Come up with contrived BS that caters to younger audiences, micromanage anyone who is holding you up, and attempt to game a blackbox algorithm on a site you don't pay for (YouTube)
The whole modern social media / influencer sphere seems like a huge bubble that will pop eventually. Google has already started wiping inactive accounts[0] presumably because storage isn't truly infinite or cheap. I imagine YT will also take the same path eventually.
0: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/12418290?hl=en
The relatively higher production cost warrants hyper optimization (as an org) and demands high agency (of producers).
> younger audiences
Internet is so vast in that making something for the 0.1% is still an audience of millions.
There's a growing sentiment that a lot of social media is more bad than good for us. But people don't just stop with a behaviour that they know is bad for them. We need a lot more to change a behaviour that has become established.
It's not clear if YouTube is specifically profitable, because Alphabet only separates revenue, not profit. But, I would imagine they're not running huge margins or even at a loss given their recent crackdown on ad-blockers and Google's overall fight against them with things like manifest V3.
It’s inevitable that every business changes with time. And on a long enough horizon collapse is inevitable. But that doesn’t make it a bubble.
Wow! There is a lot of bad faith in this comment. This is hacker news, not X, can you please be more thoughtful here?
I don't like coffee but I still might learn about the business since it's so big.
If 100's of millions of people are watching something, then clearly it has entertainment value.
His management philosophy might rub people the wrong way but it's hard to dispute it's effectiveness. Nor do you have to work there.
His success is all the more impressive given he started with nothing and how competitive the space is.
On some level he's the personification of the youtube algorithm - don't blame him, he's just giving people what they want. On some level this feels like the same outcry parents had to video games in the 90's.
Before teenagers were looking up to YouTubers, they were looking up to TV celebs, musicians, sports players, and so on. You had entire publishing empires built around following such celebs around and reporting on their private lives.
I don't think this is hugely different. The tech has evolved and the formulas have been perfected, but it's still catering to the same obsessions and urges that we had for a good while.
And while I don’t think either can be made explicitly illegal without some pretty nasty second-order effects on freedom of expression, we can’t expect the likes of Google to provide a social fix here. Government will need to take note, label, and activate against this at some level. The TikTok ban means we’ve noticed this can be dangerous at least when rival nation-states are involved, but the call is coming from inside the house.
There are many, many, videos that are literally the adult version of baby videos -- ex. Squeezing rainbow colored Play-Doh through a sieve, really bizarre just pure visual attention hacking.
Your comment reminds me that's the local optima for YouTube x creators and it's just sort of contracting the work of actually producing content out. It doesn't care what it is. Just hours consumed.
The abuse of FOIA for police bodycam content published with light commentary... Zoom court sessions enabled turning judges into stars on a show they have no part of it...
It’s also the case that people can succeed in spite of their management philosophies. If you only look at the people who have made it you miss out on all the people who tried similar approaches and did not, which is needed to figure out the effectiveness of a strategy before adopting it. Classic example are people trying to be like Steve Jobs who are not successful.
And on the value side - There are a lot of exploitive ways to hook people, and you can think something is exploitive / a local minima, without being an elitist.
Mr. Beast specifically seems fine to me in a similar way that porn is fine. I don’t think it crosses over to exploitive, but I don’t think it’s crazy to make that argument and I don’t think people are primarily motivated by sour grapes or jealousy.
But we still have good non story-driven AAA games.
We don't need to falsely pretend that those guys are interesting in any way... we should teach our kids to see through the bullshit, and ask to be less efficient, and more kind
The world has real problems... called environmental collapse and climate change. Why not working on those
It's actually EASY to make money selling shit. It's HARD to solve a real problem to make everyone's lives better
- Making good YOUTUBE videos is paramount, not quality videos
- Be quirky and crazy in videos using a blank check
- If something goes awry or you need it faster, also use a blank check
- Some advice related to thumbnails and titles (relying on YouTube's current algorithm which could change the next second)
The only thing I found semi useful is how he classifies employees using the A, B and C system (e.g. A is top tier, B can be trained to be top tier, and C is dead weight)
I think this is a really interesting document, despite having very few lessons I would adopt for my own work (as I said at the bottom of the post).
I would be thrilled to read documents providing a level of cultural and operational detail like this from ANY company.
