The Dumbest Race On The Internet Is Finally Over

Finally, the dumbest race on the internet is over. Following countless stunts over the last several months, varying wildly from the profoundly stupid to occasionally very funny, the king of YouTube is now an Indian music corporation.

While T-Series has only in the last year become one of the largest channels on YouTube, the network has had a substantial presence for the better part of a decade. It was the second Indian YouTube channel to surpass 1 billion views in mid 2013, and by the start of 2017 the channel became most viewed YouTube channel on the network. Along with the views on its main channel, T-Series also has a multi-channel network that consists of some of Indian's most subscribed YouTube channels.

Given the burgeoning middle class in India, a country with more than 1.3 billion people, and their appetite for content online, it was really only a matter of time. And before the end of March, the T-Series network - which has been growing subscribers at a faster rate than the Swedish YouTuber for some time - finally took the crown. Earlier this morning, Felix Kjellberg uploaded a video congratulating the Indian network.

The lead had been changing hands for most of March, with routine YouTube internal audits affecting the subscriber counts of both channels. It wasn't until the weekend that T-Series had gained enough of a lead to prevent Kjellberg's subscriber count from overtaking once more. The latter has begun to claw some of that lead back in the last 12 hours, as can be seen from rolling averages and counts tracked through Socialblade's livestream (which has almost 900 concurrents).

Despite how absurd some of the attempts were by fans and fellow YouTubers to keep the race going, there was an intriguing undercurrent to the defence of Kjellberg's crown. For a lot of YouTubers and the community surrounding them, the principle of a company like T-Series rising to the top by using the content of other artists was an anathema to what YouTube was originally founded on. YouTube is meant to be a self-made community, and it was that spirit many fans tried to defend. They wanted their hero to be an individual icon, not a corporation.

Of course, individuals like Kjellberg are basically self-made corporations at this point, with armies of of editors, illustrators, designers and other support staff. And that's not to mention the broader YouTube landscape, filled with multi-channel networks and endless cycles of cross-promotions. And that's ultimately what happened between T-Series and Kjellberg: both channels ended up benefiting enormously, with both channels now sporting more than 183 million subscribers between them. The monthly views for Kjellberg in particular has shot up enormously, with over 500 million monthly views for December 2018 and over 420 million views in January this year, all of which translates into an enormous amount of ad revenue.

Growth in total views and subscribers per month for Kjellberg over the last few years, highlighting just how much the Swedish YouTuber has benefited over the last few months. Image: Socialblade

Having lost the lead for a few days, it's likely that fans will engage in another surge to support Kjellberg's channel. Both channels will probably keep racing to the 100 million subscriber count, probably resulting in more fliers, newspaper ads, billboards, hacking attempts, and other gags designed to counteract T-Series' insatiable growth. All of these, of course, will then be promoted in videos of their own, creating an endless cycle that will continue to engulf the world's largest video platform.


Comments

    Wow....... The dumbest race on the internet? The hell you on about?

    You do know why it was a big deal, right? Independent creator vs. corporate entity. Basically, the biggest change to youtube over the years has been the fact it's lead more and more on corporate content than what actually made it popular, your average joe in front of a camera.

    To claim its a dumb thing is misunderstanding the reason why it was a big deal for those who cared and makes the whole article complete trash because of that stupid headline.

      I see you read the whole article

      Despite how absurd some of the attempts were by fans and fellow YouTubers to keep the race going, there was an intriguing undercurrent to the defence of Kjellberg's crown. For a lot of YouTubers and the community surrounding them, the principle of a company like T-Series rising to the top by using the content of other artists was an anathema to what YouTube was originally founded on. YouTube is meant to be a self-made community, and it was that spirit many fans tried to defend. They wanted their hero to be an individual icon, not a corporation.

      Of course, the reason why it's dumb is because "individuals" like PewDiePie are corporations of their own these days given the amount of infrastructure and support staff behind them, which the paragraph immediately after goes into. YouTube stopped being the home for "average joes in front of a camera" a long, long time ago.

        *mic drop*

        edit: auto-mod :(

        Last edited 01/04/19 3:43 pm

      Of course, individuals like Kjellberg are basically self-made corporations at this point, with armies of of editors, illustrators, designers and other support staff.

      He has 2 editors. 2.

      And an army of 9-year-olds. Tho the Vierge did upgrade them to 14... and then Felix tried to get Memesters going...

      Except he isn't an individual anymore. He has a whole company behind his name and to think it's just one guy is kinda dumb.

      It really isn't a big deal, just two corporate entities feeding off each other.
      The whole, little guy vs the big bad is a fun tag for folks involved but the only little guys are the ones fluffing up these two powerhouses.

        Your comparing the biggest record label in India with over 3000 employees and an independent Youtuber who employs two editors.

          Correct! I'm also comparing two entities with millions in turnover.

          I get the point being made but let's get real, this isn't the David and Goliath story it's being sold as, it's really just a massively successful marketing strategy that pays out for both parties and has literally no impact or benefit for those wanting to break in to the independent Youtube market.

            It's not so simple, even if you see him as "a corporation" he's just a guy with two editors, the millions he does by himself keep him free and independent, and this shows in the attack he receives by other media, if he was working for some other corporation they would have never risked to damage the brand of a "corporate asset" (after all, all American media are controlled by 6 corporations, there's little space for competition, it's very likely that they form a cartel).

    It wasn't until the weekend that T-Series had gained enough of a lead to prevent Kjellberg's subscriber count from overtaking once more, with

    With what, Alex? I NEED TO KNOW.

    How do fans engage in a 'surge'. They've already subbed. Besides making face accounts, I can't see much happening.

      Spamming... on all platforms. Lotsa spam telling people to subscribe.

    I respect that you didn’t mention a recent unfortunate event. I feel like a lesser author would have brought it up.

