Editor’s Intro: This piece is ac­tu­al­ly more than a month old. Due to a va­ri­ety of rea­sons, it didn’t have the time to get whipped into shape un­til just re­cent­ly. Our in­tent is not to dig up old dra­ma, but to ex­pose the greater ideas in this piece. The dra­ma was only ever a symp­tom of the sit­u­a­tion any­way, and the ideas ex­pressed here­in are ever green.

To punc­tu­ate the need for ex­press­ing these ideas, we only have the re­cent Fyre Festival to point to. Influencers are be­ing used for their naivete, but folks need to get smart fuck­ing quick. The FTC is eye­balling in­flu­encers hard, and the last thing we need is legal­ly bind­ing leg­is­la­tion passed in an ef­fort to stop over­steps from oc­cur­ring.

For those who were not pay­ing at­ten­tion — and you should have be­cause it’s hi­lar­i­ous at times — there was a re­cent pri­vate is­land mu­sic fes­ti­val cre­at­ed by Ja “he’s still alive?” Rule and Billy “soon to be sell­ing time­shares” McFarland. Many an Instagram mod­el and been brought in by PR as “Fyre starters” and pro­mot­ed the event on their chan­nels — a num­ber not la­bel­ing their posts pro­mot­ing the fes­ti­val as paid pro­mo­tion­al ma­te­r­i­al. What was sup­posed to be a multi-thousand dol­lar pri­vate get­away vet­ted by trust­ed peo­ple turned into chaos when the first at­ten­dees ar­rived.

Seriously. Just. Read. About. It. Perhaps the only rea­son it ends up be­ing so amus­ing is that the folks rused were a seg­ment of the pop­u­la­tion most folks do not care about — name­ly mil­len­ni­als with poor fi­nan­cial plan­ning. But the im­mense amount of PR and mar­ket­ing agen­cies try­ing to lever­age pie in the sky in­flu­encers should cause cau­tion.

Not all are bad. And tak­ing pro­mo­tion­al deals is not bad. In and of them­selves, each op­por­tu­ni­ty could mean great things for the fu­ture of a chan­nel or per­son­al­i­ty. But not all are good ei­ther, and if you think that all of these com­pa­nies have the best in­ten­tions, then you will be very dis­ap­point­ed when you get tak­en for ride af­ter ride un­til you dri­ve your brand into just an­oth­er bland out­let for canned paid-off thoughts.

Influencers need to start vet­ting who they do busi­ness with, read­ing their con­tracts, and la­bel­ing their work in ap­pro­pri­ate man­ners. We are not in a vac­u­um any­more when it comes to politi­cians, and we need to reg­u­late our­selves be­fore said politi­cians ig­no­rant of the re­al­i­ties force reg­u­la­tions on us.  

This is *not* a clash of egos. This is a fuck­ing plea to use the brains in your head and re­al­ize that it’s not just some trib­al fight when peo­ple hap­pen to crit­i­cize you for busi­ness de­ci­sions.

With that out of the way, let me present to you a guest piece from the Freak Occurrence duo! Please do read on.



Have you heard of Candid? It’s the new al­ter­na­tive to Twitter! Free speech at its finest! And it’s to­tal­ly free.” Sounds too good to be true? Well, that’s prob­a­bly be­cause it was. Not that you’d have heard about the shadier as­pects of the plat­form, or even the peo­ple be­hind it, with out some dra­ma that oc­curred. But let’s not get ahead of our­selves and un­wrap this state­ment for those un­fa­mil­iar with the plat­form.

Candid showed up Autumn 2016, promis­ing to be a cen­sor­ship and cost free al­ter­na­tive to plat­forms such as Twitter, where those who post in vi­o­la­tion of a vague and ar­bi­trar­i­ly en­forced Terms of Service are fil­tered, cen­sored, and banned. But if some­thing is of­fered to you on­line for free, then you are ac­tu­al­ly the prod­uct. Like most “free” ser­vices , Candid is owned by ad­ver­tis­ing. Parent firm Mylikes is, in­deed, spe­cial­ized in tar­get­ed mar­ket­ing and thus has cre­at­ed a petri-dish which sup­pos­ed­ly in­vites even the edgi­est of all edgelords to par­tic­i­pate in co­pi­ous com­mu­nal fe­do­ra fondling.