Another one I find really interesting is the 37signals handbook: https://basecamp.com/handbook
https://ourworldindata.org/which-countries-smoke-most
I think social media lands somewhere between tobacco and sugar. We don't need tobacco. We need carbohydrates but not refined sugar. Social media can be useful sometimes, but is often a disservice. The feeling of usefulness probably makes it more addictive than smoking. At least for me.
You both are right and wrong in a way. Parent poster who only had negative things to say is totally out of touch.
However, it’s not just about learning. People are easily influenced by the author of what they’re learning from. They’ll read a Steve Jobs autobiography and learn some interesting business insights, but also hold him in higher regard and perhaps feel like it’s ok to be a raging asshole. People look up to successful people.
It’s entirely appropriate to remind people that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows and perhaps this person has toxic effects they need to be aware of.
As with most things it’s likely a bit of both. But deep down I suspect it’s mostly the market demanding trash.
The GP never said this. They didn't say it was good because it made money, they said it was good because people like it and watch it. I like it and watch it. I agree with the GP.
There are many people who I consider successful that have never earned 700 mil, and there are people who made billions I don't give a fuck about.
They do sometimes convey interesting messages and they are well produced and captivating but they lack soul. I think about films like "Forest Gump". Personally, I really liked the film, maybe other people didn't like it as much but I found it to be unique and culturally enriching. I'm not even American but I could relate. Modern "movies" usually don't have enough character development; or if they do, it's highly generic. Any character development in modern movies is focused on making the character relatable to the most common denominator among the masses so they lack individuality.
It's even telling that we have separate words "film" and "movies". It reminds me of the book "Brave New World" which is set in the future; they have something called "Feelies" which is described as a complete visual and sensory experience but they don't teach you anything; they are all focused on very narrow physical experiences. Everything in BNW is designed in a way to reduce people's awareness and reduce diversity of thought to the point that they never think to ask certain questions.
Hard disagree. Is he making the most profitable, most clicked, or most viral videos? Maybe. That’s objectively quantifiable and I’ll give you that. But “best” is very subjective. I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if Mr Beast stopped making videos and deleted his account today. His videos are the audiovisual equivalent of junk food: not good for you; negatively addictive; and big shady business.
Give me Folding Ideas any day. Now those are some quality and entertaining videos. The kind I save up to savour with some wine. That’s my definition of best. Yours will differ, but that’s the point.
- how programmers actually review code
- 3D Printed Latch Mechanism
- I Always Thought This Border Was Straight (about a border in australia)
- You need to go to a “better” place! (rescue of an injured raptor)
I think YouTube is a lot like twitter (5 years ago), in that what you view and follow affects what you're fed.
Couple that with regulations that require the companies to give greater control to the user over video feed customisation and I think it's possible to reign in the arms race for attention.
Wine is toxic for your health. You think Mr. Beast is junk food based on an opinion while wine is scientifically proven to be garbage for your body. Yet here you are watching educational videos while downing liquid poison. You do more damage to yourself than watching a Mr. Beast video and not drinking wine.
The difference between you and people who watch Mr. Beast is raw snobbery. Sheesh. If you don’t understand why someone would watch a video purely for mindless entertainment and no educational value I don’t think you understand humans or how humans work.
It's important to note it's not about individual feeds, but the basins that algorithmic content settles in given the data they have.
As things evolve, they optimize for brutally efficient production. "true crime" starts as "NPR award-winning podcast phenomena" and very quickly come to mean a swath of "DUI arrest" videos.
That's because the initial click, averaged across all of us, is *hyper*optimized for a thumbnail with an attractive scantily clad young female saying COPS DAUGHTER THROWS TANNTRUM AFTER BLOWING 0.24! It's not about individuals, or individuals feeds, it's about these niches get hyperdominated by nonsense because that's what best practice is. c.f. document's comments re: thumbnails vs. mine.
Note also, for instance, the curious absence of any programmer influencers making anywhere near the views of pretty much any other topic on YouTube. t3.gg is the top in software engineering videos by a mile, and they pull in 1/10th of what a bodycam video does.
I urge you to attempt to engage with arguments as they are made, not with a version created in your head that vilifies the other person.
Finally, I wish you a calm and peaceful week, with no conflicts and all the YouTube videos you wish to gorge yourself upon, as long as the habit isn’t detrimental to you or others in any way.
Tactics such as returning offers are specifically made to encourage people to pick up gambling addictions. Regulations are skirted by companies like Stake, allowing customers to skirt restrictions easily with a VPN and lax KYC. Their massive presence in sports as sponsors help them advertise to not just adults but children who engage with sports as well, a fact that I'm sure these operators love.
