I've been watching Hasan Piker talk about politics on Twitch somewhat regularly, and I think he offers a kind of content that people unfamiliar with Twitch may find interesting but not have any...
I've been watching Hasan Piker talk about politics on Twitch somewhat regularly, and I think he offers a kind of content that people unfamiliar with Twitch may find interesting but not have any idea that it exists. I found this article that described the draw of his content really well, so I figured it would be great to share here.
Like the article author, I find the style of Hasan's content very relatable and understandable. I love that when watching him, we're not seeing a planned pre-recorded or rehearsed presentation. He often reacts to topics brought up by the live viewer chat. He elaborates on his positions on the fly, and we see how he develops his opinions and sources his information. We see how he makes sense of the news and the same internet we're on.
Glad to see Hasan is getting to do what he wants and seems happy. I remember way way back when he first started at TYT, he was a big part in me shifting from centrist-dem to leftist. I got to meet...
Glad to see Hasan is getting to do what he wants and seems happy. I remember way way back when he first started at TYT, he was a big part in me shifting from centrist-dem to leftist. I got to meet him briefly at a Sanders rally this year. It was cool to meet someone who's work is very easily directly linked to massive changes in how I understand the world.
I've taken to watching Among Us streams when I'm bored (mostly in the big name streamer lobbies... 5up/hafu/DumbDog/Yeti are my faves to watch). Because of how everyone cycles through lobbies,...
Piker, a traditional broadcast journalist turned video game streamer turned broadcast journalist again, has had quite a year.
I've taken to watching Among Us streams when I'm bored (mostly in the big name streamer lobbies... 5up/hafu/DumbDog/Yeti are my faves to watch). Because of how everyone cycles through lobbies, I've run into all sorts of random folks from different streaming communities. I've definitely seen Hasan in these groups, but... I had no idea about his background! Thanks for sharing this.
The argument is that it’s better than TV news and there is an odd assumption that people want to get their news from watching someone on video, which seems rather old-fashioned to me. Why have...
The argument is that it’s better than TV news and there is an odd assumption that people want to get their news from watching someone on video, which seems rather old-fashioned to me. Why have someone read things to you at all? It seems slow compared to reading things yourself.
Some people like the tour guide experience, especially with these sorts of developing stories with massive implications.
Piker is simply giving them a home, where he'll go over the news of the day as he "babysits," as he calls it, his viewers. His fanbase uses this space not as a place where Piker's word is law, but where Piker can answer questions and talk with them.
Some people like the tour guide experience, especially with these sorts of developing stories with massive implications.
I sort of touched on this in my edit to my other comment. I see "traditional" media consumption to be vaguely similar to traditional online learning: I am fed the same pre-made source as everyone...
I sort of touched on this in my edit to my other comment. I see "traditional" media consumption to be vaguely similar to traditional online learning: I am fed the same pre-made source as everyone else. If a part of the topic is confusing, you're SOL because the professor can't see your confused. If I don't understand part of the explanation I have to find a forum where I can ask questions and get answers. In online learning this is usually sort of easy as instructors will link to discords/slack channels/etc or the site will have a Q&A section to ask the prof questions. Not guaranteed to be as clear-cut to find other reputable sources that will explain it better on your own. Also, its harder to come up with questions because you don't always know what you don't know.
Conversely, Live Streams like this are a lot closer to a zoom classroom. They might present the same way, but if they notice chat is confused on something they can try to go back and explain it or expand on it right then and there. Other people are around to ask questions so you might learn things you otherwise wouldn't have because you wouldn't know to ask the question in the first place. Also, I think any classroom where people with multiple backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints can take part in the conversation, if well moderated, makes for a much more rounded learning experience that kind of models a traditional classroom or a zoom classroom setting.
There's a lot more I think you could look to for how the analogy works/doesn't work. But I hope this comment works as a good springboard for other people :)
I'd say there's a strong parallel. These days if I want to learn a new game, I hop into smaller streamers' channels and ask questions. If the streamer doesn't know, chat generally will. The...
I'd say there's a strong parallel. These days if I want to learn a new game, I hop into smaller streamers' channels and ask questions. If the streamer doesn't know, chat generally will. The extension of that to more scholarly subjects is delightful.
I think it's less to do with being video and more to do with that it's live content, with viewer interaction, and from a person who is knowledgeable and genuine about the subject. He doesn't leave...
I think it's less to do with being video and more to do with that it's live content, with viewer interaction, and from a person who is knowledgeable and genuine about the subject. He doesn't leave you guessing what he thinks or why he thinks it. He's not a reporter going through a list of topics prepared by someone else that he doesn't have interest in or to stick to some prepared messaging. He's willing to debate and explain his positions. There's many insights you get into someone's thought processes and motivations from this live format rather than prepared content (writing, articles, recorded videos, etc).
Okay, makes sense. Given all the time I “waste” in discussion forums, I can’t really criticize anyone else for wanting to have conversations. :) Part of the draw of live events is being able to...
Okay, makes sense.