    Felix might have lost, but he’s still the #1 individual channel, while T Series consists of many, many different people (I think?) so he’ll always be top dog in that regard. At least, until the next PewDiePie comes along.

      That could take a while, given they need to climb a cliff to get there now.

      He's not the number one individual channel either, that's Ryan ToysReview. Remember, this race was only about subs but subs are meaningless. They don't generate any revenue, views and 'joins' do, and Pewdiepie's only ranked 10th for views. For comparison, Ryan ToysReview is ranked 4th, and has 50% more views than Pewdiepie. T-Series has somewhere around 1000% the views.

        That's number one in revenue though. By YouTube's own standard, they acknowledge that subscriber count is the primary aspect of an account and one of the main measurements of an accounts influence. That's why they provide awards (Play Buttons) for subscriber milestones and not views or joins. By YouTube's only award recognition standard, he is the number one individual content creator. If the subscriber count was meaningless, then YouTube wouldn't reward subscriber count milestones, but instead would reward view or join milestones or anything else instead then.

          The play buttons are an extension of Youtube's tiered benefit system, which unlocks channel benefits like monetisation, subscriptions and merchandising based on subscriber count. They're indications of Youtube's level of trust and support, not a meaningful ranked metric. Subscriber count beyond 100,000 is functionally meaningless: popularity and influence are measured by views, and revenue is a function of viewing time by video length with breakpoints.

            But that's exactly what it is, a meaningful ranked metric. If it was meaningless, then even YouTube wouldn't use that as a gateway to account features and support, let alone awards given after 100,000 subscribers. The only channel benefit not tied to subscribers only is monetisation which can be unlocked via watch time as well. Subscribers wouldn't be the number one cited statistic when talking about a channel and its success if it was meaningless. To YouTube and most other people, subscribers === more watch time. For most, watch time is key if we're explicitly looking at revenue generation and I understand where you're coming from with views in that regard. That said, subscriber count is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, factor to all of the other related metrics including watch time and views.

              I maintain it's a meaningless metric. Channel features are tied to it for a combination of legacy reasons and simplicity, since the milestone levels that features unlock at need to be transparent to both sides (Youtube and creator), while engagement (a derivative of viewing habits that doesn't factor subscribers at all) is the meaningful but more complex algorithm that drives all the rest of Youtube's systems, including revenue, recommendations, features (spotlights, not functionality) and so on.

              I used to make content myself, and a very long-time friend of mine runs a channel with 8 million views - we're both active in the Youtube creator communities including Youtube's partner support channels, and my experience is that the general sentiment from both Youtube's staff and the content creators is that views (and engagement) are the primary metrics. Subs are mostly seen as tangential, at best they can be viewed as a possible recurring view, but unless it translates to an actual view then it's meaningless.

              Pewdiepie is an excellent case study in this exact thing. T-Series surpassed Pewdiepie's views years ago but despite the attention nothing changed in his view numbers. It was only when the sub count drew even that his sub count mysteriously spiked, despite his view count remaining the same. This is strong evidence that his campaign to gain more subs didn't translate into any actual benefit for him, and that most of the new subs don't actually watch any of his content. If they don't watch, they give him no additional reach, influence or revenue.

              Of course, we already know that a significant number of new subs to Pewdiepie's channel since T-Series drew even on subs are from fake accounts. People were quite public in saying they were making a bunch of new accounts to try to make sure Pewdiepie stayed on top - a phenomenon that's happening right now too, even in the Socialblade stream chat - so the numbers he has are effectively useless even if they were meaningful, which they're not.

              Ryan ToysReview's content is seen by 50% more people than Pewdiepie's content. T-Series' content is seen by ten times more people than Pewdiepie's content. The subs contest has literally been nothing more than dick waving since it hasn't translated into more views, more reach, more engagement, more influence for Pewdiepie. Views matter. Engagement matters. Subs don't.

                Sorry, that view count in the second paragraph was a typo, should have read 80 million, not 8 million. Not keen to edit because of the automoderation.

                I'll agree to disagree that subscribers are a meaningless metric as without subs, you don't have the views nor the engagement at all. For me, when a metric can define all other metrics, then it is completely meaningful and if not meaningful to you, is a cornerstone to your channel regardless as all other metrics hinge on it. We both agree that not all subscribers watch the content, as you've pointed out with PewDiePie and as you can see with Ryan ToysReview. You can see that with PewDiePie's recent vlog sitting at 4 million views while having 92 million subscribers. But you don't see channels with 0 subscribers hitting any amount of views with an equal ratio to that of PewDiePie or any other creator consistently.

                I dislike bringing in personal connection to prove a point as I cant prove an unbiased stance, but my wife is also an avid content creator on both YouTube and Twitch and also views her subscriber count as the primary metric that drives all others. Without subscribers/followers, she has no average views and no engagement. Lets take when she started out - in order to hit partner on Twitch, she had to maintain 70 average viewers. If we stop there, we'd say viewers is the most important metric, but looking further, she only achieved that average viewer amount after hitting 2,000+ followers. She couldn't hit the average with a lower follower count, and was only able too after she had a higher chance of engagement which was fueled by her follower count. More followers received notifications that she was streaming, and as a result, she had a higher chance of getting a view. The same applies to YouTube with subscribers.

                I understand that you place more value on engagement/views over subscribers and that makes that metric meaningless to you, since you need that watch time/engagement. But you cant refute that subscribers are the underlying statistic that drives a channel completely. Without subscribers, you have nothing. You have nothing because you have no engagement. You have no engagement because you have no subscribers. Anyone with 0 subscribers on their channel can tell you that. Views matter. Engagement matters, and without subscribers, you have neither.

                That said, I completely understand where you're coming from, and looking at it as a whole I think we can both agree to disagree on this as we just fundamentally place more value on different metrics. That said, it is refreshing to have a normal discussion with someone who has respect. It's rare in the online world for me to have a discussion like this. Thanks :)

                  But you cant refute that subscribers are the underlying statistic that drives a channel completely.