While Mr Beast might use tactics that could be construed as similar, or tries to hit KPI which are similar to those used by casinos, I'm quite sure that Mr Beast video addictions do not lead to thousands of suicides a year, and that fact alone leads me to think that it is in fact obvious that Mr Beast is not as far out ethically as casinos.
Get real.
I'm not saying Mr.Beast is even that bad but spare us the patronizing attitude at least.
My junk food consumption is really just education/science/maker youtube recommendation engine. Yes, I am constantly learning lot of interesting things to a certain level of depth, but I would be better off with only consuming youtube in the evening to wind down and getting things done in the morning and afternoon or diving deep where youtube don't tend to go.
He’s just making videos people will click on and then watch.
It’s almost like he’s trying to make something people want. I’ve heard that before somewhere…
Making videos that click and spread is clearly a skill or everyone would do it.
The brand could start their own complementary platform too.
Not much different than the content becoming its own media network.
I find the lengths he has gone to in order to design his videos specifically for how YouTube works to be extremely impressive.
Part of his strategy is copying TV. He famously made a Squid Game episode.
not exact match, if i see the bac one again i'll share it.
but this is somewhat typical of the drama, only missing element is a generic slop voiceover that interjects every 2 minutes with two sentences: 1. vague statement about what's happened so far that could apply to any video. 2. "...but they weren't prepared for what happened next!" (nothing crazy ever happens) (except on the 'cop gets arrested for DUI' ones where they think they're gonna get a favor like its 1994 still)
EDIT: this ones a good subtle example of the adult baby video https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jan_KjEZd20
Given that, it’s pretty clear to me from the full PDF that MrBeast is “gaming” it to the best effect possible given no perfect information.
The thing he cares about is if YouTube is going to recommend his video for people to watch, even beyond his own subscribers.
He believes that the key to this recommendation mechanism is having a high AVD and AVP (defined on page 5). Given that he has the highest rated account on all of YouTube now I’m inclined to defer to his expertise.
I couldn't tell you whether my surgeon was any good or not leading up to an operation, but if they were bad, I'd sure be able to tell 2 weeks later.
I think it is ultimately up to professionals to have some pride in their work. I think they'll also need to have a certain amount of protection from hacks willing to undercut them.
How is this different than any other technique to maximize engagement/readership, eg. inverted pyramid format for newspaper articles? It's probably designed to draw people in and sell copies. Is that also "gaming the algorithm"?
Because it’s extraordinarily effective?
He made it to the top of YouTube with it. If it’s the exact same thing as other existing techniques how come others haven’t been able to match his success with those classic formulas?
If you’ve only read my summary then we are discussing this with completely different mental models of what he actually does.
They do not describe the same process everyone else uses to make content. They are much more specific than that.
There is better content in the world and those who have the taste to seek it out generally will.
Clear your cookies, cache, local storage, stay logged out, and see what happens. The baseline is junk.
My paranoid take is that it is a type of hypnotism or mind control yet to be deciphered.
In reality, it is just a cheap way of generating (remixing/stealing) content with TTS voice overs and algorithmic selections of video clips. I would bet there is software tailored for it, but I am not interested enough to find out.
I would say since it's about reality it's less junk then something like Shakespeare which is completely made up.
But MrBeast does pay. He pays for it with every video, because YouTube keeps 45% of the ad revenue for it. If he receives ~$300,000 for a video, YouTube has kept another ~$300,000.
basically what I am trying to say is you are not the median Youtube viewer
The show is fantastic but as far as I'm aware they didn't pull great view numbers, which can probably be attributed to some less than stellar advertising.
It's a drama written by YouTube influencers. It thrives on being "real" while having to do with reality as much as "reality tv". Which is to say, none at all.
In your particular example, lawmakers don't wake up one day and decide to write anti-trust legislation. They do it in response to sustained pressure from constituents who must first understand what's going wrong and propose (hopefully somewhat effective) ways to fix it. So understanding what's going on in your own community and how a business specifically is taking advantage is a good thing to do if you have the time and inclination.
You put humans in extreme situations and you see how they react and you see what they do. It is an examination of psychology 100%. That's why people were interested in the original show because how humans behave in extreme situations is what a lot of people are interested in.
>It's a drama written by YouTube influencers. It thrives on being "real" while having to do with reality as much as "reality tv". Which is to say, none at all.
