- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
This is his version of the monthly tugboat, then.
Except a little more despicable.
Except a little more despicable.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
Simplicity111
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2015
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
I need to try watching his vids without Adblock just to check if he's also making money off YouTube ads. That would be a major sign that Enter has ulterior motives in what he does.
Found one!
Granted not all his videos have these ads but there was another one where there wasn't a video ad but a grocery store banner directly on the video.
Excuse the like. That was when I was still a fan of this dipshit a long ass time ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Simplicity111
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2015
Although I have heard of companies wanting to monetize his videos a while ago I've heard...Found one!
Granted not all his videos have these ads but there was another one where there wasn't a video ad but a grocery store banner directly on the video.
Excuse the like. That was when I was still a fan of this dipshit a long ass time ago.
BW-VTfan0
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
That wouldn't be a surprise to me. His Viacom stuff gets a ton of views. And I saw an ad on the Breadwinners video too.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
Some more meta: 520+ posts in here thus far, and ten threads. If we didn't have our own board now the shitstorm would be fucking huge.
Not meta:
Not meta:
I didn't know about him before the thread, so I naturally didn't care. Watching what the upset people did over it is funny as hell though.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
To be honest, I didn't believe in that whole freedom of speech argument that some people were throwing around when Enter's channel got deleted because YouTube is a privately owned website and you have to abide by their terms of service anyway. On the other hand, even though even then I felt really mixed about Enter, I didn't think at the time his channel should have been deleted because he was following fair use laws.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
That "freedom of speech" argument is universally bullshit, and I'm not sure how people haven't realized it yet. There is no "freedom of speech" on the internet.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
03bgood tried to use that argument too after Enter's channel got deleted. What a moron.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
How much does he get from patreon and ads combined, do you think? What the fuck is he spending this money on?
Blindrainbow
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
Ponies and fart porn.
Simplicity111
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2015
03bgood: "See! This is why the freedom of speech is dead! This is bullshit!"
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
According to his Socialblade statistics, he makes anywhere from $349 - $5.6K a month off Youtube revenue + his 136 dollars per month from patreon.
So basically, a fuckton of money.
Simplicity111
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2015
Well, one guy did say this:
"Freedom of Speech", the first amendment that people are so passionate about with takedown notices and screaming "YouTube violated my first amendment," should probably realize that the first amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT suppression of speech. YouTube, Viacom, any corporation is NOT a government entity. They can remove any video at any time, copyright issue or otherwise, because it is their website and they have the freedom to do what they want with it. A takedown notice from YouTube, or being banned from the site, is not a notice of "you're not allowed to have this video," it's a notice of "you're not allowed to have this on our property." Claiming that YouTube or any other company is violating your "freedom of speech" and "first amendment rights," is as dumb as complaining that any business is violating your "freedom of expression," by requesting that you wear clothes at their store. There is nothing to prevent one from posting that video on another site.
With regards to Fair Use, it is a valid defense in copyright cases to protect you from a lawsuit. If a corporation goes after someone and claims Fair Use, the court can look at the facts and agree "yeah, fair use," and you don't have to pay the legal penalties of copyright infringement. Fair Use protects you from LEGAL consequences. Fair Use does not protect you when YouTube decides to remove you or your content from their site. That's not a legal action, that's a business decision that the government takes no part in. After all, the people behind YouTube have freedom of speech too, and part of that freedom is being able to decide what videos do and do not get published on their website. They are not obligated to let you post whatever you want for free nor should they be.
Violating civil liberties would be forcing YouTube to keep videos posted they've decided they don't want on their site. That's called "coerced speech," and DOES violate ones first amendment rights.
"Freedom of Speech", the first amendment that people are so passionate about with takedown notices and screaming "YouTube violated my first amendment," should probably realize that the first amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT suppression of speech. YouTube, Viacom, any corporation is NOT a government entity. They can remove any video at any time, copyright issue or otherwise, because it is their website and they have the freedom to do what they want with it. A takedown notice from YouTube, or being banned from the site, is not a notice of "you're not allowed to have this video," it's a notice of "you're not allowed to have this on our property." Claiming that YouTube or any other company is violating your "freedom of speech" and "first amendment rights," is as dumb as complaining that any business is violating your "freedom of expression," by requesting that you wear clothes at their store. There is nothing to prevent one from posting that video on another site.
With regards to Fair Use, it is a valid defense in copyright cases to protect you from a lawsuit. If a corporation goes after someone and claims Fair Use, the court can look at the facts and agree "yeah, fair use," and you don't have to pay the legal penalties of copyright infringement. Fair Use protects you from LEGAL consequences. Fair Use does not protect you when YouTube decides to remove you or your content from their site. That's not a legal action, that's a business decision that the government takes no part in. After all, the people behind YouTube have freedom of speech too, and part of that freedom is being able to decide what videos do and do not get published on their website. They are not obligated to let you post whatever you want for free nor should they be.
Violating civil liberties would be forcing YouTube to keep videos posted they've decided they don't want on their site. That's called "coerced speech," and DOES violate ones first amendment rights.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
Not bad for someone who doesn't work and lives with his grandparents. If it's all true, that can explain why he doesn't get off his ass and get a real job. He's also had people buy him premium memberships on Deviantart too.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
@dollarpennypincher: The Chris-Chan parallels are all coming into place now.