                  I'm confident I've logically refuted that assertion. You don't agree, obviously, but I've approached this from as factual a basis as I can.

                  Without subscribers, you have nothing. You have nothing because you have no engagement. You have no engagement because you have no subscribers.

                  Perhaps this is the root of this misunderstanding. I'm not presenting this as an opinion, I'm presenting it as fact: views do not depend on subscribers, engagement does not depend on subscribers. There are a lot of channels with high views and low subs, particularly channels that do 'answers' content, like what phone you should buy. They don't attract subs because people got what they needed from the view alone, an answer to a question they had. These channels are nevertheless highly successful because the subs don't actually matter, views do. TheReactShow is an example, averaging around 1.5 million monthly views despite having only 63,000 subs. Compare Jenna Marbles (443 vids, 19.4M subs, 50M monthly views) with Ryan's Family Review (417 vids, 3.7M subs, 174M monthly views). Effectively the same number of videos, but the latter has 350% the views with less than a fifth the subs. There's clearly no causation between subs and views/engagement here.

                  The reason should be clear: a subscription is a notification system, nothing more. It's a user saying they want to be notified of future content you produce. It may translate to a view, it may translate to engagement, but it may not. And only if it translates to a view or engagement does it end up having any demonstrable value. This is proof that it's a tangential metric, not a primary one. A million subscribers is worthless if none of them watch your content, but a million views is valuable even if you have no subscribers.

                  Addressing an earlier point of discussion, a creator kindly pointed out to me that YouTube added a view requirement to unlock monetisation. In 2018, they replaced the view count with a requirement for hours watched within the year. So it's no longer true that subs are the sole metric behind unlocking Youtube's features either.

                  Double Post - Feel free to remove.

                  Last edited 06/04/19 1:24 am

                  @zombiejesus Unable to reply directly to you unfortunately - I think we hit the limit on replies. I was really hoping we'd the let it go since we definitely wont come to an agreement. But since we've progressed:

                  I'm confident I've logically refuted that assertion. You don't agree, obviously, but I've approached this from as factual a basis as I can.

                  I'm sorry, you haven't logically refuted it. You may believe you have, but you havent. I've also approached this as factually as I can as well but it seems that you're unaccepting of the possibility that you may be incorrect. I've looked over everything you've stated, visited the channels you mentioned, looked at their metrics as best I could.
                  Nothing you have brought forward refutes that subscribers are the most important metric. If anything, by looking further into your examples, I see more and more that subscribers are the most important metric - I'll get into those soon.

                  Perhaps this is the root of this misunderstanding. I'm not presenting this as an opinion, I'm presenting it as fact: views do not depend on subscribers, engagement does not depend on subscribers.

                  You attempt to present your opinion as fact, when it isn't. You think it is, and in fact, you talk about your own experience and you attempted to bring that forward as factual evidence when it clearly is opinion based off your own personal experience. That unfortunately doesn't stand as fact. This is the reason I was hesitant to bring forward a personal case, as anyone knows that it has to be taken with many grains of salt. "If I experienced it, then most likely everyone else must have" is a dangerous assumption to make in any case (this statement might be an exaggeration in the case, but it makes the point clear).

                  You do bring forward cases that defy the odds, So i'm not trying to discredit every point you've made with the above paragraph. As for the outliers which you've presented, well, they're exactly that, outliers to the situation. As it stands, there are more channels with subscribers > views, than subscribers < views.

                  There's clearly no causation between subs and views/engagement here.

                  No, but it is the biggest factor that affects them in majority of cases, and that's what my point is. Subscribers are the most important metric as it has the biggest effect on a channels metrics as a whole. In most cases, more subscribers means more overall views. Like you've mentioned, there are channels that this rule doesn't apply too all the time, but most channels fall into this bracket. If most channels fall into this bracket, then its a fair assumption to make that subscribers are the main influencing factor to the other metrics.

                  I mentioned that I looked into your examples and I'm glad you brought forward TheReactShow - currently sitting at 63,000 subscribers at the moment, last video uploaded 3 weeks ago is at 2300 views. The only videos with higher views? The ones over 8 months old which are Samsung/Xbox/Sony advertisement compilations that we're all the buzz at the time. The second they made original content, 2300 views. They fall into the same situation as all other channels.

                  JennaMarbles -
                  - 19 million subscribers
                  - 4.7 million average views on each video

                  Ryan's Family Review -
                  - 3.2 million subs
                  - 1.8 million average views on each video

                  How did Ryan's Family Review get those high views per month on the same number of videos as JennaMarbles? JennaMarbles uploads once a week, Ryan's Family Review upload 3-4 times a week, sometimes even everyday. All of this shows that subscribers engaging in the content are what bring in the views.

                  Side note; Looking at all their channels, they all say the same thing "Hit the subscribe button and turn on notifications". There is a reason every single YouTuber asks people to like and subscribe to their channel. It drives views and engagement. All of your examples have higher subscribers than per video views. This falls in line with my point.

                  The reason should be clear: a subscription is a notification system, nothing more. It's a user saying they want to be notified of future content you produce. It may translate to a view, it may translate to engagement, but it may not. And only if it translates to a view or engagement does it end up having any demonstrable value. This is proof that it's a tangential metric, not a primary one. A million subscribers is worthless if none of them watch your content, but a million views is valuable even if you have no subscribers.

                  You should read over that paragraph.
                  You can speculate all you want, but even you recognize in this paragraph that it effects views and engagement, by literally engaging people by suggesting they view your content. You and I both know people would have less views if they weren't engaged by this system. It effects the metrics drastically.

                  So it's no longer true that subs are the sole metric behind unlocking Youtube's features either.

