With friends like these, who needs Big Tech?

In the conservative yard, a fight has broken out. As much as I dislike infighting, I realize it is sometimes necessary in order to arrive at the truth of things. The opponents: Jeremy Boreing of the Daily Wire, and Steven Crowder of Louder with Crowder. Let me say from the start that I am a fan of Crowder, and while I respect Shapiro, Knowles, and Klavan for their brilliant minds, I cannot stand listening to their shows (I did for a while). There is an air of “superiority” around them that I do not like. I am sure they are nice folks, Crowder would not be friends with them if they were not, but there is something about that crew that does not sit well with me.

Steven Crowder started as a YouTube content creator back in the days when the internet was somewhat normal, and Google was yet to show its true colors. He grew a huge following on YouTube, which is migrating over to Rumble with excruciating slowness. Some years ago, he entered into a contract with The Blaze, which ended in 2022. He has not divulged any details of the contract, but we can surmise, from his need to create the site MugClubForever.com to regain his email list, that the Blaze considers Louder with Crowder fans as their property, and are not to be shared with the individual who brought them in.

While the contract was sunsetting, other entities reached out to him. And why not? If he has a large audience, it means he can be very attractive to advertisers, which translates to quite a chunk of change from ad revenue. One of these entities was the Daily Wire (DW), which features some of the best known conservative minds, like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. Boreing, the CEO of the DW, sent Crowder what he describes as the standard non-binding draft of a contract; a conversation starter, so to speak. In this “conversation starter,” Crowder found a very disturbing clause: should the content creator be demonetized or banned from a platform like YouTube or Facebook, DW would fine the creator a portion of their fee/payout upwards of 20 percent.

Crowder released a video on January 17, 2023, exposing the document and the clauses he found troubling. He did not disclose that it had come from the DW; in fact, he went out of his way to redact the names on the portions of the documents he shared on the video, specifically stated he was not naming names, and that he had received similar offers from several “conservative” organizations. He also talked about something he has mentioned several times over the last year, which is that he wants a fresh pool of conservative talent to have the ability to grow and help build the movement. He never once mentioned money for himself, his concern was for the penalization of new content creators should Big Tech demonetize or remove them from their platforms.

Boreing released a video of his own on January 18, 2023, outing the fact that it was DW that had sent Crowder the document. Right out of the gate, Boreing made it about money. He claimed he had reached out to Crowder’s agent—who, if I am not mistaken, happens to be Crowder’s father—, and the agent supposedly said, “Just give us a number, we don’t care about the details!” (or something to that effect. Honestly, I do not want to watch his video again just to get the exact quote). Boreing then proceeded to disclose the offered amount—$50 million—and then go through the “conversation starter” document, all the while scolding Crowder for “burning” them. A Rumble user (dorkfish2) described the video quite well by laying out a timeline in the comments:

——–TL;DW——– Daily Wire doubles down, scolds Steven Crowder, imitates WotC and the OGL fiasco
-Daily Wire (DW) confirms that it was their contract featured on the Steven Crowder (SC) episode https://youtu.be/eTcq4UCTZ-Y
-DW lays out recent timeline with regards to SC
SC was ending at the Blaze
DW reached out
SC responded with a number
DW responded with the contract featured by SC
-DW reads excerpts from, and explains their perspective on the fair contract
20:44 -DW claims to have nothing to do with Candice Owens’ / Dr. Jordan Peterson’s Twitter (unclear if DW doesn’t have control or the host personally doesn’t have control)
-DW continues reading excerpts
23:22 -DW claims contract was for $50 mil
26:55 -DW defends the censorship clause
33:22 -DW claims SC has only been paid by other people “ever since I have known him”
37:06 -DW scolds SC
42:25 -DW claims SC “burned” them
43:37 -contract excerpts, over scolding continues
45:29 -DW reveals it was a $12mil/year contract while previously asserting their penalization clause was fair because “$100,000 (per episode) is nothing compared to $50million”
46:30 -DW claims social media revenue is “enormous chunk” of SC’s profitability, as opposed to subscriptions
49:00 -DW is scummy
50:00 -DW if SC was reasonable this would have worked

Comment by dorkfish2 on Daily Wire’s Rumble video: Our offer to Steven Crowder

On January 19, 2023, Crowder posted another video responding to Boreing’s claims, which you can watch below. He again reiterated that it was not about money for himself, but that the penalization clauses were a de facto compliance with Big Tech censorship. He played snippets of the phone call he had with Boreing, and it does not look good for Boreing. Crowder also said something that I had not thought about before:

When have you ever heard someone say, “It’s just business” when they’re doing the right thing?

