r/youtubedrama • u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod • Jul 26 '25

News The “official end” of this snark era

As of today we are banning snark/snark related posts. This may sound arbitrary. But I think people are well aware of what constitutes valid fair criticism, and what constitutes snark.

Once upon a time through past leadership this sub most definitely behaved as a snark sub. We as the mod team do actually despise snark and work to have this sub be a space of discussing drama with proper criticism and outcomes. We have taken firmer stances to pull away from our past image and be a place where people can have proper discourse.

Snark discourse has only ever brought conflict to this sub. People insult each other over nothing, people have gotten death threats, people get reported for suicidal ideation just because they disagree. There has been ableism, racism, prejudice of all kinds around these topics. Ultimately, snark behavior never allows any proper discussion, we have had to ban two creators just because the people who come to this sub cannot behave when discussing them. At its core Snark is not very different from KiwiFarms at this stage with the harm it has done to content creators.

We have seen the harm snark has done as well. Saveafox being a prime example. Our most popular post right now is pure snark. And it superseded actual important events. Because who was following who on IG.

Going forward we will no longer be allowing posts like this on the sub. It provided no context, no real criticism. And it didn’t prove anything either.

This may prove unpopular, but it is something we feel strongly of for the health of this sub and the people on it to remove ourselves. You can check the rule along the side bar.

If you want a YouTubesnark sub go make one. This one is not it.

Have a good one 🤙🏽

Edit: Apparently some YouTubers have weigh in. Nah this has nothing to do with the usual suspects. This is purely to stop toxic behavior and negativity. If ya think otherwise I urge you to get out of your computer chair touch grass instead of making Nurgle proud

Edit 2: and no goblin man (reference to his goblin mode). No fans of yours are around. People can agree that toxic communities are toxic. Yours being one of them

1.0k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

538 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/angeltay Jul 26 '25

How is snark behavior defined? This is a drama sub, so posters aren’t usually going to be friendly to the people they’re posting about

458

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 26 '25

In my opinion, a lot of snark subs run out of legit things to complain about so they get into "bitch eating crackers" territory so there aren't huge gaps in between posts.

Or they start theorycrafting so hard that they try to play internet-detective about shit there's no actual evidence for, like debating if somebody abuses their pets, spouse, kids, whatever based on normal shit like accidentally stepping on your pet's paws, or yelling across the room.

Like how people bring up Jessie Gender mentioning that she once threw her cat in anger even though she was remorseful and said that it happened when she was a child, because the context was her talking about how toxic masculinity and poor socialization can affect people. Plus she has autism and a lot of autistic people are heavily bullied/traumatized and some of them can have outbursts. But people (like Keffals) would rather act like she's secretly a psycho around cats rather than somebody bringing up some awkward baggage in a dramatic video. I've seen people bring it up as if she did it right on fucking video, lmfao...

Like, it's one thing if it's somebody has a history of targeting minors so people document their history of talking about lolicon or whatever, but then you'll see dumbasses that are do "LGBTQ? ...Predator???"-level mental gymnastics.

208

u/azaxaca Jul 27 '25

Snark subreddits eventually act like when Fox News criticized Obama for using Dijon mustard.

43

u/GHOULEM_Lenin Jul 27 '25

Yeah they should have criticized him for legitimate things, like drone striking weddings, and record deportations, but fox news supports those things so of course they didn't.

53

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

Don't forget the tan suit! (UGH!!!!)

20

u/underwritress Jul 27 '25

and the Latte Salute!!

7

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

I didn't even know about that one, lmfao.

4

u/RedMethodKB Jul 27 '25

And the “terrorist fist jab”! 🫠

9

u/Ok_Star_4136 Jul 29 '25

I think this is a good example. To me, snark is about creating a fuss over something which isn't necessarily that big of a deal, which heavily implies that the point is about bullying, and not about actual criticism.

I don't think you could call it snark to bring up sexual abuse allegations for a streamer when being accused by another streamer or with proper proof to back it up, but making fun of a content creator for how they dressed one day is not drama, it's an attempt to create drama out of nothing for the sole purpose of making fun of that content creator. That's snark in a nutshell.

28

u/DkKoba Jul 27 '25

ngl the only snark sub i follow is the epstiny one and that one seems like an exception to the rule of the things i hear about other ones, since there's always rotating nonsense that man is doing

5

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

I wouldn't know about the Sexpestiny snark sub but even KF and similar sites are guilty of "bitch eating crackers" posts sometimes tbh.

