavor.
Dude, quit being retarded.
This isn't about fanboyism. The government is the enemy, and this attack is coming from them. Fuck the DOJ, and fuck Mayorkas, that slimy rat.
Well, you should get attached. This matters. This is about free speech, not any individuals. Of the batch, I mainly like Matt. I'd have more negative things to say than positive about many of the others. (Benny Johnson is boring and adds nothing to his content. Lauren Southern has flipflopped way too much. Dave Rubin is a washed up shill. Lauren Chen goes way back and is kind of cool [and hot], but can also be a bit flipfloppy and milquetoast. Tim Pool is obnoxious, but I think useful. Taylor Hansen seems cool, from the little I've seen. As mentioned, I like Matt Christiansen.) Doesn't mean I'm going to toss them out as Russian agents, because that's complete and utter bullshit, and I'm not retarded enough to believe the DOJ.
None of these people are Russian assets. I could give you an "at worst" scenario, and it wouldn't even be that bad...but I don't even want to give the fed fuckers even that much credibility. This is too convenient; until proven otherwise, I just assume this was the US DOJ pulling their standard bullshit.
Again, quit being retarded.
Off topic, but how do you feel about Calvin Robinson leaving the LE to flee to a parish in the US?
I suppose that indicates he's jabbed as well.
So why did you take money from glowies?
First, why are you taking what the DoJ says on face value? How many "Muh Russia!" hoaxes have we had now?
Are you seriously expecting youtubers to backtrack all of the finances of everyone they ever work with?
Building off 2, how would anyone short of a massive multinational corporation with an army of attorneys and accountants even do that? But, hey, it's a basic rule so I'm sure you'll be happy to provide us with a full list of the steps you've personally taken for every financial interaction you've had for, say, the last decade.
And, even if this is 100% a Russian Propaganda operation to warp the minds of poor innocent Americans (which I don't), and even if we accept that all of those youtubers could and should have been reasonably expected to perform a full audit of Tenant's books (which I don't), there's been multiple reports of Kamala paying influencers to shill for her campaign. So what's the issue here? Show me the legal statue which says "It is a crime for you to receive money from a Russian". Oh, wait, the DoJ doesn't charge the youtubers with anything! It charges a couple Russians with money laundering and violating the Foreign Agents Registration act.
It's 100% obvious what is going on here. The DoJ cooked up something (maybe legitimate, maybe entirely faked) to slander and try to shut down well-known online personalities because they're not 100% parroting the line that Washington wants them to take. And if you seriously don't expect the same thing to happen to Dank, the Lotus Eaters and every other online personality soon, you are hopelessly naive.
Anyway, I'll wait for your full list of steps for an average person to cheaply and easily perform a full audit on the books of every company they ever do business with, since it's an easy and basic rule.
Edit: It's also worth noting that THIS is what the DoJ is spending time on, when some of the main oil fields in the US are literally getting raided by Cuban and Venezuelan gangsters. Yeah, I get it, different people work on different things, but when a major story is "more Russian Propaganda! Be afraid of those evil right-wingers!" when oil fields are being robbed and sabotaged and no major outlet talks about it should also make it pretty clear what's going on here.
Plenty of them are?
And most, if not all, had no reason to be suspicious.
Not sure why you're going so hard on making the victims the bad guys here.
Also, you never answered my hypothetical if you'd condemn Lotus Eaters if the UK government went after them, the BBC exaggerated the claims to to boost the attack, and an obvious army of bots were unleashed on them to harass them on all their online platforms.
Because that's exactly what's going on here with Tenet.
Video content creators who talk about anything not approved by the establishment don't get ad revenue from their content. Youtube will still play the ads on their videos, but keep all the ad revenue. The only way those content creators can make any money off of making content is through advertisers that sponsor the videos, where the content creator will shill for the service or product in video. It's extremely common for guntubers, homesteaders, and anyone to the right of Stalin.
All a government would have to do is "sponsor" a video for a content creator, lie about where the money comes from, and bam, you magically have "foreign influence", and the content creator unknowingly becomes a "foreign agent". There would be no realistic way for a content creator to vet where the money comes from. Most are usually just happy to pay the bills, as Youtube actively censors their content and prevents it from gaining the traction it otherwise would, due to the "algorithm", just like Google does with wrongthink.
Doesn't this defy the point of being advertiser-friendly? Maybe they have a pool of advertisers that don't GAF.
So, how exactly are you supposed to know if any glowies laundered any money into the company offering to invest in your company? And that's assuming that our government, with its multi-decade track record of being pathological liars to its own citizens, is actually telling the truth for once.
Do you not understand the concept of money laundering? The whole point is to hide where the money is coming from. So you don't think a government agency, with a budget in the millions at the least, can conceal the source of funds well enough to fool a private investigator with a budget in the thousands at the most?