Talk:BreadTube

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Infighting

Are there infightings between major breadtube YouTubers? How detrimental are they? Dogeatsdog (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

None that I've heard, but I don't really pay attention to Breadtube drama. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If there's no news then it's a good news. Dogeatsdog (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Some people, some of whom post on youtube, got annoyed at contrapoints for some stuff she's done. That's about the extent of it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

See AngieSpeaks, PeterCoffin etc for left-wing bitterness about the rise of Breadtube. It exists but it is essentially a sub-fandom of a sub-fandom at this point. Get ready, it's... (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

In which video is Coffin saying that? I searched for "breadtube" on his channel and I'm not getting any results. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:977:C3ED:3E43:3ADD (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

article presents breadtube as a collection of reasonable POV's

When I read our article, I get the impression that Breadtube is a collective of good-quality, well-sourced, rational information that seeks to counter the plethora of right-wing nonsense. But when I go on the Breadtube Reddit, it's a load of sensationalized, opinionated, far-left-wing garbage. There might be some quality content tucked away somewhere, but generally, this is just the other side of the coin.

We should ensure that our article is sufficiently critical of Breadtube, highlighting the variety of beliefs, and clarifying that at least some portion of Breadtube beliefs are questionable. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Good to see someone who echoes my sentiments; this article completely whitewashes the topic. I've just started by trimming out some of the editorializing, but there's still some whitewashing. Kill it with fire! --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 02:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I’ve got an easy solution to this predicament, but nobody wanted to hear it last time. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, was that the AFD? I'd argue the topic itself is missional; I don't think that's the right solution. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I put up an AFD. Just because a topic sounds missional doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for a page. Plutocow (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I say kill 'em all. GeeJayK (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"When I read wikipedia entries about libraries, I get the impression they have a lot of books and do societal good. But when I go to a bar, a lot of people there rant about how movie adaptations suck, therefore libraries are bad and stupid." FiveHundredMiles (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm hearing these same arguments on repeat on the afd and here and it's all argument by assertion (that the videos are ranty and such, which I can say, not the popular ones?), flirting with motivated reasoning (i.e. destroying YouTube articles being a priority) or just judging select videos from their headlines? Again, please actually deconstruct one popular "Breadtube" video; none of these arguments are at all convincing except for the crticism of the terminology and the lack of content that can inform readers about a subject that is prone to searching on this wiki. Also the assumed premise that we have to be critical of the subject matter in our articles is a false one; the argument that if not critical, therefore a puff piece is flawed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream Moments

Deleted both. hbomberguy is unsourced and pretty sure it's an individual achievement, not a collective achievement of Breadtube.

Similarly the sources for the second point do not imply these are a collective achievement of Breadtube.

Stop the whitewashing. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

An analogy for that; if Tom Cruise donates $5 to blind orphans in Uzbekistan, we don't say "Scientologists donated $5 to blind orphans in Uzbekistan".
If 50 scientologists each donate 10c to blind orphans in Uzbekistan, we may say "Scientologists donated $5 to blind orphans in Uzbekistan". Kauri0.o (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The next step here is to note that there really aren't any collective achievements of Breadtube since Breadtube isn't a thing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Bitchute comparison

If this is how you are going to "remove whitewashing", then you might as well not bother. Comparing Breadtube to Bitchute is an enormous false equivalence, as you are comparing a platform that hosts neonazis, white supremacists, and even outright terrorists and is recognized as promoting hate by the SPLC to Breadtube, which is unfair even for the small tankie channels. Even on a technical level, the comparison is flawed, as Bitchute is its own platform while Breadtube is a vaguely defined concept. The closest thing to an equivalent is right-wing YouTube channels like Stephen Crowder, Lauren Chen, Blaire White, etc. And finally, if you're gonna add contentious statements like that, at least make sure it's well-sourced. Plutocow (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, comparison to Bitchute may be overly-harsh. But bear in mind, if Bitchute creators hadn't been censored by Youtube, they'd still be over there. Also, https://breadtube.tv/ exists.