                  Yes, I already stated that within a previous post in this thread.
                  Yet it still tied to subscribers as well. It's an either/or, not a complete replacement. If it replaced subscribers as a requirement, then you'd have something to work with there.

                  I'm sorry but no matter how you look at it, even with channels you provide as examples, they all have the same outcome. They all show that higher subscribers results in higher views overall. You even managed to provide a channel that bolstered this by showing the difference between viral content affecting a channel and standard original content.

                  I'm presenting the conclusions as fact because it is fact. There's an industry (an offshoot of fintech) built around mathematically analysing and optimising content creation growth, producing statistical models with relatively tight confidence intervals based on each content archetype that prerecorded and streaming content creators tend to produce. The exact algorithms are Google trade secrets but the inputs and outputs map to known ranges. The 95% confidence interval entirely encompasses outcomes where the importance of views and engagement (as portrayed by the chart on the right of the 'Reach Viewers' tab of the channel analytics page) rank higher than subscriber count by a margin of two to one at closest. This margin has only grown over the last five years, but was always ahead of subscribers since the start of the data collection process.

                  My opinion aligns with the statistical model because the model guided my opinion. In fact, I used to think the way you did until a colleague connected me to a startup about eight years ago that showed me the evidence and methodology proving me wrong. I don't expect you to take what I say as evident when I can't give you the same graphs and methodology involved, as I was - the analytics are behind an NDA and a paywall that I no longer have access to since I stopped making videos. But I do expect you to stop trying to imply I'm lying when I tell you it's factual and not opinion. What you believe is your prerogative, but this isn't babby's first debate and I don't lie.

                  I say this with genuine courtesy: if your wife is a content creator trying to grow her channel and she has at least 10,000 monthly viewer hours (the model has minimums required to ensure the confidence of the results), there are companies that can run analytics on her content type to provide metric weightings and advice on how to efficiently grow engagement and reach. Please, seek them out, look at the data and methodology, and see for yourself why I'm so confident about how unimportant subscribers are.

                  In the meantime, you're obviously settled on your particular view so there's no point discussing it further here.

                  I'm presenting the conclusions as fact because it is fact.

                  But it isn't fact. There is always an excuse as to how you cannot bring forward the factual evidence to support your claims, Where as I am able to effectively present data and cases, including your own cases, to help identify my point. In the end, you were right in your assumption:

                  I don't expect you to take what I say as evident when I can't give you the same graphs and methodology involved

                  That said, I'm sorry if I've come off as calling you a liar, I don't mean it too and If I have, my apologies. But I cannot take what is personal opinion as fact. Presenting the conclusion as fact, doesn't mean it is fact when its based purely off information you cannot provide without saying "Take my word for it". I simply cannot trust your point 100% when I see the data I can provide to you and it opposes your point.

                  Look, I understand why you believe that views and engagement are important, and I can actually agree with you if I was a content creator looking to make money, but my point is that subscribers become the most important metric as they affect all of the ones you find important and that make money in the end. It's like saying the size of the land isn't important, what's important is the number of rooms the house has. But the more land you have, the more rooms you can have. The room count is important to you, but the land affects how many you can have. You want more views, get more subscribers and make content on a more frequent basis. Your subscribers will watch your videos, which will drive up your monthly view and engagement count. It's very simple in the end. JennaMarbles would have more monthly views if she uploaded more frequently because her subscribers would watch her content.

                  You are right, I am set on my view as I cannot view the evidence and methodology you say exists that proved you wrong. I'm inclined to believe what I do, as it's from the evidence that I can see and analyze thoroughly to come to my conclusion.

                  An apology is meaningless when it's wrapped before and after with the same thing it's supposed to be apologising for. What I've told you is fact. You can choose to believe it or not, but what you're doing instead is asserting the opposite, an assertion that accuses me of lying. And it's one you continue to project.

                  I want to be as clear as I can be here. I don't want to talk to you, on this topic or any topic, now and in future. You've given me the impression of someone who is fixated on 'winning' at all costs, even if that means deliberate mischaracterisation, steamrolling, and rewriting the narrative to suit. So I'm asking you: in future, please don't reply to me. I don't like wasting my time and I don't have the patience for sea lions. The bridges are burned, we're done.

                  You've given me the impression of someone who is fixated on 'winning' at all costs

                  The irony is palpable. I don't care about winning, I even asked early on that we agree to disagree. I also thanked you that the discussion didn't escalate, my mistake though. You couldn't let it go no matter what. I'm fine with avoiding people like you who place themselves on a sanctimonious podium and talk down to others. You don't talk fact, you never did and trust me, there was never a bridge to begin with. Use whatever label you want for me to keep yourself on that weak podium.

                  I don't want to talk to you

                  I hope you keep your word.

      I found it interesting that the entire article used his real name. I had to peer at the graph to confirm that Felix is who I thought he is. My first thought was that they only referred to him as Felix as a result of that event.

    The best solution? Ignore both of them.

      But insufferable PewDiePie fans are everywhere. I wish I could ignore them :(

        it's actually worse than that i think much of the sub to pewdiepie shit wasn't even his fans it was just people on the internet being deliberately annoying...

    The song was pretty funny actually.

    Well that's my Pewdiepie video for the year

    Anyone remember the Ashton Kutcher twitter race to 1 million subs way back?

    I'm not afraid of the apocalypse. I am calm, and happy with my life, and ready for this world to end. I am fulfilled. Humanity does not need to exist.

    It's sad to know that in this day and age that THIS is the cause to rally so many people. Imagine if these people got behind something that might actually effect people's lives.

      God forbid people have some fun and meme each other.

      https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/3/18124332/pewdiepie-fans-charity-donation-t-series-battle

      He used the battle to raise more than 100k for a charity in india that helps children out of poverty and forced labour.

      What have you done?

        A guy worth >$20mil USD got other people to donate $100k for a charity.