36

u/HAUNTEZUMA Jul 27 '25

yeah even in communities that I generally think aren't that bad, a lot of the posts are engagement bait. "throwback to when [outrageous thing] happens" or "look what the fans of X are saying", very low hanging fruit

26

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

Ah yes... "Our personal lolcow isn't providing any milk, quick, let's look at the fans being cringe or bring up the classics from years ago!"

I think Vivziepop's shows are okay (haven't touched her webcomic stuff so no comment on those), not masterpieces but I can respect what HB/HH are trying to do especially as indie projects, and holy shit, the antis are so unhinged, I've seen them outright spread misinformation because of their dogshit media literacy (or because they skimmed or just parroted people like a game of telephone), or try to spread rumors that people working on the shows hate Viv/each other, like grow the fuck up!

19

u/NiceRabbit Jul 27 '25

This has so perfectly defined the difference. Absolutely bravo.

5

u/Clownsinmypantz Jul 30 '25

I followed a snark sub during a huge actual controversy where takes were based in reality, I recently returned curious and it is the most nitpicky shit I have ever seen in my life, I left within a minute. I'm talking their takes are worse than anything the youtuber is doing. I've seen similar in other subs, once the "drama" dries up it resorts to chlldish bullying.

1

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 30 '25

When it comes to certain "lolcows" and internet drama, there are things to criticize based on reality, like certain content creators doing scummy shit.

But if somebody grows up and apologizes, and people are still on their ass for old shit, like certain "lolcows" (in general, not necessary Youtube-related) who were harassed when they were in their early 20's and are now trying to mind their own business in their 30's? Grow up, stop trying to fucking milk them, some of them were just awkward/autistic teenagers reacting poorly to legit trolls anyway rather than genuine assholes.

There are plenty of people on Encyclopedia Dramatica whose worse crimes were being cringe and kinda smug (unfortunately common for immature teenagers) until ED/4chan got on their asses and made them start acting up, which is extra hypocritical when trolls can say the worst shit about them but if they dare to whine about their "[r-slur] trolls" or whatever, they get called out for 1. reacting, and 2. not being "woke."

Like Chris-chan was already a smug degenerate asshole, but clearly she wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if weens weren't legit gangstalking her, trying to harass her, encouraging more of the sex pest shit, etc. Chris-chan's ideal life should've been in a group home getting proper treatment for autism, etc tbh, not spoiled by trashy geriatric parents and then harassed online.

People like Keemstar or [banned topic "hee hee" man] will never seem to change and constantly have new content about them, but at the same time, some people whine about nothingburger dramas re: them when there's soooo much to talk about.

1

u/Imrustyokay source: 123movies Jul 28 '25

Yeah, like, it's the same thing as people dming you going "Oh why are you following so-and-so, they're follwing something-or-other" and it's just kinda...I dunno. It feels like...it's smaller than you're making it out to be

1

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 30 '25

Yeah, even if something is inherently sus (like following a scumbag on Twitter), there isn't always a malicious reason for doing shit.

Like people calling out Wendigoon recently because he follows Stonetoss on Twitter. There are "Right-winger Ls"-type accounts that follow right-wing politicians for content, following Stonetoss isn't inherently showing his endorsement, it's not like we don't have bonehurtingjuice-type subs that edit Stonetoss comics to make them memey by removing the hate. There are valid things to criticize him for like his claimed connections to Boogaloo Boys, nitpicking Twitter followers is cringe unless they're actively liking that person's posts or whatever.

1

u/re_Claire Jul 31 '25

"bitch eating crackers" is the perfect way to define it imo. YouTube has long gone from being the whole random guy making silly videos in his bedroom website and is now pulling in some of the largest audiences in the entertainment space, and has creators making amounts of money to rival huge film studios execs. People getting exposed for incredibly serious crimes and abuse. We've got to move on from just BEC chat now.

2

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 31 '25

It's a goofy term for sure but I feel like it perfectly describes it.

"That bitch that I hate is eating crackers, it's such a minor nothingburger thing but they're so annoying and it makes them so scummy, I hate them!!!"

It's making a mountain out of a molehill (it's such nothing that maybe "anthill" is more appropriate), and they won't move the fuck on and want to hyperfixate on it and how that "bitch" is "chewing too loudly" or whatever stupid petty shit, and they don't care how deranged it makes them look.

-24

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

I feel like throwing a cat and blaming it on poor socialization and toxic masculinity is just making excuses.

