Why should we stop watching reaction videos?

Written by James Z

In October of 2022, Youtuber Jacksfilms created a second channel named JJJacksfilms to comment on Youtuber SSSniperwolf. In response, SSSniperwolf revealed the location of JacksFilms’s house on Instagram which poses potential security risks for JacksFilms. The incident ended with the temporary demonetization of SSSniperwolf by YouTube, prohibiting SSSniperwolf from receiving income in future videos she creates.

So, why did JacksFilms decide to lash out against SSSniperwolf through the 65+ videos he made since October 2022? Simply put, SSSniperwolf made reaction videos with JacksFilms content.

In this article, I will delve into the world of reaction videos and discuss why I think reaction videos pose a threat to original content.

What is reaction content?

Reaction content, or reaction videos refers to videos or live streams that require minimum effort to create. Usually, a reactor watches a video from an original creator, adds no new information to the original video, and reposts the video online. A great example of reaction content would be Hassanabi and XQC’s reaction videos and their movie nights, where they play entire movies and YouTube videos on stream and generate income by sitting in front of the camera.

However, the reaction content I am criticizing does not include reactions to music videos and trailer videos. Music videos and trailer videos serve as advertisements, and music is “rewatchable”, meaning you would still listen to the original piece of music even if you watched a reaction. Thus, the harm reaction video brings from reacting to music videos and trailer videos is far less than the benefit they bring.

Why is reaction content harmful?

Video content creators rely on impressions. Impressions are used to quantify the number of views or interactions a digital content gets. Without impressions, content creators would generate zero income.

There is a finite number of impressions per day because the total amount of people who consume videos and the amount of time they use to watch videos a day are finite.

If people spend all their time watching reaction content, the amount of impression that goes to original creators decreases significantly. Especially given that reaction content is easy to make (a 40-minute video of reaction only takes 40 minutes, while a 40-minute original video essay might take weeks), reactors can spam out multiple videos, even dozens of them per day.

These easily produced videos are also more likely to be promoted by the YouTube and TikTok algorithms. Imagine two YouTubers A and B. A gets 1 million views per month while B gets 300k per month. Who will the algorithm promote more? A, no doubt. But the uncanny reality is that A represents a large group of YouTubers, who are releasing 10 reaction videos a day, 300 a month, and averaging 3.3k views per video. These reaction videos take away original creators’ impressions and their chances of financial gain on YouTube from the videos they used effort and time to create.

A reactor posts more than 12 videos in two hours.

Do original creators not realize the harm reaction videos cause?

I believe that original creators don’t realize this issue. Before reading this article, did you know how much harm a reaction might bring to original creators? My guess would be no. 

Original creators are more likely to realize the harm, but they are given potential (emphasis on the word potential) benefits that might make them decide that reaction videos are more beneficial than they truly are.

Imagine a hypothetical world that has 100 impressions per day on YouTube and only three content creators. Among the three creators, two are original creators while one makes reactions videos. Let’s call the two original creators, B1 and B2, and the reaction video creator, A.

One day, B1 and B2 both release an original piece, and A reacts to B1’s video. The impression may be distributed as 50 for A, 25 for B1, and 25 for B2. The second day, because A reacted to B1, B1 gets a little more attention from the public. The impression distribution might become 49 for A, 26 for B1, and 25 for B2.

For B1, it is like, oh my god, one free impression? I love to see that! For B2, it is just like, oh my god, you get a free impression from getting reacted to? I love reaction content! But what they don’t realize is that, if there was no A, the impression distribution would be something like, 45 to B1, 45 to B2, and the rest of the ten percent would be on a different social media site watching pet videos perhaps. Without reaction content, original creators gain much more impressions! Let alone the fact that, the one impression B1 gained on the second day might end up back to A because A is what the one impression of people became first interested in.

However, through this example, you might also realize that banning reaction content is unhelpful for YouTube in the short term, as people are off watching TikTok pet videos, and YouTube will gain less, and it is in YouTube’s favor to protect reaction content.