Alright, so there is a mar­ket­ing firm be­hind it. Big deal!”

I heard you said dis­mis­sive­ly, but that is not all there is. See, Candid very open­ly ad­ver­tis­es that there is a sort of mod­er­at­ing AI in the back­ground, mon­i­tor­ing the ac­tions of users. While all post are pub­lished un­der ever chang­ing pseu­do­nyms, Candid does log and rate all your ac­tiv­i­ties on the site in the back­ground. Even go­ing so far as to hand­ing out badges for cer­tain be­hav­iors. In the words of Candid CEO Bindu Reddy ex­plained “By giv­ing peo­ple the ‘hater’ badge, we hope to make haters more aware of their hate… The idea is that they’ll ei­ther leave the app, change their be­hav­ior, or could con­tin­ue their ways and even­tu­al­ly be kicked out any­ways.”

Youtuber Harmful Opinions brought all this in­for­ma­tion to light last fall in his videos on the sub­ject, af­ter sev­er­al promi­nent self-assessed skep­tics had pub­lished ad­ver­tise­ments on their chan­nels, en­cour­ag­ing their au­di­ence to sign-up for Candid. While paid pro­mo­tion­al con­tent, if dis­closed prop­er­ly, is not il­le­gal in any form, Candid does not look like a ser­vice one would ask their own fan­base to use. Especially not when one’s fan­base has been built around free speech, trans­paren­cy and self-satisfied smug­ness. Alas, this did not de­ter the likes of oth­er Youtube chan­nels like the Amazing Atheist, Armored Skeptic, Shoe0nhead and Mundane Matt from sign­ing pro­mo­tion­al deals with a com­pa­ny that uti­lizes an al­go­rith­mic jan­i­tor dis­pens­ing good boy points and sup­press­ing wrong think.

In the en­su­ing fling­ing of fe­ces, Harmful Opinions clashed with said e-celebs, ba­nanophile Amazing Atheist wished death upon Harmful Opinions for “mak­ing it hard­er to earn mon­ey” — de­spite hav­ing a long stand­ing busi­ness re­la­tion­ship with those in­volved with Candid  — and Shoe0nhead re­leased a (no longer list­ed) video ex­plain­ing this was only a one-off deal.

But was it re­al­ly? Shoe did, in the in­ter­im, re­lease more pro­mo­tion­al con­tent for Candid with her boyfriend, Armored Skeptic.

Developments in the dra­ma turned the whole Candid sto­ry from cor­po­rate greed to some­thing down­right har­row­ing. With Bindu Reddy et al pay­ing not only for counter videos, but also per­son­al in­for­ma­tion on Harmful Opinions (even go­ing so far as to mak­ing un­der­hand­ed threats to­wards his moth­er), is­su­ing du­bi­ous le­gal threats to­wards Johnny Fox, and si­lenc­ing game de­vel­op­er Mark Kern through undis­closed le­gal means.

Even Sargon of Akkad, who had first made claims that “it’s not so bad” and “we should sup­port each oth­er” af­ter hav­ing sup­pos­ed­ly “seen all the facts, mate” has start­ed to change his tone re­gard­ing the per­son­al ha­rass­ment of Harmful Opinions by Reddy and her army of con­tract­ed mouth breathers. Though, at the time of writ­ing, an ac­tu­al re­trac­tion of his ear­li­er state­ments is still out­stand­ing, de­spite at least parts of his com­mu­ni­ty ask­ing for it af­ter all that has come to light these since these events broke.

Another chuck­le wor­thy mo­ment came when Harmful Opinions dis­cov­ered that on the Youtube chan­nels of Armored Skeptic and Sh0eonhead com­ments con­tain­ing the words “can­did” and/or “Harmful Opinions” were fil­tered out. Supposedly to stop “de­rail­ment of con­ver­sa­tions in the com­ments”. Derailment by point­ing out your du­plic­i­tous be­hav­ior and ap­par­ent dis­hon­esty? Gotcha. It’d be a shame if that nice cir­cle jerk was to be in­ter­rupt­ed.