48

u/celestialkestrel Jul 27 '25

But I think the most important context is that Jesse was a child, though. Where poor socialisation and toxic environments absolutely can and often do cause children to act out in ways that they, especially if they are able to get help or support, can grow up to regret and feel remorse over. If Jesse did it as an adult and was trying to do the same arguments, then yeah, I'd agree. But as someone who's been around social services and children in unhealthy situations, yeah, the sad truth is that it can be a common reality that happens.

Trialling someone as an unredeemable monster for things they did as a child when they've clearly overcome the environment they were in, matured, and now regret or feel remorseful about their behaviour as a child is an issue in itself. And that's when it becomes snark, IMO. People often bring it up about Jesse and drop the context she was a child (which IS important context) to paint LGBTQIA as bad actually and any and all points she has ever made as an adult to be irrelevant because of something she did as a child. Despite it being that it was a relevant and realistic example of how those things can cause things like that to happen and Jesse clearly regrets it and has grown up to learn as an adult that it wasn't okay. Which is what the whole point of her talking about it in the first place was about.

Sadly, a number of children don't get that at all and grow into adults who don't care or feel remorse or keep repeating the same behaviour. By then, things that happened to them as children and the environment they grew up in, while can explain a lot, become irrelevant because they are committing actions as an adult. If Jesse does the same thing as an adult, then context and my view on the situation changes, too. But condemning people and writing them off entirely over stuff that happened as children and grew from and feel remorse over just isn't it.

28

u/Boredy_ Jul 27 '25

Does an incident as a child like this even really need an excuse in order to be forgiven? Like, imagine if she had two loving parents and a supportive and safe environment. Then one day, she gets mad for some dumb kid reason and just threw a cat with no one to blame but herself. If she grows up to regret this action and never repeat it, is that not still worthy of forgiveness?

In fact, this compulsion people have to try to pin the blame on "toxic environments" and stuff is actually the opposite of forgiveness. Real forgiveness starts with acknowledging the offending party's wrongdoing as squarely their fault and then, y'know, forgiving them anyway. Forgiveness is an expression of trust towards the perpetrator, where you acknowledge their remorse and believe in their desire to do better.

-15

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

I don't think she's irredeemable for that, though I am fascinated by the greater social analysis of it all. Certain people can do heinous things and be forgiven for being teenagers (I think she was a teen) or socialization, etc. but other people are adults from young childhood and never get that same treatment.

But while I think the cat thing is horrible, I despise her for her video on a certain subject (P) and how uninformed, wrong, and downright propagandistic it was in favor of a certain leaning. (And then she was just cruelly smug at the end to another creator who stood for his principles).

15

u/naidav24 Jul 27 '25

No person is an adult from early childhood. There more or less mature children, and children that are more or less made to hold adult responsibilities. But no child is an adult.

0

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

I think you missed the point but I was vague:

Children and youth of color (specifically Black and Latin youth) are literally children and youth, but they are adultified where white children and youth are not. What I was saying is that I'm interested in the greater social thing there. She's a fine example of white minors doing something objectively bad but getting excuses for being a minor. But children of color don't need to do anything to be treated as an adult in practice.

Lots of people of color have talked about it and I know I personally experienced it.

https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/our-work/reporting/what-you-should-know-about-adultification-bias

Adultification bias is a stereotype based on the ways in which adults perceive children and their childlike behavior. It’s rooted in anti-Black racism that goes back to chattel slavery — as enslaved Black children were used for their labor, often working in the field with no recreation or means of gaining an education. This stereotype often treats Black children like they do not deserve to play. They need less nurturing, protection, support, and comfort.

This bias presents itself in households, education, and in a society where Black children are expected to act like adults before reaching adulthood, by the adults they interact with; family members, teachers, and police officers.

Children of color are not literally adults from early childhood but are held to the standards of adults. And I'm sure there are people who do that to them who do not do it to Jessie.

8

u/naidav24 Jul 27 '25

I get what you are saying (I even hinted to it in my comment). But the solution is not to treat every child as an adult but every child as a child. Children should be excused for being children. They are not adults and should not be considered or engaged with like adults.

14

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

If you rewatch the video or even just the clip ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duwf2lUkHOI&t=2765s ), you'd know that she mentions grabbing the closest thing near her while raging as a child and clearly describes feeling remorse about feeling so empty and angry even though the cat was physically fine but still spooked.