Wait, if people love reaction videos, which may imply a certain value, then why should they be criticized?

Before discussing this topic, let’s discuss possible reasons why people watch reaction videos:

1. Not everyone is there for the content:

It is common for people to play a video as background noise, as the familiarity brings comfort to them. This may be a reason why people stream reaction videos.

2. The algorithm prevents people from discovering the best content available:

When we look for videos, we don’t try to find the best video. We find something that seems interesting and settles with that video. Usually, this video comes from the recommended page with algorithm-suggested videos. For new viewers, it’s common for large YouTubers to be recommended to them, and among them are major reaction video creators like XQC, Hassanabi, Asmongold, and SSSniperwolf. With the low effort required by reaction videos and the ocean of quality content to take advantage of, reactors can mass-produce reaction videos that most people would settle with and watch.

Two video thumbnails of reactor XQC.

As someone who has stopped watching reaction videos for almost a year, my recommendation page does not include any reaction videos. However, for testing purposes, I clicked on three reaction videos and found my recommendation page filled with reaction videos about random topics. This experience may indicate the rapid speed in which reaction videos take over algorithms and users’ recommendation pages, taking away original creators’ impressions and profit.

Wait, I thought reaction videos were illegal?

Yes, exactly. However, the huge profit that reaction videos generate has incentivized many reactors to continue mass-producing videos. One of the excuses reactors make when facing criticism is that their act of reaction is protected by the fair use doctrine.

But one important factor reactors ignore is the reaction content allowed by the fair use doctrine utilizes only parts of the original video necessary for commentary and reaction and requires the reactor to add more information to the original video.

Yes, there are amazing commentary and reaction channels that follow the fair use doctrine strictly. However, the majority of reaction creators like the reactors I mentioned in this article, do not follow the doctrine.

Here’s an example so you can differentiate lawful and unlawful reaction videos:

Lawful commentary and reaction content:

In a video, a person adds a 10-second clip of a marathon athlete running, commenting on the athlete’s running skills. Next, they add the last 10 seconds of the run, and shout, “OMG, how is this possible? He just broke the world record!”

Unlawful reaction content: 

In a video, a person plays the entire video of a marathon and screams “OMG, how do they run so fast” every 3 min. Then, they provide unimportant insight or commentary to the video like: “Did you know I used to run with two legs as a kid?” Finally, they take a bathroom break while the audience continues watching the marathon.

How do original creators protect their work?

1. Copyright Strike

In the rapping community, there is an implicit rule that rappers should not turn to the police and deal with conflicts internally. The community’s attitude toward someone who wants to call the police is as follows: “Yes, I know the other rapper stole your entire bag of money worth 300k, but if you go to the police, you are a rat and you are out of the business.”

A content creator notifying YouTube to copyright strike someone is like a rapper calling the police. In the YouTube community, copyright strikes are frowned upon because a creator becomes banned from YouTube after three strikes. Original creators who file for copyright strikes often risk their YouTube career and face pressure from reactors with a larger following.

However, if the goal of the original creator is to regain the money they lost from reaction videos, copyright striking does not accomplish this goal. The only route to gain financial compensation is by going to court.

2. Going to court

Usually, people are unwilling to go this far to fight for their rights, especially when they are not aware of reaction videos’ harm. This method is time and money consuming and creators face similar pressures as someone who is copyright striking. It can be intimidating to fight against a billionaire Youtuber with millions of followers and a million-dollar legal team.

Well, is there anything we can do to help original creators?

Yes! We can help by not watching reaction videos and supporting original creators. You could also, like me, share the knowledge of reaction videos’ harm with more people (perhaps sharing this article?). While the phenomenon of reaction videos may stick around for some time, we can make little efforts as consumers to reduce illegal and unethical reaction content.

Good luck to original creators! We support you!

This article is featured in the The PVLSE Issue 9 (Winter 2023).