        Cool story, bro.

          By all means demonstrate what you have done for charity.

            Way to miss the point.

            The guy earns a hell of a lot, and then getting other people to donate their money to the tune of a fraction of his income. Percentage wise in terms of my net worth and ability to influence others, I've personally done a shit-ton more than he has.

            I make monthly donations to charity and have done for many years, how about you?

              I make monthly donations to charity and have done for many years, how about you?

              Cool story bro,

              Why don't you donate more of your money. Demonstrate what you are asking others to do.

              i dont know about djbear but i have donated to charity every month for years and i am 100% sure i earn less than you not that it makes any difference, you don't know anything about pewdiepie's charity work other than he at the very least has raised 100k which is more than both of us combined.

              firstly the people receiving that 100k don't give a single fuck about whether you think pewd's donates enough to charity they are just happy someone got them 100k, that 100k would not be going to charity if not for pewds you fool.

              not only do you have no idea how much pewds gives to charity annually u don't even care, this is all about envy and jealousy your just like every other jealous socialist jackass envying the successful and wanting to take his stuff. Just so I'm clear how much is someone allowed to earn before they must give the rest to charity? is it like 50k for yourself maybe 10k per child then the rest has to go to charity or they are just not as good as you.

              the fact is that with this alone pewds is at 100k vs what maybe a few thousand that your responsible for, the fact that it didn't all come from his wallet is irrelevant without him that money would not be going to charity.

              oh and PS "no collusion" enjoy your day

                Jeezuz.

                Again, the whole point of this was that he's personally benefiting from this "charity drive". I don't give a crap about the guy, but the people seem to think he's some big hero is just vomit worthy. Also that people are rallying around this rather than something that actually matters (e.g. Climate Change).

                The fact that you insist on calling me a "socialist" (as though you think that's some kind of insult) and your raving about "no collusion" says more about you than it does me. This isn't an article about POTUS and his unethical behaviour.

                  how is he personally benefiting from this charity drive? are you suggesting he stole money from the charity? or maybe your referring to some kind of social benefit like people thinking that raising money for charity is a good thing?

                  that's odd because your practically dislocating your own shoulder patting yourself on the back for helping a charity. By the way i think you will find if you bother to actually look into the matter before shooting your mouth off again that pewds donates to every charity that he runs or signal boosts. the fact that you find it vomit worthy that people think he's a good guy is very odd i don't know what that's about but you should probably seek some help.

                  climate change ugh....
                  well i know your type and i know you don't really know anything about climate change or how it is completely corrupt from top to bottom, none of the countries you think are tackling climate change are doing anything more than fooling you on paper, i urge you to look into it. And no i am not a science denier before you try that shit on me, i just know more than you about this topic. I assume it was accidental given it was the honorable thing to do but Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement rather than fudging some bullshit that only looks legit on paper and in reality is a betrayal was a good thing. I wish more people understood the farce being perpetrated on the world right now.

                  Socialist is an insult buddy, socialism is abhorrent at least for the moment anyway, socialism do not own socialised healthcare or any other social programs there are many countries that use some social programs some even use a combination of social programs but that is not socialism. If you don't think socialist is an insult then you don't know what socialism is, as a species with our current technology socialism is guaranteed to fail and kill a shitlaod of people in the process every time, look at the history of socialism it always fails and it always kills until man no longer has to labor and everything is automated socialism will never work grow up.

                  the only reason i mention Russiagate was to see if you would pull a CNN and double down, maybe you don't remember Proselytizing about Russian collusion to me, you said a number of absolutely ridiculous things and i was just curious if you would admit you were wrong or if you would double down on the bullshit, it wasn't really clear to me could you reply with just sorry or i'm doubling down, that would make me happy.

                You understand how YouTube works, right? When he gets tons of people to view his content - as he does from this kind of stunt, he gets more money because it has generated more views and thus ad revenue. Then combined with Patreon or the like where people will donate because "OMG PEWDIEPIE IS SUCH A GREAT BLOKE I WANNA GIVE HIM MY MONEY".

                As for the rest of your post about the "corruption of climate change" and "socialism is evil" - dude... I seriously do not want to have any discussions with you. I really don't. And it's not because "ILLEXI WON. HE WON THE ARGUMENT AND THE INTERNET."

                It's because you've got a baked on worldview that you refuse to have challenged or entertain even the slightest deviation from. You spout insane conspiracy theories and batshit crazy talking points. Climate change is rife with corruption? I would say give me some evidence, but I know you don't have any. If you actually care about corruption, look at the fossil fuel industry. Whatever corruption you think exists around climate change and renewable energy, the fossil fuel industry has it dunked at least a thousand times over - probably more.

                I'm sorry, but I simply don't give a shit about your opinion. You've demonstrated repeatedly that it's not based in reality, it's not based in fact, but based entirely on rhetoric and ideology. I don't want to waste any more of my time attempting to educate you when you refuse to debate in good faith, or even acknowledge that a metaphorical spade is in fact a metaphorical spade. Vote Trump or One Nation or the United Patriots Front or whatever the fuck dickbags you choose - I just don't want or need to hear your opinion because it's not worth the effort to listen and attempt to interpret it.

                Okay, against my better judgement, I'll give this one more shot.

                This article was about PDP, but you ending up talking about:
                1) Climate change being corrupt
                2) Me being an evil socialist
                3) Trump and his "no collusion"

                None of those last three things had ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand, yet you brought them up as some kind of point scoring exercise. They contributed nothing to the discussion except as some kind of "GOTCHA!" that wasn't actually based on anything remotely related to the topic at hand. In other words, you just wanted to pick a fight. Based on previous discussions you've related that you have anger issues, so I can only guess that's the issue, and so I can only recommend that you seek professional help. This kind of behaviour isn't normal or healthy.