So what do we know about these omi­nous con­tracts that Candid was hav­ing some chan­nels agree to? In a stream with Bearing, CEO Bindu Reddy open­ly stat­ed that the stan­dard con­tract in­cludes a 2 year non-disparagement clause. In essence, who­ev­er signed the stan­dard con­tract also signed away their right to dis­sent and crit­i­cize. For self-assessed free speech ad­vo­cates who claims to put re­als over feels, sign­ing such a doc­u­ment doesn’t cast your cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties in the best of lights. This is the main is­sue peo­ple end­ed up hav­ing with the de­fense of Candid, lit­er­al­ly sign­ing away your rights to crit­i­cize it if the plat­form gets out of hand or bought by a com­pa­ny with even worse in­ten­tions.

That is, if one gives them the ben­e­fit of the doubt of stu­pid­i­ty over mal­ice, which we shall do for the pur­pose of this ex­er­cise. It is also like­ly, though not con­firmed, that these con­tracts also in­clude non-disclosure agree­ments. How else could you ex­plain that peo­ple are not even ad­mit­ting to hav­ing signed such pa­pers to be­gin with, by sign­ing away their voice for a few dollery doos.

Even more dis­con­cert­ing in the grand scheme of things though is the fact that Youtuber Undoomed, who only has a third of the sub­scribers of Sh0e and a fifth of those of Amazing Atheist, got Candid to waive the long term non-disparagement clause when he did his pro­mo­tion­al video last November. So it does not ap­pear like a do-or-die sit­u­a­tion, where poor con­tent cre­ators with 6+ fig­ure sub­scriber counts were forced to give up their right to voice their opin­ion to some greedy cor­po­ra­tion, only so that they could af­ford a can of soup for their starv­ing grand­moth­er. No. They sim­ply didn’t care to fight that as­pect of the con­tract.

They did not care about due dili­gence. They did not care about read­ing the fine print. They did not care about what it was they ac­tu­al­ly agreed to do. Then again, if the state­ments made in past streams are to be be­lieved, all the big­wigs of the “skep­tic com­mu­ni­ty” are in a skype group, co­or­di­nat­ing not only re­lease dates of their videos, but also de­ter­min­ing the nar­ra­tives to be told. If you have Game Journo Pro flash­backs all of the sud­den, I can’t say I blame you. While it is nor­mal to com­pare notes on things, the idea of whole­sale copy­ing of oth­er people’s talk­ing points should at least raise a few eye­brows.

So let me put this out there: No, boys and girls, it’s not “okay if we do it.” If you tru­ly want to be on the moral high ground, you also need to hold your­self to a high­er stan­dard than the op­po­si­tion you de­mo­nized. Doubly so if your en­tire on­line per­sona is built upon dili­gent­ly fol­low­ing the sci­en­tif­ic ap­proach and only tak­ing ver­i­fi­able facts into ac­count. You can­not con­demn one side of the ar­gu­ment for col­lu­sion and lies, while at the same time gloss­ing over the very same acts just be­cause your fa­vorite e-celebs are com­mit­ting them. For it is at ex­act­ly that point where you cease be­ing a per­son ca­pa­ble of ra­tio­nal thought, and suc­cumb to a cult of per­son­al­i­ty and buzz­words. An echo-chamber is still an echo-chamber, no mat­ter how much you like the wall­pa­per.

And be­fore any­body can start wail­ing, this is not about the act of do­ing spon­sored con­tent be­ing bad, this is about be­ing able to dif­fer­en­ti­ate con­tracts that fit your brand and au­di­ence with those that do not. This is about be­ing smart with whom you do busi­ness with and un­der which terms. This is about not be­tray­ing the trust of your au­di­ence by hoard­ing them to­wards a thin­ly veiled ad-bot un­der the guise of guid­ing them to the land of milk and hon­ey — or Pepes and Mountain Dew. This is about not sell­ing your in­tegri­ty like a com­mod­i­ty. This is about not jump­ing at any and every op­por­tu­ni­ty to mon­e­tize your e-fame. Because some­times it’s just not worth it. Integrity, much like vir­gin­i­ty, is only sold once.