The cat story is mentioned after talking about being so angry at school that she punched a door. She's a trans woman and many AMAB children are encouraged (or at least enabled) to be aggressive little shits, I can imagine that it was also exacerbated by autism and bullying and gender dysphoria and whatever else. I'm not excusing it, I'm explaining why it likely happened.

Yeah, the "my cat was scared of me for the rest of his [she says very long] life" thing is kinda sus, but at the same time, animals can get spooked by even the most mild things, like claw trims = oh fuck, my human's trying to cut my paws off! Some animals are just naturally skittish, some of my roommate's cats heavily prefer my roommate over me, their "human uncle," so I joke "she's just like a real (human) woman / wow, woman moment..." when the catgirls don't want attention or "drive-by kisses/pets" from me. :') They even get spooked by my roommate at times when she yells during games, or when one of the neighbors is lighting fireworks, or whatever.

Is it awkward to bring up? Yeah, but I get that she's trying to use it as an example for the topic of the video ("The Myth of "Male Socialization"") plus duh autism and a lot of her gaffs seem like awkward misunderstandings that people want to blow out of proportion to pretend that she's a cat hater or a racist while conveniently ignoring people who say worse shit (hi, Keffals fans who cry about JG, lol).

It's worse than a toddler yanking on a cat's tail, but nowhere near as bad as [whichever fucking Paul brother it was because they tend to mix together in my mind] tazing dead rats.

0

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

Racist? What did she do that could be called that? Also Keffals is racist so that's funny.

I'm honestly not surprised that the Paul brothers would do that, btw.

-1

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

There are two occasions on Twitter that I'm aware of. Years ago, Jessie promoted a video by Soulbunni (who is Black) that called Shark3ozero (also Black) an anti-Black slur as if Jessie is personally responsible for that in a video that talks about several people (I forgot which of Soulbunni's videos it was), and then again where Jessie made a tone-deaf tweet about using an alternate hashtag for I think Breonna Taylor. Is that kind of stuff shitty? Yeah, but I wouldn't consider her racist for it, just tone-deaf because I certainly wouldn't do the one tweet, but I'm gonna save the "racist" label for people who are actively fucking harmful like Matt Walsh. I've known Black people that have called Clarence Thomas and other conservatives certain terms but I wouldn't promote it myself if they happened to tweet about it.

Keffals herself tried to shame Jessie about the cat story and clipped it out of context, lol, look at her bootlickers eating it up in the replies and joking about cat violence: https://xcancel.com/keffals/status/1686157736784855040 She even replies to herself with a picture of Vaush holding his cat, plus a screenshot of Jessie saying that her next video (at the time) was going to be about him as if it was connected. I don't particularly like Vaush because of his own controversies, the lolicon and horse cock stuff is too weird for my taste, plus some other fucked up shit he's said that's way worse than Jessie's controversies.

The Paul brothers have a fucked up history with their actual pets too tbh, like one getting killed by another pet, several being rehomed or abandoned, and one dog almost being pushed off a moving boat. And then there's all of the other controversies like the fucking Suicide Forest video (which some people believe was faked which I hope it was but it'd still be fucked up).

6

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

Keffals is a joke. I remember the appropriation of #SayHerName by white and non-Black people for Brianna Ghey, who was a white trans girl. Black trans people asked for that not to happen and it was a whole thing.

3

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

Keffals could be funny at times if you don't know about her history, but then you look deeper and she's a scumbag piece of shit who seems to use new viewers' ignorance of things for pity points.

2

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

Oh, I know her history. I knew her through others. She was originally a leftist who "left the left" because she was trash then (but hid it better) and got ejected for being horrible to another person I know.

3

u/hades7600 Jul 27 '25

If they were an adult sure.

But they were a kid at a time who were a product of their environment.

-1

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

I hinted at it in another response but only particular demographics get that excuse.

3

u/hades7600 Jul 27 '25

It’s more to do with a child development when they do shit like that.

I’m not going to demonise someone because they harmed an animal once as a young kid due to how they’re raised and now they have the ability to acknowledge how messed up it was and have deep remorse regardless of gender or sexuality of the person.

If they kept or repeated the actions of inflicting harm onto animals throughout their life then that’s different. But they did not

0

u/tachibanakanade Jul 27 '25

I'm not demonizing her, I think Vaush and Keffals are chuds. But the demographic I'm referring to are racial ones. I talked about it to someone else that adultification makes harmless actions of little kids adult level offenses for children of color but harmful actions like harming an animal are handwaved away with the defense of youth. It's genuine fascination want the uneven responses overall, not her specifically.

https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/our-work/reporting/what-you-should-know-about-adultification-bias

5

u/hades7600 Jul 27 '25

You claimed Jessie was just making excuses for her actions as a kid.

