Two of YouTube's most popular creators were set to debate the market of ideas last week over simple, common-sense advice from the government to wear masks in an international pandemic to stop COVID-19's persistent spread.A series of videos featuring Steven Crowder, right-wing provocateur, and Ethan Klein, host of H3 Podcast, criticized each other for their alleged bad opinions on mask-wearing. The spark led to a spat. Crowder criticized Klein for saying in March that it was wrong to think about what Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. Instead, wear the mask and not criticize the scientists.Crowder is well-known as the face behind the change my mind meme. He has challenged people to debate in the past, including students at colleges across the country. Klein is known for his comedy skits, pop culture commentary and debate skills. Klein brought Sam Seder, a popular leftist host on The Majority Report to debate Crowder.The debate quickly exploded. Crowder became a bit clumsy when Seder appeared on screen, and eventually abandoned the whole debate. Both Klein and Crowder released the footage shortly after recording was completed. Both Crowder and Klein believe they have won by being able to share the footage publicly.This whole mess raised serious questions about the influence of online debate and platforms like YouTube and Twitch on politics. Hasan Piker, a Twitch commentator who is also a former Young Turks broadcast journalist, was kind enough to answer my questions. Piker has been vocal in his criticism of debate culture, but he doesn't shy away from his political influence. He says that the debate me challenge is a branding exercise, and he's willing to let it go.This interview was edited to improve clarity.How did you react to the Steven Crowder vs. Sam Seder debate?All of this stuff is bullshit to me personally. I've debated the topic online, and it is just pseudo-intellectual wrestling. It's a sport and it is not productive. It can be a great way to get people started on the path of deradicalization. But, what I must admit is that it creates an extremely toxic environment. People want to win, not shift ideologies. The 20% of the audience that is more malleable gravitates towards the top debater. It becomes team sports. This is not a way to ground your ideology in materialism. It's merely repeating the talking points of the intellectual father figure or daddy that you enjoy or appreciate.It is interesting that you brought up the idea of team sports. As I watched the debate last Wednesday, my thoughts immediately went back to the Gore Vidal/Bill Buckley debates of the late 60s. It felt like culture was starting to take precedence over ideas in this moment, due largely to television's role as a medium for political debate.Let me tell you something ironic about Vidal-Buckley's debates. These debates can lead to one person calling another queer and the other calling the other fascist. It's all about culture and personal branding, you are correct.How did YouTube influence the debate last week? Each participant could modify the camera angle, turn off someone or lower their volume to shape the discussion.This is a truly unique perspective. Although I was able to talk about it on stream, I didn't think of its wider implications or consider how one-sided. This plays into the uneven playing fields of the argument. Steven Crowder made those camera angle adjustments in order to prevent his audience from recognising what had occurred. He did this in an attempt to appear more convincing in the eyes his audience.The internet has changed the way people access information. However, the internet allows creators to decide the story and determine the winner.These discussions are not about ideas but personal branding. Crowder was forced to defend himself because of this. I am simultaneously downloading Mario Golf. I will be streaming that video later.It's okay.It's most likely dog shit. It is a terrible game. It's okay.Yes. Steven Crowder has made his entire brand about being an intellectual type. This is similar to Ben Shapiro who built his brand around being a guy that debates and defeats liberals in a marketplace of ideas. He had a lot more to lose. This was what was happening. He had to do all the right things and he continued to dodge Sam.I'd love to have a discussion about your motivations. Many people my age get their news online through streamers. What do you think about this responsibility?This is something that I often think about. I am a solid moral person with a stable worldview. I try to be fair and transparent and do my best to help others. I admit that I have biases, just like everyone else. It is obvious when you enter. It is not uncommon for me to criticize the Democratic Party and the Republican Party more often than that. This doesn't mean I provide objective, neutral analysis. All those who claim they are doing this are lying and profiting from neoliberal capitalism being the default position. If you are taking a neutral position when faced with injustice, then you're siding with the oppressor. You are still not neutral. This is my view. This is why I comment in the way I do.In the short time that I have before a stream, I do my best to learn as much as I can. I also make every effort to ensure that no one is misinformed. I have a solid check-in system. You've probably been around chat for a while and you know that although people love to discuss safe spaces or the echo chambers that I have created in my community, they also appreciate criticism. It is a place I love. It is my passion. It is what I seek.Are you seeing streaming and YouTube becoming more popular among younger people who are looking for news and new pundits online?Journalists will still be needed to report the news. That is something I hope never changes. I worry that Im an idiot. I am an idiot. I don't want the news media to consist of idiot assholes just like me. I understand that my job is supposed to be the reward for a career in journalism. Op-eds should be a reward for people who have spent 25 years in combat zones. They are supposed to be a reward for those who lie to the State Department and sharking propaganda. They put in the effort and get their job at The New York Times or some other reputable publication.What I do is a way for you to bypass the office-gig economy and go beyond it. Substack is turning into Substack. It would be a disaster if everyone did that. I believe journalists should be real journalists. I'm not. I'm not a journalist. I don't do real news. I am a commentator. That is what I want to see. It would be a terrible thing.You are responsible for the people you interact with on Twitch chat. They may unsubscribe. How is that relationship?It is a million times more difficult for the degenerate idiots who are op-ed commentators and writers like me. It is easy to say what I do. I'm not going to a fucking mine. However, compared to Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens, my job is a millionx more difficult than what they do. You can just turn it off. Your comments in the New York Times article will not change your opinion.My content revolves around constant back and forth communication. It's a different layer of trying control that. That is what I love. That's a great thing. My take-economy approach is solid. It is a good thing that you can get endless feedback from anyone who wants it. That's why I don't have a sub-only feed. Some communities will be closed to subscribers-only if they reach my size. I don't do this intentionally because I want these kinds of conversations with people and I don't want the money to stop them.