If you want to do paid pro­mo­tions, it would most like­ly be­hoove you to first ex­am­ine who you are about to do busi­ness with, what ex­act­ly it is they are sell­ing and prefer­ably look for some­thing that does not in­ter­sect with the con­tent you pro­duce.

And de­spite their claims to the con­trary, these skep­tics and their fans have erect­ed their own echo cham­bers to hap­pi­ly circle-jerk in. They taped their win­dows over with memes so as to no longer be dis­turbed by the world out­side.

So, af­ter all this his­to­ry, all this me­an­der­ing through time­lines, opin­ions and con­flict­ing egos… what can we learn? Well, a cou­ple of things come to mind.

It seems that every­one and their grand­moth­er have de­vel­oped a sud­den and hor­ri­ble case of con­fir­ma­tion bias. Instead of think­ing for them­selves, ques­tion­ing every­thing that they’re told (even if it’s from peo­ple who are sup­posed to be do­ing it for them) and just say­ing to them­selves “Yes, I think you are right, HOWEVER…”, every­body just de­cid­ed to lick their mon­i­tors and praise be He Who Is Our Flavor Of The Month while plas­ter­ing buzz­words like “skep­tic”, “alt-right” or *shud­der* “alt-centrist” all over them­selves. People don’t want to think that they’re wrong, they don’t want to go “Well shit, that per­son I at­tach my par­tic­u­lar train of thought to might not be right all the time, and by as­so­ci­a­tion I might be wrong.” They just want to sit in their chairs and die on a hill shaped odd­ly like the avatar of their fa­vorite “free-thinker.” The irony, of course, be­ing that they call them­selves skep­tics, free-thinkers or what­ev­er oth­er buzz­word some guy re­gur­gi­tat­ing the same trite con­cepts into a lap­top in their bed­room came up with. 

Free thought has turned into a la­bel, a brand, a com­mod­i­ty. You re­al­ly had some­thing go­ing there, but cor­po­ra­tions de­cid­ed you had gained enough mo­men­tum that you be­came worth be­ing mar­ket­ed to. So they bought out your shin­ing idols, stuffed some dol­lars up their self-righteous ass­es, gagged them with legalese and told them to preach from the moun­tain.

Now an in­creas­ing num­ber is faced with a re­al­i­ty that the Million Dollar Man Ted DiBiase had al­ready stat­ed some 30 years ago on na­tion­al tele­vi­sion “Everybody’s got a price, everybody’s got­ta pay.” People had a price and it was met, now they got­ta pay. But the re­ac­tions are twofold.

To those cor­po­rate shills and their most loy­al fans, who pre­fer to dou­ble down in­stead of own­ing up to their mis­takes the an­swer is sim­ple. You are no bet­ter than those you rile against. Your rev­o­lu­tion and your ideals are emp­ty shells, to be sold to the high­est bid­der. Your brand of skep­ti­cism is just that. A brand. People have raised their gold­en calfs, they wor­ship them, and they ex­pect them and only them to give the truth like a warm safe­ty blan­ket. Who cares if it is wo­ven from the strands of their own ideals, ripped to shreds and sold off like an un­want­ed child to or­gan traders.

You want to be told what you want to hear, damn it… and you de­serve as much! Or do you? No, in fact some folks just want to feel val­i­dat­ed in their pre­con­ceived no­tions from peo­ple whom they pre­con­ceive will tell them the truth. What does it mat­ter that the red flags were there all along?

Others are call­ing for the gal­lows, as­sem­bling the pitch­forks and prepar­ing to mete out “jus­tice.” Their ul­ti­mate con­clu­sion be­ing “fuck those guys, I want oth­ers to adore now.” Those will have have learned so lit­tle from the past. Only tear­ing down one idol to wor­ship an­oth­er will not change things. A junkie who switch­es from PCP to LSD isn’t clean ei­ther. Are those skep­tics just self-absorbed cunts who de­serve far more than they are get­ting? Maybe. But re­plac­ing them with oth­er cunts who will sell you out all the same won’t make a damn bit of dif­fer­ence. We’ll just be sit­ting here again, some­time down the line, scratch­ing our heads at how we could al­low the wool to be pulled over our eyes so hard again

So what is the an­swer then?