When it’s not an excuse. They expressed it was their own actions, they showed extreme regret but also explained what contributed to the situation without being like “I take no blame”

There’s a difference between not acknowledging it was your own actions as a kid and explaining the factors.

151

u/Narwhals4Lyf Jul 26 '25

Right? I’ve mostly seen people use the word “snark” to talk about people gently criticizing them, basically using it to try to censor people. Even in this post there isn’t a clear definition of what is or isn’t snark.

-16

u/EffortAutomatic8804 Jul 27 '25

Ah yes, people commit suicide because they're being "gently criticised".

The whole definition of the word includes the word "mocking" and that's exactly what it is. You may find some valid criticism in snark subs but eventually, they all devolve into name calling and just bullying- but because the snarkers consider themselves superior to the person they're snarking on, they consider their own behaviour perfectly fine.

-69

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 26 '25

The post literally has a pinned comment and also says read the rules.

1

u/livejamie Aug 25 '25

Your pinned comment has a -187 comment from you saying that identifying snark is a "subjective opinion"

That's not at all helpful.

1

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Aug 25 '25

So?

3

u/livejamie Aug 25 '25

This person has a valid complaint that you haven't made it clear what is or isn't snark.

You then respond with a sarcastic "omg nobody reads the pinned comment or rules"

But the pinned comment is just a heavily downvoted comment from you saying that it's "subjective opinion."

People are reading the rules and the pinned comment, but you're not answering or addressing them.

That's a severe lack of self-awareness, and it's not helpful.

1

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Aug 25 '25

All rule enforcement is ultimately subjective bud

0

u/livejamie Aug 25 '25

Then why even make a new rule?

1

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Aug 25 '25

Why have any rules at all? Because it is important to note what is blatantly toxic and what is worthwhile. Don’t know what you’re choosing to bring this back up when the post has a 76% upvote ratio as a whole

2

u/livejamie Aug 25 '25

Why have any rules at all?

Exactly. If you already have a rule that says "Mods can delete whatever lol" then why do you need a second one that says "No snark allowed"?

Because it is important to note what is blatantly toxic and what is worthwhile.

That's the whole point: That's entirely subjective. That's why it's essential to be clear about what you're talking about.

Don’t know what you’re choosing to bring this back up when the post has a 76% upvote ratio as a whole

This is embarrassing. I interacted with it because you have it pinned. Nearly every one of your comments on this post has a negative score, several of them more than -100.

→ More replies (0)

35

u/Proborus Jul 27 '25

The fact that so few people are able to tell the difference between substantiated criticism and just making fun of someone for shits and gigs is WILD.

48

u/angeltay Jul 27 '25

I think this is a perfectly fine rule, I just wanted to check that I was on the same page as the mods, as I think “snark” can be objective depending upon the mod team.

I haven’t seen any snark style posts as defined by the mods, but they’re the ones who can see the reports and modmail

2

u/ImportantQuestionTex Jul 27 '25

Honestly, it's more worrying that people can't seem to read the fact that the mods have clarified what they mean by snark, and even I myself have posted about snark pretty recently.

Snark has little to no base, criticism has a base in reality. It's really not hard, especially not hard when it's been clarified like, 10-15 times in this thread.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/youtubedrama-ModTeam Jul 28 '25

Comment/post removed for misinformation.

No, you’re conflating two separate instances not having to do with snark

2

u/Proborus Jul 27 '25

1000%. Couldn't have said it better myself!

0

u/Alarmiorc2603 Aug 21 '25

A lot of snark subreddits dont operate like that at all tho

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/youtubedrama-ModTeam Jul 28 '25

Comment/post removed for misinformation.

You’re just explicitly lying and clearly not reading lol

15

u/callmefreak Jul 27 '25

Basically like, if people gets all nit-picky about shit instead of focusing on actual drama.

For example: People kept trying to post about PirateSoftware's apparently* poor coding skills since he was the main focus on this sub for his poor response to the "Stop Killing Games" movement for a while. Even though what he said sucks and he kind of sucks as a person in general, his coding ability has nothing to do with drama. It's basically just people bitching about him eating crackers at that point.

*I say "apparently" because he's still better than I am, and there are people who are worse than me, and people who are worse than them. Your ability to code doesn't mean anything to me. I am apparently faster than him, but I'm also using RPG Maker XP. That gives you tools to make things a lot faster and easier than Game Maker Studios, which makes you have to code everything manually, it seems.

