What Were The Reasons For The Pewdiepie Hit Job?
Posted Mar 3, 2017, 10:48 PM UTC
739
For those that haven't, WATCH THE VIDEO.
This isn't a re-hashed "the WSJ are morons" video. It is actually a video that suggests the idea that #PewDieGate was orchestrated in part by Disney.
If you want a TL;DR:
- There is evidence that suggests that in 2015 PewDiePie made a new contract with Disney to create his own network within Maker.
- Disney's Maker Studio starts failing hard, as evidenced by the layoffs of over 100 creators planned prior to PewDieGate
- Now Disney wants to wind down Maker entirely but are stuck in a lengthy contract with PewDiePie that will cost a lot of money for them to break early.
- Disney "makes a suggestion" to the WSJ to give them a good excuse to break ties with PewDiePie under some publicity/good conduct clause.
There's more evidence in the video to suggest this, so please watch it through if this interests you. There's currently no where near enough evidence to actually level this accusation at Disney/WSJ, though. But it's an interesting idea nonetheless, even if it is a bit conspiratorial.
13
Always follow the money.
1
Very simple.
Legacy media has been pushed to the desperate, last ditch effort of character assassinating every new media figure they can find a pretext to. They're drip-drip-dripping to bankruptcy.
It's beautiful.
9
This actually seems pretty reasonable to me, but the one part that throws me off was PDP's mention that they tried to have him demonetized on youtube as well.
That's just vindictive shit right there. What's the point of taking it to that level unless it was personal? Is Maker Studios a competing platform or something?
5
If Disney asked the WSJ to go after PDP, obviously the WSJ would go after everything.
This might be part of why the WSJ went to Disney before contacted PDP - because it was actually the other way around.
Obviously it's little more than a theory at the moment, and the media has had a go at PDP a lot before so this might just be the one the stuck when others didn't.
3
I started making a comment, but I decided I didn't want to risk a ban for telling the truth. There are some things even KiA doesn't feel comfortable with.
1
What would you be banned for?
2
It's the same thing that happened with James Rolfe a while back when he said he wasn't going to watch the new Ghosbusters: virtue-signalling con artists deliberately taking something out of context then using it to assassinate someone else's character in order to make themselves look better.
It's also worth noting that much of this is done by folks with connections to Youtube and some of its advertising partners, implying some economic coverage and gain here, just like how many of the people attacking Rofle had suspicious connections to Sony, the ones releasing Ghostbusters.
It's more serious than Rolfe (ETA: I don't mean more serious. I like Rolfe. I mean more complicated? More sinister? More back-stabby).
If Lewis' theory is correct, PewDiePie's own employer might have conspired with Fritz at the Wall Street Journal to frame PewDiePie to appear to be in violation of their morals clause so they could break their contract without penalties or having to pay him severance.
That could be the making of a HUGE lawsuit, but it would be tough to prove, especially since the connection between Disney and the Wall Street Journal is Ben Fritz and his wife (meaning, they could be discussing their plans over dinner rather than a paper trail that could leak or be subpoenaed).