                First, let's have a little aside about your "socialism" tirade. Australia has socialist systems of welfare and healthcare. No, it's not socialism taken to the extreme or perverted/corrupted and turned into an oligarchy/dictatorship, but taking on some aspects of socialism in order to provide benefits to the whole of society has actually proven beneficial in many countries as it serves as a foil against the problems with pure capitalism. You know, it's that whole nuanced non-black and white line you espoused in your last post... right after you denounced socialism as pure evil the post before. You're so wrapped up in the bogeyman of EVIL SOCIALISTS that you can't accept that "democratic socialists" are actually arguing for a more equitable society through appropriate taxation and welfare systems. Essentially, you want to have your cake and eat it too - because your arguments come from ideology rather than facts.

                However, let's instead go to your BIG CLAIM of how smart you are and how much you know about climate change. You said that solar panels only recently started producing more energy than they took to create. That is a lie. Either you're lying deliberately, or you're grossly misinformed. In Australia, it takes approximately 2 years for a PV cell to repay its energy debt. Solar panels last a lot longer than two years. I could potentially give you the benefit of some doubt and look at other studies (https://phys.org/news/2016-12-solar-panels-repay-energy-debt.html and https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3038824) that indicate that the solar panel industry has either already "paid back" all the energy that has been used to create solar panels thus far, or this will occur in 2020. However, this includes all solar panels manufacturing, i.e. those panels that have not reached end of life, or in some cases haven't been used at all. The equivalent argument would be "this coal power plant I just built cost more energy to make than it has produced. Therefore coal is bad." Let's keep in mind that solar is just ONE source of renewable energy - wind turbines "pay back" their power output in approximately 3-6 months (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy).

                This was your big point to demonstrate how intelligent you are and how much you know compared to me - and it turns out that you're absolutely and undeniably wrong, and can be proven so with the bare minimum of research. In other words, you're spouting lies that can be easily disproven, and could only be accepted by those who don't do any research to confirm your claims. Again, you're either lying deliberately with the intent to mislead, or you've not done any research except from biased sources.

                The reason I call you a hack and alt-right ideologist is because you spout their talking points - and then justify your position by saying things that simply aren't true. You claim to be knowledgeable and understand far more about subjects but then either deflect or simply tell lies. This is the exact behaviour of someone from an alt-right philosophy, AND you oppose and attack the same subjects that alt-right supporters do. In other words, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Even if you don't think of yourself as an alt-right supporter, you act exactly like one. If you don't like the moniker, stop exhibiting the same behaviours. It's truly that simple.

                  your such a disingenuous ****** ****. your the one who brought up climate change now your trying to add it to my list of supposed "sins" i see so it is rules for thee but not for me.... classic left tactic.

                  You attribute certain behaviors to the alt-right which is indecently anybody who argues with you and then tell me to stop exhibiting these behaviors to prove that i am not alt-right... your literally telling me to stop arguing with you. I don't think you have ever even encountered someone who is alt-right you just love to use the term as a thought terminating cliche to protect your own cognitive bias.

                  Australia does indeed have some social programs so do a lot of countries, had you bothered to digest what i was saying i made this exact distinction between having social programs and being socialist, instead you try and paint a scenario where i am somehow calling any country with social programs socialist. really dude?? i made this fucking distinction already stop being an asshole and falling over yourself to miss interpret what i say.

                  i can't be bothered anymore this was the last straw i really thought that eventually you would stop using dishonest tactics like framing my contempt for climate change policy as some kind of shilling for big oil but you can't. Anyone who doesn't match whatever your belief in on a subject must therefore be on the opposite side and not only do you view reality in a binary but somehow your always on the side of truth and love every single time. amazing....

                  I can't imagine being in your head i don't listen to anyone from the alt right, i suspect getting you to list people who are alt right would be hilariously inaccurate but never mind your tiny mind is made up and has been since the first time we interacted, you have been wrong plenty of times and never once acknowledged that you made a mistake or appologised for all the times you have thrown baseless accusation at me about me supporting some ridiculous position, half the time it's about something i haven't even mentioned again see your "big oil" crap if you've forgotten you sins.

                  You claim to want honest debate and you crow about trusted sources which we both know actually means sources you trust that agree with you, honest debate is a term you like to float but in reality your incredibly dishonest, i will continue to throw shit at your stupid ideas whenever i see one but from now on i'm never replying back to you.

                  it's about time you took a hard look at yourself and the things you do and then tell me which of 2019's political ducks do you resemble.... ill give you a hint he's orange

                  i meant to type this in above but whatever ill put it here at the bottom, now pay attention to this next line and try to emulate it next time your wrong i'm sure whoever your debating at the time will appreciate it. I was wrong slightly wrong about the solar panels timeline my bad.

                  now before i shit on your trusted source know that i have a pretty thorough knowledge of the findings in actual studies done on solar panels, you will notice that the trusted source you found refers to only green house gasses in the production of the energy vs the production of the solar cells, it does not take into account mining the precious resources which mostly occurs in poor countries, it has not made back energy yet this is forecast against existing production it is assuming that the best cells we have today represent the cells already in existence being used right now. It also assumes cells being used in Australia for it's forecast which is the most ideal place on earth and it is completely ignoring the biggest issue with solar power and that is that it produces power during the day which is when we use the least energy and therefore must be stored in batteries which have enormous ecological issues themselves, not to mention recycling solar panels is difficult and to my knowledge rarely done they are just dumped and that is also an issue. (dumped in poorer countries like Sri Lanka in case you care about that sort of thing)

                  basically you have linked me an op ed of an article in a journal supposedly based on a study, the op ed doesn't link to the study or even name the study which should have raised some red flags for you had you bothered to do anything other than link me the first thing you found on google that agreed with you, responding to that first article was very hard because arguing against shit is not easy, the second article doesn't even exist by the way and the first one is a series of unconnected and i suspect out of context quotes with some additional blathering in between. You dived headfirst into a trap i set for you, the reason i picked solar panels is i know that it doesn't really matter how efficient we make solar panels the fact that they generate energy in off peak times means we need to use energy storage a problem that is not even close to being solved no matter what Elon Musk tells you, batteries are still an ecological plague and a essential part of solar panels that will win me this argument for at least the next 10-15 years, had you been more thorough you may have discovered that people in the field that truly understand solar technology and all the components of it have already come to the conclusion that solar panels are a wasted technology if used terrestrially on the surface of earth and have instead decided to forgo further research in favor of using waiting till we can utilize this technology where it is best suited..... *drum roll*.....space.