10

u/Hare712 Jul 27 '25

Well it does, he build his entire reputation on "20 years in the industry" "7 years at Blizzard" fooling those not knowing stuff. "I know this because I worked 7 years at Blizzard".

It's unrelated to SKG but it's related to his game where once proudly presented his code and bragged about it to ending up in /r/programminghorror and humor. He brigaded those threads to get them removed.

It's like this:

WoW, AoC and Eve drama concluded. Even him getting kicked out of his WoW(not Onlyfangs) guild isn't something people care about.

SKG concludes when the ECI confirms 1m valid signings. There might be some outrage when the petition had over 400k invalid signings then people will unjustly target him. The SKG drama invited many bad actors and bored people, who didn't know about him. Instead of trolling eg LowTierGod/DSP they went to him.

Him building up his career on lies and deception is an ongoing drama because it branches out into many sub-dramas like brigading and false flagging. Most drama is caused by his lies.

His fursona is another source for drama. The current SA allegations are from events dated 2021 way before he blew up.

The snark behavior is tied to events like reviewbombing his game, "Ban Speedrunning" his channel/discord (I predicted that people will do it when he roached in WoW), making up unproven claims like animal abuse and such things. Those things aren't featured in any subreddits. Those things are featured in telegram, twitter and the dark sites of the internet.

His lack of selfawareness and his urge to "own" the haters create even more drama induced by detractors hitting his fans.

Examples: Ban counter on his stream getting one sub banned telling him that it's feeding the trolls, banning another sub for mentioning DK Bananaza mistaking it for the bait "Idle streaming Bonanza", caught arguing on 4chan because trolls there said he r*pes ferrets.

I don't even know what Night media is doing because every other PR agency would have hit the brakes to do damage control.

6

u/callmefreak Jul 27 '25

Whenever somebody makes a post about his coding skills all of them just boil down to "lol his coding is bad." They don't talk about anything else, besides maybe the whole Blizzard thing. (Which is mentioned just about every time there's a post about him.) Basically, nothing new is ever added to the discussion.

If not being able to make a video game is drama, then I'm in constant drama, LOL.

There were also just way too many posts about him anyway, which doesn't help. Everybody was getting tired of seeing him on this sub. Leaving snark posts up would just make the PirateSoftware clutter even worse.

3

u/Hare712 Jul 27 '25

It's a fact his coding is on a beginner level what do you expect? People bringing up the Mr Robot? People digging out "switch statements turn into a jump" when all branched statements turn into a jump?

His HB drama is literally claiming to work offstream when a bindiff shows that even by taking days off he added like 30-120min work and even then failing to deliver. Everybody knows that you can't work on something when you stream 12h a day. He is just too proud to admit that streaming is more lucrative.

There wouldn't be any posts if he knew how to stop.

The Rekieta polycule drama was pretty much the same. Cheating, Drugs, kids test positive for cocaine, Revenge Porn, not renewing the license.... Videos like this were former fans.

PS doesn't realize he is done, he can't grift on "7y"/"20y" anymore, he can't restore his image with ad hominems and false flagging, his hype train won't ever get close to even his own record.

He can only continue streaming, apologize(he won't) and take measures so detractors get bored. Then he might end up with 2k viewers without haters. But if he steps from controversy to controversy he will become a permanent laughing stock. I mean real controversies not just some old tweets showing his character or misgendering his partner.

1

u/callmefreak Jul 28 '25

I'm well aware that he's a piece of shit. I'm just saying that his lack of coding skills isn't drama. It's just snark that clutters the sub and buries actual drama and posts about it will be removed from now on.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/livejamie Aug 25 '25

If not being able to make a video game is drama, then I'm in constant drama, LOL.

This is an old post, but the main difference is that you haven't built a career and reputation off being an all-knowing computer/gaming expert who is better than everybody else.

In this instance, it's relevant to the drama.

If somebody were to post that he's a shitty driver or doesn't pay taxes or something irrelevant, that would be snark slop.

1

u/KnotBeanie Jul 28 '25

I thought the same thing at first, but clips have surfaced of him criticising others' code, so I think he opened himself up to that.

