The Wolf of Sesame Street
Jake Paul, YouTube, and the Machinery of Influence
We’ve all heard the fuss around the mystery-box videos that prominent YouTubers have been putting out recently, as well as their rebuttals. Yes, it’s a disgusting breach of trust by Jake Paul. And yes, this may wind up tanking or maiming his career in some way. However, it’s important that we explore and critique the system in which he carried out this breach of trust, or else we’ll inevitably suffer through this controversy again and again with a new cast of characters. And while it’s easy to jab Paul and Ricegum for selling out to some shady advertisers, choosing to focus on this alone obscures the broader issue for YouTube: this is the way the platform was designed to operate.
Influencers Gonna Influence
By now, social media is no stranger to controversy. In the past few years, scandals have popped up across many of the major platforms, impacting much of the world. From computer-generated horror videos for kids, to inciting ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, to potentially propagandizing the 2016 US Presidential election, tech companies are very quick to acknowledge how much more work needs to be done to deliver on their grand, utopian visions of a connected world. And yet, few concrete details surrounding these efforts seem to make it out to the public.
Kara Swisher of Recode addressed the proverbial elephant in the room during a recent interview with Preet Bharara on his podcast:
“The reason the Russians were able to abuse these platforms so much wasn’t hacking. This wasn’t some secret, nefarious Russian plot to sneak into Facebook and glom itself onto its servers. They were customers of Facebook, they were customers of Twitter, they were customers of YouTube. They used the systems as they were designed.”
- Kara Swisher (audio)
Ignoring the bits about Russians, this quote is incredibly applicable to the so-called mystery box scandal. Jake Paul and RiceGum didn’t scheme some nefarious plan to take advantage of YouTube, they used the platform exactly as it was designed.
Are we really surprised that a guy who earns millions acting like a Chris Farley character 24/7 didn’t have the gumption to turn down the opportunity to sell gambling to kids? Really? And what do we hope to accomplish by going after them instead of YouTube? Isn’t the platform just as culpable for its content as the creators of that content?
Apparently, Paul and Ricegum weren’t the only YouTubers that were pursued in this endavour. Another famous YouTuber, KEEM, was apparently offered $100k to shoot a similar video, tweeting about his offer the day before the Jake Paul and Ricegum videos were released.
I couldn’t find any public indications of how much Paul and RiceGum were paid for their videos, but it’s not a stretch to think that they were given comparable offers.
The fact that another YouTube celeb blew the whistle on this before it happened points to a deeper problem than just a couple of money-hungry shock-jocks looking to make a buck. Yes, they’re horrible people and don’t deserve to be shielded from criticism regarding this controversy. But we’ve known for years that they’re horrible people.
This lovely music video succinctly sums up their place in American culture. Warning: side effects include intense depression upon realizing this is what millions of kids look up to.
Yes, Jake Paul and RiceGum are a cancer on society. More specifically, they’re the stage 4 metastasized tumors that result from failing to catch the source of the cancer early. Cut them out if you must, but more will just appear. The platform makes it easy for these seedy advertisers to seek out influencers with an audience, and the platform makes it easy for those influencers to push tainted content to viewers. As long as both of those things remain true, nothing will change.
If we continue to believe that this system works and that it’s up to these influencers to exercise good judgement when creating content with outside influences, we’re going to continuously be disappointed. After all, this assumes that said influencers either: A) aren’t being sold some messaging spin by these advertisers in taking up these kinds of projects or B): are being marketed to and either aren’t savvy enough to read between the lines or just don’t care.
If you were an enterprising, famous YouTuber and you were offered $100K to shoot a short film about a company’s product, would you do it? Of course it’s easy to think: “of course I wouldn’t take money to market gambling to kids.” But would a year’s salary for a half-decent software developer really be that easy to turn down?
What if this company approached you claiming that they were a gaming company, utilizing a monetization mechanic commonly found in games? It’s not a lie, loot boxes are big money in the gaming world. The government hasn’t come out and explicitly said it’s wrong, so what’s the harm here? Do you take the company at its word and sign on, or do some due-diligence that may result in you walking away from $100k?
In the midst of this hypothetical ethics exploration, I want to point out one very important thing here: nobody polishes ethics turds like tech companies do. Nobody.
That’s not to say that all tech companies are morally bankrupt entities hell-bent on making money. But many are, spending truckloads of cash proselytizing a utopian vision for the future while quietly amassing user data in the process. All the while, influencers like Jake Paul emerge and capture a massive audience, which helps drive engagement. The platform builds financial incentives to encourage these influencers to draw more eyeballs to the product. Now, the influencers have an audience that other companies want to leverage. Maybe some money changes hands here and there to “guide” the messaging for particular companies and products, but what’s the big deal? It’s perfectly legal. All you need to do is yak in front of a camera for a few minutes and cash a check. It’s the passive-income American dream.
Do We Think Products Have Rights?
Time for some reality: this is exactly what YouTube set out to create in its quest for online video platform domination. The dream of many YouTubers is to do exactly this: yak in front of a camera and cash checks.
The adage “if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product” isn’t really new anymore, but it’s remarkably prescient because products don’t really have a say in how they’re used or marketed to, do they? Nobody in this industry goes to work thinking: am I respecting the rights of my product today? No. We go to work thinking about how improve user-engagement, drive more clicks, serve more ad impressions. And somehow, we’re making the world a better place in the process.
If Paul and RiceGum do pay the ultimate price and lose their following, what’s to stop the next INSERT_STIMULANT_HERE-driven moron with a chiseled jawline and saucy twitter-bot quotes from taking the mantle? If there’s anything the last few years have taught us, it’s that we should never, ever, EVER underestimate a moron with an audience and a penchant for showmanship. (#PaulRicegum2040).
Don’t Hate The Playa, Hate The Game
The truth is that the Jake Pauls of the world are merely the equivalent of the seedy mortgage brokers during the financial crisis: ethically-challenged individuals with opportunities to earn lots of quick, easy cash while driving revenue for much larger organizations. Sure, Paul and RiceGum may go down for this stunt (and rightfully so), but they’re certainly not the only ones who profited from it. They’re just the ones whose individual identities are tied to the controversy.
This scandal is not happening in a vacuum: years of “growth” hacking, “moving fast and breaking things” , user-engagement (read: addiction psychology) strategies, and spin have culminated to create these characters that look like they came straight out of Idiocracy. Sloppiness and ethical ambiguity have plagued this industry for years. Now all of a sudden, we’re mad because someone threw a bunch of cash at two idiots to do what they already make millions doing? Please…
Do we choose to take down another YouTube celebrity and feel good about ruining another hollow, consumerist-driven life, or do we choose to reflect on the deeper systems that allow so much egregious behavior to take place ad nauseum on these platforms that we trust our kids, parents, neighbors, and fellow citizens to become informed through? Do we alleviate the symptoms temporarily, but allow the underlying disease to exist? Or do we acknowledge and address the fundamental issues with our social media platforms that allow the Jake Pauls of the world to thrive?
I still think Ice T said it best:
Every baller on the streets is searchin’ fortune and fame
Some come up, some get done up, except the twist
If you out for mega cheddar, you got to go high riskDon’t hate the playa, hate the game.