Possible. But then again you have no evidence to back that up that it's entirely fake. The leaked document doesn't mention anything about faking anything. You made this statement up out of thin air without presenting evidence.
What's your evidence that Mr. Beasts videos don't have any psychology and are all fake?
That's not psychology. That's torture for dubious gains. By that stretch of imagination, you can construe any gulag or concentration camp as an examination of psychology.
Psychology would require a double-blind experiment, some kind of control group, etc.
> Possible. But then again you have no evidence to back that up that it's entirely fake.
https://www.uniladtech.com/social-media/youtube/mrbeast-resp...
He already faked videos before.
Most of how reality TV works is by live editing to create narratives and guiding players along what the audience wants to see. It's lies by omission and exaggeration.
> The leaked document doesn't mention anything about faking anything.
Well, of course the official manual isn't going to spell it out, that's stuff that's admissible in court. But learn to read between the lines.
No CEO is going to tell his employees, lie, cheat and steal to get our taxes to appear as low as possible, and our revenue as high as possible. They will say: "Be a go getter. Get those KPIs in the green. Only you can make a difference! Make me proud! Etc."
That said, the leaked production document is alarming even by these standards. "NO DOES NOT MEAN NO" stands head and shoulders above the rest in its implication, even if it didn't sound like a rapist's mantra.
No. Examining all human behavior under all circumstances is psychology. EVEN torture.
Even so. You call it torture and that's way over the top and offensive because what's happening here is NOT torture. These people are there voluntarily and are experiencing NOTHING even close to torture. I have family members who were in concentration camps so I know this.
>He already faked videos before.
Should've presented this first. I find it quite likely he faked some videos and others aren't fake.
>Well, of course the official manual isn't going to spell it out, that's stuff that's admissible in court. But learn to read between the lines.
I mentioned the manual because you didn't bring ANY evidence to the table. The only other official document on the table was the original article and I said IT had no evidence. There is no reading between the lines. Present evidence.
Your link here: https://www.uniladtech.com/social-media/youtube/mrbeast-resp... is good. But again it doesn't mean his whole operation is fake. AND this link is a mild and weak accusation at best that the abandoned city is near a popular beach or can't be reached by car. I happened to watch this video and he never mentioned it was completely remote like that. Those accusations are like saying yosemite isn't the wilderness because buses and shuttles drive around inside of the park.
>rapist's mantra.
Rapist? You're over the top describing things like this. Rape is a crime. What Mr. Beast does as bad as you think it is, is nowhere even close to rape.
Psychology is a science. Or at least tries to be. What you describe is sadism.
> Should've presented this first.
You should have investigated Mr. Beast a bit better before coming into this discussion.
> There is no reading between the lines. Present evidence.
Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Honest question. Because I did, and such behavior is standard practice. Never write anything that's incriminating, only discuss in private.
Hell, just read about Google and how engineers were told to not use the M(arket) -word in any written communication.
https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/08/07/google-doc...
> Rapist? Whatever this guy is, he's not a rapist. Your language is way over the top.
Step 1. Please read what I said. Step 2. Don't add words to my sentences.
I said SOUNDS LIKE a rapist's mantra. "No means no" is the female anti-rape slogan. What do you get when you negate an anti-rape mantra? A rapist's mantra.
-----
That aside, the 'No doesn't mean No' part sounds absolutely Machiavellian for a guidebook for new employees.
It's a science and observing human behavior is within the lines of that science. It's not formal application but it's observing human behavior nonetheless.
>You should have investigated Mr. Beast a bit better before coming into this discussion.
I did, found no evidence, and yours is flimsy.
>Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Honest question. Because I did, and such behavior is standard practice. Never write anything that's incriminating, only discuss in private.
I don't care, without evidence everything is just made up circumstance. The possibility is there but your accusations are more than reading between the lines. The concentration camp thing and rapist comparison are evidence of this.
>I said SOUNDS LIKE a rapist's mantra.
Sounds like your a child molester and pedophile. See what I did there? I only said you "sound" like that. What I said was an example but if it was a real comparison it's completely over the top and uncalled for.
Your comparison was completely uncalled for, "No doesn't mean No" doesn't need to be placed in the context of rape, of course he's saying that in the context of an aggressive hustle culture.
>That aside, the 'No doesn't mean No' part sounds absolutely Machiavellian for a guidebook for new employees.
He's promoting a hustle culture. I'm not too into that myself. But "Machiavellian" is, again, too over the top.
