Why YouTuber Logan Paul can't put his camera down

[Germy1979]

2 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

"Ethics" and "moral standards" are tossed around the article as if there are any. Everyone has an opinion about what should or shouldn't happen, but no one is willing to own up to an actual objective standard of morality with which to base said opinions. With no objective moral standard, who can really say Paul is wrong? You can't. I mean, you can, but not with any soundness to your position. With no moral foundation, none of you are right, or wrong.

The 20th century was all about eliminating objective morality. The 21st century is living with the consequences.

I agree.  - but we democratized the platform and now we have Logan Paul.  At least in the 20th, there was a sense of duty when it came to quality...  There was a bar, even if the 80's gave us "Gotcha" the paintball movie.  I'm kinda with Ridley Scott at the director's round table when he says 1000 films a year is probably 500 too many.  There is no filter anymore, no plot, and people don't demand more from their entertainment.... So there again, we have Logan Paul. 

[Jonesy Jones]

2 minutes ago, Germy1979 said:

I agree.  - but we democratized the platform and now we have Logan Paul.  At least in the 20th, there was a sense of duty when it came to quality...  There was a bar, even if the 80's gave us "Gotcha" the paintball movie.  I'm kinda with Ridley Scott at the director's round table when he says 1000 films a year is probably 500 too many.  There is no filter anymore, no plot, and people don't demand more from their entertainment.... So there again, we have Logan Paul. 

What was "the bar"? Name it.

[Germy1979]

Just now, Jonesy Jones said:

What was "the bar"? Name it.

Production value?  People put work in to bring entertainment to the masses?  Call me crazy, but the shittiest cartoon on television took a hell of a lot more effort than a guy screaming at an iphone playing Minecraft.  To each his own.

[Jonesy Jones]

Just now, Germy1979 said:

Production value?  People put work in to bring entertainment to the masses?  Call me crazy, but the shittiest cartoon on television took a hell of a lot more effort than a guy screaming at an iphone playing Minecraft.  To each his own.

Dude that's not a bar. That's completely subjective.

"To each his own" is exactly the reason we're in this predicament. Paul is living out the belief of "to each his own". How could you possibly say "Paul is wrong" in one sentence, and then "to each his own" in another? That's self-defeating logic.

[Germy1979]

Just now, Jonesy Jones said:

Dude that's not a bar. That's completely subjective.

"To each his own" is exactly the reason we're in this predicament. Paul is living out the belief of "to each his own". How could you possibly say "Paul is wrong" in one sentence, and then "to each his own" in another? That's self-defeating logic.

Work ethic is a "bar" dude.   If your default response to a dead body is to exploit it for personal gain, - and that being fucked up is subjective, then it's over my head apparently..   My comments don't need dissecting.  What got us here was the voice we gave to laziness.

[Neumann Films]

I am less apt to blame the platform as that takes a fraction of accountability from the guilty individual.  The hive likes to exploit but it still is people doing the exploiting...not the system itself.

Censor YouTube and people like Logan Paul will just find where the new boundaries are, re adjust, and continue exploiting.

Don't give perpetrators an out by blaming their circumstances.

[RoFoto]

I agree with some comments above. I have never heard of this guy before and now I have. I'm not going to run to YouTube to check him out, though, but some others might and contribute to the very issue as a result. I also agree with the article, however @Andrew Reid, I would distance myself from the described level of morality by maintaining my own with the use of language. I feel you, but remaining civil adds merit, IMHO. Cheers.

[IshootbeforeItalk]

We're living in a time where the uncensored, unedited and raw media lives. This is why YouTube is so popular in my opinion. 30 minute vlogs of people rambling and saying what's on their mind. Right now the majority of viewers find this refreshing, more honest, more direct than television for example. I personally hate it. I do think this will pass though. People will get bored by this format and will look for a next development within YouTube. It's all just part of a fad, trend that will die, or transform into something else. You just have to wait it out. 