Steven Crowder, I didn’t want to do this… (8:56)

Come to think of it, I do not think I ever have. That adage usually comes in the aftermath of someone getting screwed over. “Don’t take it personal, it’s just business.” Sure.

Boreing tried to explain his reasoning behind the penalization. From a business stand point, yes, I will admit it makes sense; but only because the business model was set up in such a way as to require it. The real problem is that Big Tech censors conservatives. Content that goes against the narrative is regularly demonetized and/or throttled. Therefore, in order for the content to not be censored, a creator must, by necessity, not say what s/he really wants to say to avoid being penalized by both Big Tech and, as it appears to be, their own network which publicly states they support free speech and denounce censorship.

The Gateway Pundit reported that Vimeo, a video hosting provider, just removed an account that goes against the approved Wuhan flu narrative. The channel in question, The Wellness Company, was established by folks, doctors and pharmacists, that can “afford” to be shut down. Now this content, which included support for the use of ivermectin and hydroxycloriquine (among other helpful health tips) will be more difficult to find. There is a question I would like to ask here, however: Why did they go to Vimeo, and not Rumble? In searching for their channel on Rumble, I found a verified account that has only 1 video… posted 3 months ago!

If that channel was run by an up and comer who had signed on to the DW, and that creator had invested the last penny s/he had on this channel, what kind of message does a 10-20 percent reduction to their “fee” from the DW send the creator? “Do not talk about alternative treatments to Covid and stick to the approved narrative.” DW would, in essence, have done Big Tech’s biding, which is exactly what Crowder is bringing attention to. Boreing tries to justify it by saying the content is not making money, so why should the full fee be paid? Again, it makes business sense, but does it make principled sense?

Now, I do not know much about how to run a business. I do know, however, that the “conversation starter” was a piece of crap. I am putting myself in Crowder’s shoes here, as well as looking at it from an up-and-comer’s point of view; the latter is easy for me because I just so happen to be one. Being told that if I get demonetized or banned will result in less pay for my work from a company that purportedly supports free speech, would indicate to me that they will not truly have my back should I be demonetized or banned for saying something that is true, and which Big Tech did not like. The business model DW utilizes is flawed, and it was either done with deliberate intent to aid in censorship, or it was an unfortunate side effect of “just business.”

I believe that a set 93-7 or 90-10 (or 70-30) split on all revenue would be a stronger model to run. The higher number goes to the creator, the lower to the network to cover production costs. This way, regardless of demonetization or banning from one revenue stream, both the creator and the network can continue making money from the others, without forcing the creator to censor their content. The creator could also have the choice to make the split to the network higher, with the understanding that the extra money will be used to help other creators within the network grow.^*

Audiences will also need to be forced to migrate to alternative sources like Rumble. The channel Viva Frei, for instance, begins streaming on both YouTube and Rumble, but then switches exclusively to Rumble after 20-30 minutes. Programs like Louder with Crowder should consider doing the same: do 20 minutes on YouTube, the rest of the free content on Rumble, then go behind the pay wall. When the audience is finally trained to just go to Rumble for the free content, creators will then have the freedom to do what Dan Bongino has done, which is to give YouTube the double-barrel middle finger, and get out of there.

When businesses see that Rumble is getting the larger market share of audiences, they will be more compelled to forgo their cowardice, and begin advertising on that platform.

In the end, though, the choice seems to be simple. If all you care about is making money, and you do not necessarily care about how you get it, then Boreing’s business model will not seem like a big deal to you. You want to make money, so you do not care necessarily what stories you cover or how you cover them, as long as you make that cheddar. If, however, you want to make a difference, prioritize getting the truth out, be able to speak your mind regardless of what some punk-ass bitch living in mommy’s basement thinks, and help save the greatest country God has allowed to be placed in this world, then Crowder’s way of doing things will resonate with you. One seems kind of grifty, the other honest… you pick which is which.

Steven Crowder responds to the Daily Wire

PS:

I realize it is not that simple, either. A creator, by necessity, does have to create content that will attract an audience, obviously! Some level of “moderation” does happen. Bongino, for example, cusses like a drunken sailor when he is off camera (according to him); he rarely, if ever, does on his shows. While I do not mind cussing, hearing the f-word every other word can get extremely annoying. Like hearing “like” like every like other like word, like, it can like, get so totally, like, annoying. And, of course, an audience has to be interested in a particular topic. It would not do well for a DIY channel to begin talking about golf, right?

Also, I am not implying that it is not OK to make buck with your content. The question is, are your principles or your desire to make money driving the content you create?