                  this was a masterfully baited trap and you just got complete shit on i'm sure it hurts but this concludes our back and forth interactions i think, you will no doubt find more articles about solar energy supporting your stance and while i could shit on those as well i think it best to just give up now, if this doesn't change your mind on everything you have been saying from me not living in reality, knowing nothing, being an ignorant alt righter, the list goes on. Last thing i want to say is i'm actually as close to centre right as it is possible to get yet you think i'm about as far right as it's possible to get, i wonder who it is that has an issue wrestling with reality. I don't think you will ever know how happy i was when i saw you took the bait hook line and sinker. have a great day sir =)

                Please, seek professional help. Nothing you said in your last post was accurate, but instead was filled with invective and lies.

                I'm going to do this as quickly as possible.

                You said:
                socialism is abhorrent ... socialism is guaranteed to fail and kill a shitlaod of people
                You said:
                This binary vision of reality like there is always good and evil on one side or the other is kind of childish
                You also claimed I misinterpreted your words when your words damned yourself as they were an unhinged rant about how all socialism is evil. That said, I see you've permanently deleted your comment - I guess you thought you'd get away without having your hypocrisy quoted back to you.

                You said:
                your trusted source ... assumes cells being used in Australia ... you have linked me an op ed of an article in a journal supposedly based on a study, the op ed doesn't link to the study or even name the study
                Wrong on all counts. I linked:
                1) An article from a physics website referencing a study in the NETHERLANDS.
                2) A publication based on research conducted in the US.
                3) A news article with a direct link to its referenced study on DANISH wind turbines.

                I didn't link you to an information piece published by the Australian Government site referencing how PV panels in Australia pay their energy debt back in 2 years, as I had intended, but it's clear that would have been a wasted effort. Based on your response, it's clear that you didn't read what I linked, and/or you're lying about its contents.

                You said:
                solar panels are a wasted technology if used terrestrially on the surface of earth and have instead decided to forgo further research in favor of using waiting till we can utilize this technology where it is best suited..... *drum roll*.....space.
                Citation needed. Seriously. Just ONCE, provide a source. You have NEVER done this in any of your arguments. If you can't provide a single source to back up your arguments, then they are worthless. If this is so obvious and is the clear solution, you would have been able to provide a link to support it. Just as you would have been able to provide a link that solar panels are a net energy debt. However, such articles DO NOT EXIST. How do I know? I looked for them. I searched, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but once again it became apparent that you were LYING.

                As for solar panels in space... simply put, this is currently a pipe dream that is utterly ridiculous, especially given your argument that solar panels are not a viable energy solution.

                While solar panels in space would have significantly increased effectiveness due to the lack of the earth's atmosphere, the cost in energy to launch a solar collection platform into space is astronomical, would result energy loss in transmitting the energy back to earth , and also still require large spaces of land which you say make terrestrial solar impractical.

                Here's the wikipedia page on it - it should use words small enough for you to understand:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

                You said:
                this was a masterfully baited trap and you just got complete shit on i'm sure it hurts
                Nope, it doesn't hurt, because I haven't been shit on. You've spouted insanity and somehow think you've won the Internet.

                I repeat. Seek professional help. You are a delusional ideologue and/or a pathological liar.

                Nothing you have said is backed up by reality, as not once in our conversations have you ever been able to provide a SINGLE SOURCE for any of your so called facts.

                The only thing I have been baited into is responding to you - and educating myself further about the truth of the solar industry, which is nothing like what you claim it is. At least the latter was beneficial and interesting.

                  on the socialism thing, get over it man socialism is not achieved by simply having social programs no matter what they are it is defined by the state ownership of the means of production and it has never ever worked, a capitalist country with social programs like a safety net or healthcare does not equal socialism, ask anyone with half a brain "does having social programs in a capitalist society mean your actually socialist" they will tell you your wrong ever time.

                  you didn't site a source therefore lying hahaha i win.... impeccable logic

                  well done do you have any idea how many times you have said things to me without citing a source? another bullshit excuse to try and win an argument your so tiresome. I know your type even if i cite my sources you will simply call them right wing propaganda the same way you always call me alt-right despite me doing nothing or espousing alt-right views. But incase you ever do want to learn how wrong you actually are about solar panels my sources are scientific american, new scientist (magazines) and 2 documentaries one on the ABC and one on the BBC hotbeds for alt-right propaganda i'm sure. And yes i do realise these aren't links and no i don't give a fuck you go find the damn articles.

                  you should check your links my dude the second one for solar panels doesn't exist, i never looked at the wind farms one because i wasn't interested but i also never said anything about wind farms i don't have any strong opinion on them so calm the fuck down.

                  as usual with every single time i find some dude online that thinks they know everything about climate change it turns out hes swallowed bullshit and has 2 huge well crafted blind spots on the subject of solar panels, it's not your fault i'm beginning to think it's been done to you on purpose.

                  Again the so called proof you have is crap, it doesn't account for the emissions generated in gathering the materials to make the panels, unless you think that shit falls out of the sky?

                  Assumes panels used in Australia the optimal climate, ignores the fact that panels get dirty like being covered in bat shit, and most importantly does not include the FACT that the need for battery storage makes solar panels worthless if you try and scale them up as a green energy solution. You will never win this argument because batteries are needed and they have far too much environmental impact.