What I was trying to compare to is the unregulated, editorial, poorly-sourced fashion by which creators freely present their extreme views. Similar to Bitchute in that it's a hotspot for misinformation, for the left. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How about adding the liberal moonbattery category though? GeeJayK (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahead of ya! Just added a comment about "extremism" but some discussion on liberal moonbattery would also be welcome. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. It goes to the major problems with creating an article on this subject, but if you can't source these statements, I will be removing them. Equivocating Bitchute and Breadtube is also an example of the Balance fallacy, and we shouldn't criticize something just because it's partisan. For example, the ADL and SPLC both consider Bitchute a major source of hate, and there are articles from other reliable sources saying the same thing, and maybe if you can find something similar for Breadtube, I'll listen to you, but it seems to me that you are "editorializing", just in the opposite direction. Plutocow (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you go to https://breadtube.tv/ ? Have a scroll through. You can't sit here with a straight face and tell me that headlines such as You can now get 10 years in prison for protesting or Capitalism doesn't create innovation or [Person] is Racist Piece of Human Excrement aren't going highly editorialized garbage. I did use to watch some of these creators, and I happen to know they rarely provide sources for their information, if ever. Most of these videos are just some person who picks a current news piece or relevant topic and goes on an X-minute rant. Need I explain why such videos are going to be filled with opinion and falsities?

Similarly, I don't think I need explain why many of these creators would be classed as moonbats. Read our Moonbat page.

Unfortunately, there's very little if any mainstream coverage of BreadTube as a whole, which will make it extremely difficult to source such claims. But for comparison, our article absolutely shits on Bitchute, even though it only has two references, and most of the criticisms are very common-sense. Similarly, I'm just making common-sense criticisms of BreadTube here. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bitchute article could use more sources, as there are definitely many out there. Clickbaity headlines don't really tell you much since many websites use them. Obviously some are definitely going to be bad, but that's an issue with nutpicking. "Common-sense" criticisms should be backed up, really, that's another fallacy as the argument from incredulity. You should at least source specific videos or channels that are providing the contentious claims and work from there. Plutocow (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If we go further that route, you will accuse me again of Nutpicking.

As per various other discussions, there are a good many editors here who consider Breadtube to consist of at least some amount of Moonbattery and generally low-quality content. Nor do I attempt to make the claim that some massive number of creators are moonbats; just that some are. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please support your claims with specific examples. It's all kinda weasel-worded arguments backed up by "common sense", which isn't really good support. The Bitchute comparison is hyperbolic. Start from prolific Breadtubers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Of course, this veers into the territory of why we shouldn't have an article on this in the first place. Every YouTube community has at least some amount of bad and low-quality content. For example, the drama/commentary community has people like Keemstar and Blaire White formerly associated with the community, in the film/gaming community there are channels like The Quartering and Geeks and Gamers, etc., and that doesn't mean we should have articles on these communities. It's why I think we'd be better off having pages on problematic individual creators rather than having to make sweeping statements on an entire nebulous category of videos where even you admit most aren't problematic. Plutocow (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

While there are conspiracy theories and a general belief of BreadTubers that they're being societally oppressed, this viewpoint is based on real-world conditions; many BreadTube creators are LGBTQ, and society - especially in Britain - is undergoing a massive transphobic moral panic on top of the usual legal discrimination in much of the United States of America. There still is value in having a well-written article on BreadTube, but sadly, many of the drafts so far have not met that requirement. Yet. FiveHundredMiles (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Painfully lacking in melanin"

That's an unsourced assertion right there. I question its accuracy, and it seems like a loaded statement. - Oxy ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1700:c010:2530:5420:a78:d48a:edd4 / talk}

BreadTube isn’t any more white than you’d expect from a leftist YouTube community, but it’s definitely disproportionately white. I agree it’s a loaded statement and not worth mentioning though. Christopher (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, fine, I'll cite BreadTube content creator and LGBTQ activist Kat Blaque on this: "It sucks that person of color can't just say 'this shit sucks, and it's racist' and that's respected. It really gets to me. It really gets to me that it's not enough. We have to have a white person stand up for us before we're believed."

BreadTube is white because its audience is white because its audience lives in fundamentally systemically racist societies and because that audience was programmed with the fundamentally racist biases of the societies they were raised in.