[PannySVHS]

@Jonesy Jones, i suggest, wrong. The 20th ce didnt do nothing. A lot of people of the 20th ce gave their lives for the well being of otheres, millions of them. It´s the fire and money power of doers doing things on expense of others and on expense of others lives, which is twisting moral and neglecting objective moral standards but twisting them to their benefit.

I´ve always been hesitating on insulting people on this forum and I will stand by that least common moral value we can share when being on this forum. So there are morals. The youtube kid just didnt care for them, because clicks have been too tempting to him.

[Chrad]

1 hour ago, maxotics said:

@Chrad makes the point that there IS a problem with suicide in Japan (and the U.S. with vets) which is a problem bigger than the ethical standards of any YouTuber or the Alphabet Corporation.  How does society learn about these problems, or guage their significance or scale?  If YouTube were able to block these kinds of videos would anyone ever get emotional about the problem?  I doubt it, it would just be another statistic.  Keep in mind, I am NOT CONDONING the vlogger's behavior, only pointing out that when you stand back, society works in weird ways.  He may have sent the message to get more viewers, but who ever send a message without some self-interest?  I've met no one.  I used to think I was above it, I'm not.   So I always try to focus on the biggest problem, not any self-interest.  The biggest problem is suicide.  The vlogger was society's weird way of having it put under people's noses.

Think about it, we're all as guilty as the vlogger in doing nothing about the problem--at least I do nothing, but talk.

Until the bigger problems are fixed first, I want information to flow freely, not matter how distasteful it may be.  All sources are biased and society still works in mysterious ways.

 

The best case scenario is that the video draws people attention to Japan's suicide rate and the tragic reality of suicide increasing around the world. 
The worst case scenario is that the video furthers the social isolation of the suicidally depressed. Older, successful role model Logan Paul sends a message to impressionable youngsters that people who commit suicide are a joke and encourages a lack of empathy for them. 

I think it's really important that there's been such a backlash, and the morals and ethics that our entertainment reflects are very important - particularly when it's targeted to still developing minds.

[PannySVHS]

4 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Never heard of him but it doesn't sound like I should be happy about that.

Edit: Now I got it:) Well, seems like you are not considered to be part of his audience, since you care that much about photography, beautiful lenses and cameras and always awesome five reasons to reconsider some classy older technology. That guy is not vlogging with an X100T after all.:)

[no_connection]

Don't know who that is and I don't think I have seen him.

None of my youtube recommended content have any of what you are talking about. What you watch is what you get I guess.

[Jonesy Jones]

7 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

I´ve always been hesitating on insulting people on this forum and I will stand by that least common moral value we can share when being on this forum. So there are morals. The youtube kid just didnt care for them, because clicks have been too tempting to him.

Based on what? What moral standard? Who's to say he's wrong? Why are "clicks" wrong? What if that's the new morality and you're just living on the wrong side of history? How would you or anyone be able to say anything definitely without a moral foundation to base your claims on? 

54 minutes ago, Germy1979 said:

Work ethic is a "bar" dude. 

How do you know you're right? Whose work ethic? Yours? Steve Jobs would laugh in your face. But then maybe Steve Jobs is what is wrong with this world. How would we know?

[PannySVHS]

20 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Based on what? What moral standard? Who's to say he's wrong? Why are "clicks" wrong? What if that's the new morality and you're just living on the wrong side of history? How would you or anyone be able to say anything definitely without a moral foundation to base your claims on?

Based on moral standard xhoeh1-e, maybe I am wrong and it was moral code 0000011114098. Clicks are wrong, if something else stands in opposition to it and excludes it by its superiour importance. Just imagine a scenario, where that could be thinkable. I am living on the wrong side of history, I am a 100 years old cookie monster. What you call new morality is not new but well established since existence of human nature, click is just a new technological facette of it.

[Germy1979]

6 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Based on moral standard xhoeh1-e, maybe I am wrong and it was moral code 0000011114098. Clicks are wrong, if something else stands in opposition to it and excludes it by its superiour importance. Just imagine a scenario, where that could be thinkable. I am living on the wrong side of history, I am a 100 years old cookie monster. What you call new morality is not new but well established since existence of human nature, click is just a new technological facette of it.