                  Solar panels are just 1 technology and its only application is on a small scale to offset power use during the day, most often used as you know on houses but there is no reason it can't also be used on larger buildings it will just be less and less effective as the building scales up. It is not even close to a realistic energy solution or replacement for fossil fuels.

                  and also still require large spaces of land which you say make terrestrial solar impractical i literally never said this in fact i never even mentioned land usage, i also never said solar panels in space was realistic at this time in fact i kind of pointed out that it isn't. But well done giving me irrefutable proof that you don't pay attention to what i'm saying instead you let that alt-right nutcase voice that lives in your head inform you about what your reading and somehow shockingly it's not accurate.

                  The solar industry as you put it will never be a viable alternative energy to fossil fuels at best it will be a small component to offset usage during daylight hours and is practically useless in some areas of the world.

                  You are just like all the countries signed up to the Paris agreement you want to talk about pie in the sky solutions while the world burns, unwilling to take the economic hit and actually do something. Well good job.

                  You are utterly incapable of having a rational argument because you cannot even recognise one, i may be rude and disparaging with my use of language but i think that is better than someone who does nothing but yell LIAR and make straw man arguments, while trying to denigrate the moral character of everybody you talk to by yelling buzzwords like alt-right not even seeing the irony that none of the people you consider alt-right are actually that. It's funny because while everyone seems to think they are some kind of unique snowflake yourself included, your tactics in debate are the exact same as when i argue with the alt-right about the stupidity of their hot takes regarding race and IQ.

                  For all your protesting that your not hurt it sure seems you are because your behavior has been getting progressively worse thru this entire thread, from straw mans about me and the fossil fuel industry to the land required for solar farms, now i'm delusional and should seek help... that might even make sense to you because it has become clear to me that your own mind is editing my half of this conversation and might even be making me seem unhinged but i never signed up for a 3 way so until you get the voices under control maybe you should stop commenting all together.

                  I'm not sure if i ever made this clear to you but ill try again, i have no incentive to lie to you because one i don't care enough about you, and secondly most debates don't come down to a winner in politics usually its a compromise and sometimes like in this case with an argument about solar panels and climate change it comes down to figuring out what wont work and what might, but until we get rid of all the smoke and mirrors that currently form almost the entirety of the climate change movement globally at least in terms of policy anyway we will get nowhere. The Paris agreement isn't worth shit and the countries participating are universally lying to the world, on the bright side unlike the fossil fuel industry which is beyond saving and just needs to be replaced from top to bottom i think the climate change "industry" can still be saved.

                  Citation needed. Seriously. Just ONCE, provide a source. this part i imagined you shrieking at me it was funny, to put this little nugget of yours in context you enormous hypocrite you have only ever provided a source twice the first was Trump jr emails which lend weight to the collusion argument but i asked for you to provide what you said was PROOF and those emails are not even close to proof, now you do it again and this time it's 2 articles one of which doesn't exist anymore and the first one was a total failure, that ignored a lot of very important metrics that should have been calculated and would have changed the outcome. (yes i am ignoring your wind farms article and no you don't get to use that against me because you have no idea what i think of them and therefore you cannot take up the opposite side and call me an alt-right nutcase. how unfortunate)

                  And lastly this is the second time you have accused me of deleting posts, i don't even think it's possible to delete your own posts and second i checked both times and the posts got deleted by the fkn moderators because heaven forbid your fee fees get hurt. By the way wtf does the phrase "won the internet" even mean, it makes no sense, are you trying to tie that childish phrase to me as another attempt to undermine my argument? brilliant work your a real debating titan....from now on could you use that alt-right nutcase voice that lives in your head and just have a little 2 way war with yourself using notepad and leave me out of it.

        He used the battle to raise himself millions of dollars. It's nice that he got other people to give to charity I guess? I imagine it was also a good way to distract from the weird undercurrent of racism that started to emerge from certain subscribers as the battle grew.
        God forbid people have some fun and meme each other.
        It wasn't just that though was it. It started seemingly innocent enough I guess but became a full on crazy movement which at the end of the day didn't do much except line a YouTube guy's pockets with cash, get a bunch of nutters to vandalize things and embolden a few racists.

          Right.

          I forgot,

          You lot think he is some secret alt right recruitment tool looking to turn kids into Donald trump voting neo-nazis or something.

          Exactly this.

          Yes, he raised some amount for charity. But he raised himself a hell of a lot more. AND many people who are like you will now think he's such a top guy because "oh, hey look what he did for charity!" That has the potential to translate into additional views as a result of loyalty and people telling others "but he's such a top bloke" - resulting in even more money for him on an ongoing basis.

          This whole episode serves as a huge publicity drive for him and his channel, and commentary can paint him as "the underdog against the corporate machine". But he got some people to donate money to charity, so I guess that gets rid of all the objectionable things he's done and said.

      I like how the banks stole something like a billion dollars and no one was punished but everyone is focused on tEsT mY PiLLz vOtE yEs cHaNgE dA DaTe

    This is like videogaming's "shoegazing" era. This has been my least favourite decade to be a gamer by far. Also the least interesting.

      That's the fault of Japan's decline, we need the Japanese to rise up and be as prolific and crazy as they were in the golden age/peak of gaming, the PS2 era.

    What the hell does this writer have against an Indian company???! This is the single most racist article I've ever read! Calling the emergence of an Indian company on YouTube a "stupid race"
    Go back to the daily stormer!

      The "stupid race" referred to the race for subscribers and the top of YouTube.

    Except it isn't, Pewdiepie took over the lead again. With an almost 10k sub gap.

    Just so you know, it ain't over. PDP is back on top. Because of the music vid being put on every site. Well done for helping out KoTaKu. :P

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now