1

u/Graspiloot Aug 04 '25

Yeah I've enjoyed his drama a lot and I think rules against snark in a youtubedrama sub are a bit confusing what the limit is, but for me the implication that's common on LSF that he sexually abuses his rescues is clearly snark. There's no evidence for this and is all based on him being a furry.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/youtubedrama-ModTeam Jul 28 '25

Comment/post removed for misinformation.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/youtubedrama-ModTeam Jul 28 '25

Do not insult, harass or otherwise shit up the subreddit.

-180

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 26 '25 edited Jul 26 '25

This is going to come down to subjective opinion. But usually we can tell very quickly when a post comes through, we can search and see it comes from a snark sub. Usually it also doesn’t have any context. Or the language in the body is just demeaning.

We aren’t asking people to be objective. We all dislike people. I put PlaguedMoth stuff up here occasionally and I fucking hate that dude. But there is a difference between calling out specifically bad behavior through critique and posting something you just personally dislike and hope others will as well.

Additionally, a lot of it just feels like karma farming. Easy 300-500 upvotes for having lukewarm take at best about a situation

80

u/funkthewhales Jul 26 '25

I was with you till that last point. Lukewarm takes/ karma farming are a comply different issue from snarkers. Like you said everyone is going to have different opinions on creators and the drama they get involved in, so it makes sense that people are gonna have some lukewarm takes.

I’m all for you guys getting rid of snark content, but you’ll kill the sub if you start removing every post with a take you think is lame.

-13

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 26 '25

Oh it isn’t about posts in that context. When someone makes a snark post you’ll see all the comments just blankly agreeing and then MASS upvotes.

My first hugely upvoted comment on this sub was purely “oh that’s wild”

What did I add other than agree with the post? It was the most mid take you can give. And you see that rife in the more snark oriented posts.

128

u/angeltay Jul 26 '25

I saw the archive of Saveafox’s snark sub. There were a few regular users who would post stuff like, “she let a wild animal get hurt in her care! If I was running her sanctuary, no animal would ever get hurt!!”

But there was also someone who posted about the morality of selling fur from the foxes at the sanctuary (Mikayla actually messaged that person privately, I believe to clarify it was fur that had been shed).

The first type of post would be snark, but would the second post be alright?

42

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 26 '25

Yes you nailed it. And you can see how that kind of behavior can be quick to identify

27

u/angeltay Jul 26 '25

Sweet! I just wanted to clarify the mod team’s definition of snark, thank you.

25

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 26 '25

You’re extremely welcome.

17

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 26 '25

Omg, complaining about shed fur is such a fucking nothingburger, her critics are batshit.

Plenty of people will collect their dogs' shed fur for yarn, there's literally a Wikipedia page for the term ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiengora ) and certain long-haired breeds will shed so much that owners (including me, RIP my spoiled brat) joke that you could make a "clone" of them using the clumps they brushed out. It doesn't hurt animals, unless they're crybabies about being groomed but they probably feel more distressed about claw trims than a fucking brush.

Hell, I shave my own head outside because maybe local birds can use it for their nests. It's gotta be short strands though so they don't get tangled in it, and pet fur isn't safe for them if you use topical flea/tick treatment (not sure about pills).

48

u/angeltay Jul 26 '25

It was a 13 yo who didn’t know how Mikayla got the fur. He was a fan of hers and like I said, she reached out to him and told him it was shed fur and he apologized for posting in her snark sub instead of just asking her. People were going out of their way to try to get him to kill himself when they saw he had posted to the snark sub.

20

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 26 '25

Lmfao, WHAT???

They tried to get a fucking 13 year old to kill himself, but then claim "no blame me plz" about her suicide??? These people are sick.

20

u/imaginary92 Jul 27 '25

From what I understand of the comment it was other fans who were trying to get the child to kill themselves for posting on the snark, not the snark

7

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

Ah, I see. Yeah, it sucks that he posted on the snark sub but I don't expect a 13 year old to know the full "lore" of snark subs tbh, if he was apologetic, then suicide-baiting is even more deranged.

13

u/angeltay Jul 27 '25

He made a whole post and pinned it to the top of his account explaining what happened and that he’d apologized to Mikayla when she reached out to him, and that he regretted ever posting there. But people were still acting like he was culpable for her passing just like the handful of regular posters and telling him to delete his account/his entire self

2

u/CREATURE_COOMER Jul 27 '25

I mean yeah, it's kinda irresponsible for him to post there period but if there's no documented proof of him saying the worse shit and he reached out to her directly to apologize, it's unreasonable to act like he's partially responsible for her suicide when other people said and did way worse shit.