I wrote the line in question thinking it was a funny way to raise this point but clearly the line should be replaced with a sourced paragraph citing Kat Blaque because the more I think about it the more ducked up society seems. FiveHundredMiles (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I literally came to this page to talk about this assertion. Supposing this is true, is it really important and missional to say that they are mostly white? GeeJayK (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

We talk a lot ablut social justice here, so yes. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Political activism is usually a middle class white thing. GeeJayK (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh, well, how do you define "political activism"? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There. Added a source. We done? CorruptUser 18:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

[EC]“BreadTube is white because its audience is white because its audience lives in fundamentally systemically racist societies and because that audience was programmed with the fundamentally racist biases of the societies they were raised in.” is just buzzword soup. Living in a racist society doesn’t make you white. Christopher (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think its creators are predominantly white because young Black people are too busy working 2 jobs or studying in school and don't have mummy and dada's money to live off of while they spend all day making videos, but maybe that's just my own personal bias? CorruptUser 18:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC)I believe my definition is pretty much the same as yours, do so I don't think answering this question will be useful. Now, if you want to know how I came to the conclusion that activism is usually a middle class white thing, I'm not gonna lie, it's mostly based on my perception. PoC usually have more urgent things to do. Like not getting shot by racist cops. I don't know about the Asian American population, which is richer than the white population though. GeeJayK (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "getting shot by the cops" is a daily worry for Black people, just more frequent. About 200 Black people are shot by police each year, most of them armed (though obviously, not all) whereas 7500 Black people are murdered each year. Even assuming that 25% of the police deaths were "questionable", that's still less than 1% of the chance of being murdered the old fashioned way. CorruptUser 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You're correct. It's just that it was the first exemple that came into my mind. Now, let's not derail this topic. GeeJayK (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

GeeJay: No, we have to define terms first. I don't have a strict meaning of political activism since it includes attending protests, voting, debating online, even signing petitions. Either way, I can point to last year's protests across the nation, which were huge as well as the diverse make up of progressive and Democratic supporters which run counter to your claims that political activism is white middle class.

CorruptUser: I don't believe you really know much about that community. Neither do I. But I believe it is documented that YouTube recommend algorithms do not favor content creators by people of color. It's the same issue people took with Twitter algorithms cropping out faces of black people iirc. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Grew up around Black people, but w/e. As for YouTube being inherently racist, I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. The facial recog thing, IIRC, was because the geeks had been testing all the tech on themselves, i.e., White nerds, so the system didn't know what Black people looked like. CorruptUser 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't argue that YouTube is "inherently racist", however, or at least that's not how I'd describe how recommend algorithms put certain demographics at a disadvantage. It's too reductionist and too prone to interpretation. Anyhow, I'm not sure 100% what you exactly mean by growing up with black people. Are you very sure that backs up your claim that black people aren't in YouTube because they cannot make videos? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Didn't say they can't make videos, just that they generally have less free time on their hands for whatever reason. Plus, Black people are less likely to have a PC or internet connection, so there's that aspect as well. CorruptUser 19:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Two points. One, Yeah the most prominent members of Breadtube are white. This is a pretty observable fact. Two, activists are racially diverse, bearing in mind that "activism" is a very broad term. So, activists protesting police violence are more likely to be ethnic minorities, while climate change activists are more likely to be racially diverse with a bias towards "white" people. Please also keep in mind this depends on the country and region, since those will affect the demographic makeup. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

My two cents: Yes "BreadTube" as is conventionally defined is overwhelmingly white. However from my understanding, this is partially the product of basically gatekeeping/subconscious racial biases. Basically, while there isn't a shortage of non-white folks producing material that would be related to "BreadTube", a large part of the audience of BreadTube measures these folks with a different stick than they do with their white creators. White creators often get a pass on not talking as much about "reading theory", whereas non-white creators often are measured on a stick where they get disqualified of being "BreadTube" if they don't meet some sort of "reading theory" bar. (Contrapoints I think complained about this measuring stick existing on her Twitter feed at some point, so if you want a source go looking for that.) This is also why I personally don't quite like the concept of BreadTube, even if I feel we should probably cover it in some form; it is extremely arbitrary defined ("you must read theory!"... except when you don't) and it's reliant on a lot of subconscious biases of it's audience. The "lacking in melanin" comment is surface level acknowledgement of the previous situation although it really should be more clarified than just a "haha white boys book club", given to my understanding most of the creators involved with BreadTube don't seem to have this exclusionary definition (not to mention how much of the term is something branded on a lot of content creators, some of whom don't even want to be labeled that way). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)