Given all the time I “waste” in discussion forums, I can’t really criticize anyone else for wanting to have conversations. :) Part of the draw of live events is being able to ask questions.
It seems like it might not scale to large audience sizes since at some point you only have a slim chance of being able to ask a question? Instead you are just hearing other people’s questions, which may or may not be of interest, and then something like Ask Reddit seems more efficient, and if you’re not really going to interact then being live doesn’t matter that much.
I would say live is still a better experience in my opinion. Even if you can't ask a question there's almost always something you can learn. People might ask questions that you didn't even think...
I would say live is still a better experience in my opinion. Even if you can't ask a question there's almost always something you can learn. People might ask questions that you didn't even think to ask about. People from different backgrounds might be in the chat and ask questions that help you understand <abstract_group_of_people>'s thoughts on an issue, and see how Hasan responds which could give insight into ways to help persuade people in <abstract_group_of_people>. I suppose a good amount of it is going to be personal. Some people prefer to read, some people prefer conversational presentation, some people want video. I personally find the 'knowledgeable person talks about topic, then opens up to chat to further discussion" to be a method that I personally learn really well with and helps me change, defend, and argue ideas.
That said, all of this is really dependent on the streamer, chat, and media you are comparing. It operates under the assumption that Hasan can better present a topic than the media can (I would argue he can), it assumes chat is asking questions that help drive the conversation, and you have to be sorta comparing apples to apples. Hasan streaming and discussing a topic for 2 hours compared to a 4 minute news segment wouldn't be very fair since he has a lot more time for nuance. That said, in my opinion Hasan and his channel meet those criteria.
Edit: To further clarify my point, I like "non-live" less because once you watch the content its over and its on you to find good resources to learn more about the topic. If you want to discuss it with people you then have to go and find a forum that's open to discussion and has productive discussions. With the live, its much closer to being in a classroom with a fucking terrible teacher-student ratio. If you can make the assumption that your fellow classmates are acting in good faith, something the streamers moderators should* be able to handle if the stream is educational, then there is a much better chance of effective learning occuring. I would kind of think of it as online courses where you watch pre-recorded videos vs zoom learning. Neither are perfect, but when done well I think the latter is a better learning tool than the former.
A simple argument against this would be that a 4 minute video takes much less time than a 2 hour chat, and reading an article online is even better. The 2 hour chat is 30x as long but is it really...
A simple argument against this would be that a 4 minute video takes much less time than a 2 hour chat, and reading an article online is even better. The 2 hour chat is 30x as long but is it really 30x better? But that's only judging on one dimension, time efficiency. It depends on how much time you have and what you want to spend it on. (And honestly, since I retired, I have a lot more time.)
Also, I'm reminded of how Khan Academy is supposed to work better for some people than in-class lectures since you don't have to watch it live and you can rewind and watch a video again if you need to. Being able to learn at your own pace seems important?
I guess it depends on what you compare it to and how much help you need. I find most video meetings to be excruciatingly slow, but then again most meetings are bad and this isn't an argument against the good ones.
Also for entertainment, arguments about time efficiency matter less, though they still matter. One of my big gripes with Civilization 6 is that games take a really long time, and yet I still played it a lot.
I had Hasan's stream on in the background while playing iRacing for a few hours. I agree a 4 minute summary video is better as a retrospective tool, but having someone analyze the election results...
I had Hasan's stream on in the background while playing iRacing for a few hours. I agree a 4 minute summary video is better as a retrospective tool, but having someone analyze the election results in real time in my ears while I did something else was nice.
I've been watching Hasan Piker talk about politics on Twitch somewhat regularly, and I think he offers a kind of content that people unfamiliar with Twitch may find interesting but not have any idea that it exists. I found this article that described the draw of his content really well, so I figured it would be great to share here.
Like the article author, I find the style of Hasan's content very relatable and understandable. I love that when watching him, we're not seeing a planned pre-recorded or rehearsed presentation. He often reacts to topics brought up by the live viewer chat. He elaborates on his positions on the fly, and we see how he develops his opinions and sources his information. We see how he makes sense of the news and the same internet we're on.
Glad to see Hasan is getting to do what he wants and seems happy. I remember way way back when he first started at TYT, he was a big part in me shifting from centrist-dem to leftist. I got to meet him briefly at a Sanders rally this year. It was cool to meet someone who's work is very easily directly linked to massive changes in how I understand the world.
I've taken to watching Among Us streams when I'm bored (mostly in the big name streamer lobbies... 5up/hafu/DumbDog/Yeti are my faves to watch). Because of how everyone cycles through lobbies, I've run into all sorts of random folks from different streaming communities. I've definitely seen Hasan in these groups, but... I had no idea about his background! Thanks for sharing this.
The argument is that it’s better than TV news and there is an odd assumption that people want to get their news from watching someone on video, which seems rather old-fashioned to me. Why have someone read things to you at all? It seems slow compared to reading things yourself.
Some people like the tour guide experience, especially with these sorts of developing stories with massive implications.