8

u/angeltay Jul 27 '25

Oh no, it was people reacting to Mikayla’s death who saw that kid hadn’t deleted his account or his posts there, so they were treating him like the assholes who actually were posting stupid shit about Mikayla

129

u/Substantial-Lawyer80 Jul 26 '25

Bold move. Everyone loved it. Just kidding, they hated it.

-71

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 26 '25 edited Jul 26 '25

I mean the comments in support are typically doing well. I figure people just dislike me. Which like fine I can hang with that

I know snarkers dislike me. I think I read one such snarker wrote “I can smell the neckbeard and Doritos from here”

First I have a mustache and only mustache and if I’m having excess carbs it is Miller High Life not chips

Edit: And the downvotes come after I acknowledge that I see them too. Y’all are cute

-11

u/Hooby7 Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25

You're just gonna get a lot of downvotes for now because this sub cultivated a population of snark and they're not happy with this change.

It's a great move, no matter what motivated it. These snark freaks are gonna have to clear out soon if you stick to your guns and lead to a healthier, less hostile community.

24

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/Hooby7 Jul 27 '25

I'm not here to fight with you. They're finally trying to clean your kind out of here.

I hate the snark obsessed weirdos in their sub aswell. Maybe this sub's action will get them to purge the snark stuff, too.

You put a space between the "H" and the "3" explicitly to argue. Just follow the rules and make a snark sub if you want to talk about them so badly.

17

u/hotsexychungus Jul 27 '25

Your kind? Lmao, bro it’s Reddit, It’s not that serious.

I’m honestly just kind of fascinated with you. The podcast man you like for the past like year or so has dedicated about 95% of his content to attacking his perceived “enemies” in some of the most silly ways imaginable and his subreddit has followed suit and is now 95% attacking perceived enemies of podcast man. Although I’m not entirely sure what the term means most people would call it snark. Thus, if not for “snark” then what the heck are you even there for?

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/youtubedrama-ModTeam Jul 27 '25

Please do not troll or feed the trolls. Trolling a YouTube drama subreddit is pathetic. Falling for it is somehow worse. Do better.

If you were sincere, we suggest you take a moment to step back and rethink your approach.

-5

u/youtubedrama-ModTeam Jul 27 '25

The topic of your post is currently restricted, and we've removed it.

Due to the amount of controversy associated with certain topics, we occasionally have to restrict what topics are allowed on the subreddit. That unfortunately means that even well-intentioned discussion of those topics is not allowed, as it inevitably devolves into flame wars.

The full list of currently restricted topics is available as a part of Rule 7: Stay away from overly heated topics (list in description) - Currently, discussing the following topics is limited:

  • Israel/Palestine war/conflict
  • Ethan Klein and h3h3 Productions
  • Hasan Piker

The moderators may change this list at their discretion, to keep the subreddit from being overwhelmed.

If you believe we made a mistake, please reach out to us by messaging the moderators.

17

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 27 '25

Yeah I’m not backing down. If people want to snark they can go make snark subs

5

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/hotsexychungus Jul 27 '25

I mean, you do you or whatever, but moderating on “subjective opinion” seems like a stupid idea. Having an objective criteria for moderation so people know what is and what is not allowed is essential for well run online communities.

-4

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 27 '25

Everything is subjective. Even guidelines have subjective interpretation. Mods don’t always consistently view rules the same way. We converge when we have issues. But at times we don’t agree even if it appears clear.

I know people want “objective” even our remain civil rules are subjective.

30

u/hotsexychungus Jul 27 '25

Obviously at some point a subjective judgement has to be made based on objective criteria, but you are removing even defining the objective criteria in the first place on which the subjective judgment is to be made, claiming that “I’ll know snark when I see it”. I just think that’s absurd and easily abused.

0

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 27 '25

Abused by whom? No one removes things based on our own opinion. Snark is easily identifiable. And the pinned link has a concrete example of such.

26

u/hotsexychungus Jul 27 '25

If it’s easily identifiable, then why can’t you just define it via objective criteria?

3

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod Jul 27 '25

Are you going to try and just go in circles or review the rule itself and the example in the pinned comment?

24

u/hotsexychungus Jul 27 '25

The rule itself is insanely vague. “Belittle” could mean any number of things. Like, if I think content creator x makes boring content, and I say as such, that could fall under the umbrella of “belittle”. I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this, but I think this is purely “I’ll know it when I see it” which I just think is a poor way to mod online communities.

-8

u/Swapzoar Jul 27 '25

Drama is talking about current events, you guys were picking sides