Because everything is freaking subjective anymore.  The line between right and wrong is so blurry it’s almost transparent.  ?

 

“Oh you shot up an orphanage?  Probably 2 sides to the story.”

[Jonesy Jones]

6 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Based on moral standard xhoeh1-e, maybe I am wrong and it was moral code 0000011114098. Clicks are wrong, if something else stands in opposition to it and excludes it by its superiour importance. Just imagine a scenario, where that could be thinkable. I am living on the wrong side of history, I am a 100 years old cookie monster. What you call new morality is not new but well established since existence of human nature, click is just a new technological facette of it.

Says you?

Look, I'm not trying to say there is no morality or that Paul is not wrong. I'm saying that without a completely objective moral standard, there is no condemnation of another's actions, at least not a rationally sound one.

If I scold my children for their bad behavior, but do not make clear what proper behavior is, who is the fool?

In our case, we are the children, and we need a standard before we can soundly claim that another's behavior is not up to par with the standard.

I'm not saying their is no standard, because there is. What I am saying is that expecting people to abide by standards that you do not objectively define, is foolish. You will go round and round.

Please let no one think I am arguing for arguments sake. I am merely attempting to respectfully point out inconsistencies.

[PannySVHS]

22 minutes ago, Germy1979 said:

Because everything is freaking subjective anymore.  The line between right and wrong is so blurry it’s almost transparent.  ?

“Oh you shot up an orphanage?  Probably 2 sides to the story.”

It aint blurry at all to most people. They just don´t have much decision and other powers, because they have to work hard all day long and then get baited into dubious content. The whole  current economy lives on the concept of baiting into its trickery.

Jonesy, standards have been formed over and over again. There is an abundance of standards people can go by without causing horrendeous pain for others. But every generation has to learn and be taught all over again. That youtube kid just does not seem to care, just like many others, because easy money is to be earned. Temptation is high. And now off to my favorite thread. What could that be, oh Andy Lee?:)

 

[Chrad]

This thread is taking a bizarre turn.

1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Based on what? What moral standard? Who's to say he's wrong? Why are "clicks" wrong? What if that's the new morality and you're just living on the wrong side of history? How would you or anyone be able to say anything definitely without a moral foundation to base your claims on? 

The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

[Don Kotlos]

The unethical part is the personal gain over another one's loss. Both the clown and the company are at fault here. 

The clown did it for clicks which gave him more money. 

YT also works on clicks. More moderation --> less people visit --> less money from advertisers. I would even put more blame on YT since it affects many more people than one lousy channel. And if you believe YT can't do much, think of how quickly & efficiently they blocked all copyrighted content. 

And you can't argue against the widespread traumatic experience of showing content like that.  If you even believe that this will make people less suicidal, then you have it all wrong since psychological studies show that it only makes things even worse. 

At the end, they both exchanged money for f*cking other people. 

You can clearly see the difference between quality content and plain click-driven-shit when you compare the front page of Vimeo to the one of YT. 

[Germy1979]

17 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

The unethical part is the personal gain over another one's loss. Both the clown and the company are at fault here. 

The clown did it for clicks which gave him more money. 

YT also works on clicks. More moderation --> less people visit --> less money from advertisers. I would even put more blame on YT since it affects many more people than one lousy channel. And if you believe YT can't do much, think of how quickly & efficiently they blocked all copyrighted content. 

At the end, they both exchanged money for f*cking other people. 

And you can't argue against the widespread traumatic experience of showing content like that.  If you even believe that this will make people less suicidal, then you have it all wrong since psychological studies show that it only makes things even worse. 

You can clearly see the difference between quality content and plain click-driven-shit when you compare the front page of Vimeo to the one of YT. 

Yep.   What people find entertaining on the other hand is beyond me.  ..because I have no idea what people find appealing about a guy bullshitting in front of an iphone.  Especially 15 million of them..  I'm only 38 years old..  I don't think my tastes are that antiquated.   To me it's a 20,000:1 ratio of Microwave fame.  I'm just saying if the ground wasn't fertile, the weeds wouldn't grow.   For godsake, look at country music, lol.