I’m wondering if there is a relationship to teaching here? It sounds sort of like the difference between a class and reading a book.
I sort of touched on this in my edit to my other comment. I see "traditional" media consumption to be vaguely similar to traditional online learning: I am fed the same pre-made source as everyone else. If a part of the topic is confusing, you're SOL because the professor can't see your confused. If I don't understand part of the explanation I have to find a forum where I can ask questions and get answers. In online learning this is usually sort of easy as instructors will link to discords/slack channels/etc or the site will have a Q&A section to ask the prof questions. Not guaranteed to be as clear-cut to find other reputable sources that will explain it better on your own. Also, its harder to come up with questions because you don't always know what you don't know.
Conversely, Live Streams like this are a lot closer to a zoom classroom. They might present the same way, but if they notice chat is confused on something they can try to go back and explain it or expand on it right then and there. Other people are around to ask questions so you might learn things you otherwise wouldn't have because you wouldn't know to ask the question in the first place. Also, I think any classroom where people with multiple backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints can take part in the conversation, if well moderated, makes for a much more rounded learning experience that kind of models a traditional classroom or a zoom classroom setting.
There's a lot more I think you could look to for how the analogy works/doesn't work. But I hope this comment works as a good springboard for other people :)
I'd say there's a strong parallel. These days if I want to learn a new game, I hop into smaller streamers' channels and ask questions. If the streamer doesn't know, chat generally will. The extension of that to more scholarly subjects is delightful.
I think it's less to do with being video and more to do with that it's live content, with viewer interaction, and from a person who is knowledgeable and genuine about the subject. He doesn't leave you guessing what he thinks or why he thinks it. He's not a reporter going through a list of topics prepared by someone else that he doesn't have interest in or to stick to some prepared messaging. He's willing to debate and explain his positions. There's many insights you get into someone's thought processes and motivations from this live format rather than prepared content (writing, articles, recorded videos, etc).
Okay, makes sense.
Given all the time I “waste” in discussion forums, I can’t really criticize anyone else for wanting to have conversations. :) Part of the draw of live events is being able to ask questions.
It seems like it might not scale to large audience sizes since at some point you only have a slim chance of being able to ask a question? Instead you are just hearing other people’s questions, which may or may not be of interest, and then something like Ask Reddit seems more efficient, and if you’re not really going to interact then being live doesn’t matter that much.
I would say live is still a better experience in my opinion. Even if you can't ask a question there's almost always something you can learn. People might ask questions that you didn't even think to ask about. People from different backgrounds might be in the chat and ask questions that help you understand <abstract_group_of_people>'s thoughts on an issue, and see how Hasan responds which could give insight into ways to help persuade people in <abstract_group_of_people>. I suppose a good amount of it is going to be personal. Some people prefer to read, some people prefer conversational presentation, some people want video. I personally find the 'knowledgeable person talks about topic, then opens up to chat to further discussion" to be a method that I personally learn really well with and helps me change, defend, and argue ideas.
That said, all of this is really dependent on the streamer, chat, and media you are comparing. It operates under the assumption that Hasan can better present a topic than the media can (I would argue he can), it assumes chat is asking questions that help drive the conversation, and you have to be sorta comparing apples to apples. Hasan streaming and discussing a topic for 2 hours compared to a 4 minute news segment wouldn't be very fair since he has a lot more time for nuance. That said, in my opinion Hasan and his channel meet those criteria.
Edit: To further clarify my point, I like "non-live" less because once you watch the content its over and its on you to find good resources to learn more about the topic. If you want to discuss it with people you then have to go and find a forum that's open to discussion and has productive discussions. With the live, its much closer to being in a classroom with a fucking terrible teacher-student ratio. If you can make the assumption that your fellow classmates are acting in good faith, something the streamers moderators should* be able to handle if the stream is educational, then there is a much better chance of effective learning occuring. I would kind of think of it as online courses where you watch pre-recorded videos vs zoom learning. Neither are perfect, but when done well I think the latter is a better learning tool than the former.
*not saying its easy.
A simple argument against this would be that a 4 minute video takes much less time than a 2 hour chat, and reading an article online is even better. The 2 hour chat is 30x as long but is it really 30x better? But that's only judging on one dimension, time efficiency. It depends on how much time you have and what you want to spend it on. (And honestly, since I retired, I have a lot more time.)
Also, I'm reminded of how Khan Academy is supposed to work better for some people than in-class lectures since you don't have to watch it live and you can rewind and watch a video again if you need to. Being able to learn at your own pace seems important?
I guess it depends on what you compare it to and how much help you need. I find most video meetings to be excruciatingly slow, but then again most meetings are bad and this isn't an argument against the good ones.
Also for entertainment, arguments about time efficiency matter less, though they still matter. One of my big gripes with Civilization 6 is that games take a really long time, and yet I still played it a lot.
I had Hasan's stream on in the background while playing iRacing for a few hours. I agree a 4 minute summary video is better as a retrospective tool, but having someone analyze the election results in real time in my ears while I did something else was nice.