Comments by "" (@dirkardostevergreen4827) on "SSSniperwolf Illegally Doxxed Jacksfilms?" video.

  1. Given that she was never charged with armed robbery, no it wouldn’t matter
    5
  2. Some people live in fear of missiles landing on their house. This guy gets an Uber eats delivery. That sounds to me like a first world problem.
    4
  3.  @joedav67  yes I agree with you, harassment is harassment regardless of severity. However it seems as though you’re unwilling to accept that the harassment went both ways. 40 videos in the two months, including making a channel about her - I mean come on, that’s clearly harassment.
    3
  4.  @joedav67  you make a fair comparison I suppose although i think there is a reasonable expectation that someone who continually makes very unfunny comedy movies is going to cop some flack. Apparently Adam Sandler is a super nice guy but personally I find him about as funny as a fart in an elevator. I’m not actually a fan of SSSniperwolf by the way but I’m also not a fan of witch hunts. Putting aside what she might be like as a person, as far as how she makes money, I don’t see her really doing any harm. Whether it’s “stealing” is a bit of a gray area when it comes to reaction videos. The line between what is a meaningful and substantive reaction is blurry. Her reactions might be lazy and ethically she probably should credit the videos (although I don’t believe that’s an obligation) but at the end of the day she’s popular with kids for whatever reason. If she can make a tonne of money doing that then good on her. That’s not to say she should be immune from criticism but the way I see it, Jacks films was very intentionally targeting, bullying and harassing her. Now if he came out and said “you know what, I probably took that too far, my bad” then he’d have my sympathy. Everyone stuffs up, that’s human nature. But to cry to YouTube to try and have her deplatformed and make himself out to be a victim, I’m sorry but that just screams “I’m a massive p*ssy”.
    2
  5.  @efil4zaggin743  Pretty sure she did that - or at least had enough interactions for him to know it was bothering her. I look at this from a neutral point of view - I'm not a fan of either Youtuber but I'm not the only one to point out that he was clearly harassing her. It wasn't just critique, it was quite a bit more than that. So I don't think she should have turned up to his house - that was weird - but I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the fact that he was cyber bullying her either.
    2
  6. Seems to me that the harassment came from him well before she turned up at his house. He made 40 videos in two months targeting her with the aim of ruining her reputation. His fans call it "criticism" but the sheer volume of content, not to mention creating an entire channel dedicated to making fun of her, makes his actions harassment, surely? If he was so worried about the safety of his family, maybe he should've thought about that before cyber bullying a famous youtuber! Can't say I have much sympathy for him.
    1
  7.  @KGKSkull  lol I could say exactly the same thing to you. What’s even more embarrassing is you going on to a legal channel to spread lies about someone committing a crime when that person doesn’t have a criminal record.
    1
  8.  @wajmgirl  On his JJJacksfilms channel, there are 40 videos made over a span of about two months. Regardless of how they might have been made, fact remains he uploaded a video about her every couple of days. That's obsessive at the very least.
    1
  9.  @davidaugustofc2574  I’m pretty sure that most people who found a way of making loads of money with minimal effort would keep doing it, don’t you? It’s fair to say it’s lazy and I don’t think she’s above criticism but I don’t think she’s really hurting anyone and you can’t really blame her for exploiting a loop hole in fair use if she’s got millions of fans who enjoy her videos. It’s really up to tech platforms to crack down on this stuff if its illegal.
    1
  10. I'm detecting a certain amount of bias. Maybe it was the witch thing ...
    1
  11.  @haxie4516 his address was publicly available already. How do you think she found out where he lived?
    1
  12.  @haxie4516  I don't know about that but regardless, his address was publicly listed. If one of her murderous eight year old fans wanted to go to his house, they only needed to google it. Of course they probably would've needed mummy or daddy to drive them there first.
    1
  13.  @haxie4516  many people looked it up and confirmed it was publicly available. I guess they might've all been lying? ...
    1
  14.  @efil4zaggin743  imagine someone made a channel about you with the sole purpose of making fun of you and damaging your reputation and had uploaded 40 videos in 2 months and showed no sign of stopping. What would you do?
    1
  15. She does reaction videos so it’s not really stealing. It might be lazy but stealing? No.
    1
  16.  @haxie4516  not under fair use rules. Whether or not you think reaction videos are valid, provided they are transformative in some way, then you can use other people’s content.
    1
  17.  @thebearer8904  yeah I’m not saying her content isn’t lazy however the rules around what constitutes as transformative is subjective and kind of vague.
    1
  18.  @haxie4516  well … fair use certainly does apply here and technically what she does is within the bounds of fair use rules. You may not like it but she didn’t make those rules or create the genre. If she’s a thief then so is every other YouTuber doing reaction videos. So what do you do, ban them all? Rewrite the rules? At that point it’s not so much about what Lia Shelesh is doing, it’s a much wider problem - which is why I think this little witch hunt that’s going on with this woman is a little unfair, regardless of what she might be like as a person. The way I see it, she has jumped on a band wagon and found an easy way to make money. I personally think it’s drivel and not worth watching but for whatever reason millions of people find it entertaining. Go figure. But she’s not really hurting anyone and technically not doing anything wrong. And then you get this Jack character who is basically jealous of her because he creates original content and thinks it’s unfair so he appoints himself as the content police and basically starts harassing her. His beef should be with the regulations around fair use - which would be a noble cause but he never should’ve targeted an individual YouTuber like that.
    1
  19.  @haxie4516  lol ok. I hope always being right works out for you. Bye
    1
  20.  @haxie4516  I’m sorry I don’t read replies that are more than three sentences. It’s a waste of my time. Bye
    1
  21.  @haxie4516  are you liking your own comments?? Anyway thanks for keep your reply under three sentences. Fifteen words or less is preferable. Fair use laws are complicated and nebulous so I don’t see how I can be “objectively incorrect”. But I’m happy to be proven wrong - but just saying “you’re wrong” makes me think that you don’t actually have an argument. In Lia Shelesh’s instance I would say she skirts dangerously close to theft but is within the bounds of fair use. Explain to me why it’s theft (in 15 words or less otherwise I won’t read it).
    1
  22.  @haxie4516  thanks for your succinct answer however I think you’re grossly simplifying what fair use entails.
    1
  23.  @haxie4516  are you sure you’re not liking your own comments?
    1
  24.  @haxie4516  Fair use laws are most definitely vague and amorphic, wouldn't you agree?
    1
  25.  @haxie4516  Also I think you are liking your own comments.
    1
  26.  @haxie4516  I don't think you have an argument. Also, that was more than fifteen words although I'm letting it go because it was under three sentences and I appreciate your use of punctuation. It's a rare thing to see.
    1
  27.  @haxie4516  your debating style has all the sophistication of “I know you are but what am I?” You can do better.
    1
  28.  @haxie4516  You know I really can't take someone who likes their own comments seriously. I don't see the relevance of your affirmative defense line that you keep repeating. You keep saying it like it's meant to mean something but you haven't explained how it relates. Just typing words and then saying "so you're wrong" isn't really demonstrating that you really know what you are talking about (and my strong suspicion is that you don't have the first clue but I'm happy to be proven wrong).
    1
  29.  @haxie4516  Ok, well that tells me about everything I need to know. Catch you later.
    1
  30.  @ScarlettCatte  put me in my place pffft. I’m just trying to understand where the line is between stealing and the boundary of fair use. This person hasn’t explained anything. They keep mentioning affirmative defence but hasn’t explained the relevance despite being asked what it is, all I get is obfuscation and smart arse comments - so the only conclusion I can draw from that is that they are full of s**t.
    1