The so­lu­tion is sim­ple. Stop as­so­ci­at­ing your ideals with idols. Stop try­ing to cat­e­go­rize your par­tic­u­lar set of val­ues into ever nar­row­ing box­es. Stop giv­ing la­bels to thoughts. Embrace rea­son for what it is, not who talks about it. And most im­por­tant­ly, prac­tice what you preach. These skep­tics are but in­ter­change­able faces in the ever re­volv­ing gallery of e-fame. Were they naive and greedy? Sure. But oth­ers could have been, and will be, in their place all the same. They took their pound of flesh, and they took their pub­lic flog­ging. Rinse, re­peat. The only way to get out of this cy­cle of ide­al­iza­tion, self-fellation and down­fall is to no longer ide­al­ize a ran­dom schmuck on Youtube just be­cause you find the la­bels on his so­cial me­dia pres­ences align with yours. Only by re­sist­ing this urge, by cast­ing off these il­lu­sions that there is a sav­ior with a we­b­cam some­where out there who has all the an­swers, can you break this cy­cle of ado­ra­tion and dis­ap­point­ment. You must find your an­swers your­self, for ideas are the only thing that will nev­er be­tray you.

Addendum: So it would ap­pear that the Amazing Atheist re­leased a one hour video where­in he, don­ning a hat that would make even Linda Perry blush, jus­ti­fies him­self and his ac­tions in the worst pos­si­ble man­ner. Essentially a “Look how much I am over this, I even made an hour long video to tell you how over this I am! Do you see how much I’m over this! No, those are not tears! …Fucker!” We’d be re­miss, not to give a brief com­ment on that too. While not re­al­ly ad­dress­ing any of the gen­uine crit­i­cism brought up be­fore­hand — short of a grum­bling “You should have known bet­ter, but fine, I’ll put in dis­claimers for now on when do­ing spon­sored con­tent” he seemed to be dis­parag­ing the char­ac­ter of Harmful Opinions and toss­ing around straw­men. His main line of rea­son­ing boils down to “Youtube is my busi­ness, I was de­fend­ing my busi­ness” and “Solidarity amongst skep­tic cre­ators.” So let us tack­le those two then — though I will spare us the elab­o­ra­tions about an out­spo­ken Sanders sup­port­er wring­ing his hands the sec­ond his own mon­ey is sud­den­ly at stake.

Earning mon­ey off of Youtube is a priv­i­lege, not a right. 99.9 % of Youtube con­tent is cre­at­ed by reg­u­lar peo­ple with reg­u­lar jobs. You not want­i­ng to keep a day job and liv­ing off of Youtube is your de­ci­sion. Likewise is build­ing your brand on in­tegri­ty and crit­i­cal think­ing. If you then go ahead and take deals that ob­vi­ous­ly fly in the face of said val­ues, that is your mis­take. And just like in any oth­er busi­ness, if you fuck up and make bad de­ci­sions which then pro­ceed to blow up in your face, that is your re­spon­si­bil­i­ty and no­body else’s. It is not the fault of the the per­son point­ing out your short­com­ings, it is yours. You tar­nished your own brand im­age; no­body else did that. As far as sol­i­dar­i­ty is con­cerned, it is only a short fall from sol­i­dar­i­ty to nepo­tism. Especially once fi­nan­cial in­ter­ests come into the pic­ture. We’ve seen it be­fore. Heck, Gamergate start­ed pre­cise­ly be­cause of a group of nepo­tis­tic me­dia cre­ators threw ba­sic eth­i­cal guide­lines into the wind to line their own pock­ets and to show sol­i­dar­i­ty. Now fac­tor in the con­cerns brought up about the skep­tic “think tanks,” and this sol­i­dar­i­ty is lit­tle more than a thin­ly veiled dis­guise for mak­ing cash off the back of your fan base.

Google Has Been Under Investigation For Labor Practices In the US For Over Two Years
Does Horizon Zero Dawn push “Feminist Propaganda?”
The fol­low­ing two tabs change con­tent be­low.
Freak Occurrence

Freak Occurrence

With noth­ing to lose but their dig­ni­ty, the German-American duo of Freak Occurrence has de­cid­ed to take on the world, one video at a time.