I see a lone tree planter saving the Sahara from desertification and not making a lot of money or being very "efficient on Youtube" as MUCH more successful than MrBeast for my values...
So indeed it seems that you were unconsciously attracted by "efficiency" as "success", which is a common trait of people in tech
And this should be REALLY questioned, because our planet is going to the shitters (environment, climate) BECAUSE of extreme efficiency (to suck resources out and waste it)
That's why we expect from people that they take such entreprise as that of MrBeast with a grain of salt and more judgment
Basically his document is: "how to be even more efficient at inducing addiction-like behaviors in teens so that Youtube can sell them more ads for products they don't need (wasting the planet) and that I can get a slight share of this which is going to make me multi-millionaire (although I don't really need the money)"
is that REALLY the behavior which merits to be called "success"? Is that the kind of behavior we want our kids (or ourselves) to emulate?
That's not science. Science requires, hypothesis and testing, it also requires isolating confounding factors. Reality TVs and Mr. Beast videos aren't that.
> I did, found no evidence, and yours is flimsy.
Is it? Luckily, there is more, now go and look better.
> Sounds like your a child molester and pedophile. See what I did there?
Do you mean you're putting words in my mouth? I'm used to it.
> Your comparison was completely uncalled for, "No doesn't mean No" doesn't need to be placed in the context of rape, of course he's saying that in the context of an aggressive hustle culture.
Seeing the culture/people he surrounded himself with, I'm not sure if that's uncalled-for. But I'm awaiting further proof to make a definite statement.
> He's promoting a hustle culture. I'm not too into that myself. But "Machiavellian" is, again, too over the top.
'Ends justify the means' is literally Machiavellian. That guidebook is full of it. Call it hustle, call it A-players, it's the same thing.
---
To sum up, you don't know what science is, you don't seem to be able to read between the lines, came into this uninformed and have a nasty tendency to misread and put words I didn't write/commission into my mouth. I'm done here. This is debate with someone who's arguing in bad faith.
These are metrics one might use even if there’s no algorithm, in fact historically they have. TV shows used to use Neilsen data for similar purposes long before there was YouTube. TV producers would measure audience dropoff and then use that to help writers write more gripping episodes.
Google’s hope with their search for decades was that their algorithm was ungameable and that the way to get your site to the top of any result was to make it the best. That’s why they made it a black box and changed it whenever SEO caught on and used it to push junk to the top.
That’s had mixed results on the web for sure but it’s probably worked much better with video because you can track these metrics in a way you can’t with text. Also with the web, the page you land on may make Google further money (with ad sense, inspiring more Googling, using a Google product directly, etc.) or it may not, they don’t always own the ad service at wherever you land when you click a search result link. They don’t have the pure financial incentive of just showing you what you want, something you want a little less might make them more money.
With YouTube they own it all. The more you watch YouTube the more they make. You’re only clicking ads to other YouTube videos.
Everybody on YouTube knows you want a compelling lead in to get the click over to your video, a hook to keep them watching, etc. He’s codifying what they all already know and do. He just is better at it.
You seem to be of the belief that for anyone to be the most successful at this field they have to be gaming an algorithm. But perhaps there’s really no algorithm, or perhaps (my opinion) the algorithm is so good at showing people what they want that you can instead just focus on making videos people want.
Informal science the lambo show has a question, hypothesis and actual test. It’s just not academic, but the results form legit qualitative data that can be used in a formal presentation if one should so choose.
I can read between the lines but choose not to.
I have not misread you are the one making comparisons to rape and using examples like “concentration camp” and torture. It is entirely true to say your language is over the top.
I’m glad you’re done. But I don’t agree with your accusations at all.
• Fourth Wing and Iron Flame are poorly written fantasy romances that blew up on TikTok.
• Haunting Adeline and Hunting Adeline are poorly written dark romances(https://www.reddit.com/r/RomanceBooks/comments/uu1age/what_d... they're also antisemitic QAnon fan fiction.
• Three books with bare chested men on the covers. These indicate that there's lots of sex scenes; no one reads them for plot.
• Icebreaker is a poorly written hockey romance. The author is ignorant about college, hockey, and the US to say the least.
• Credence is a contemporary romance that's best known for sex scenes and toxic relationships.
• A Court of Thorns and Roses and A Court of Mist and Fury. Both of these are mediocre fantasy romances by Sarah J. Maas; she's the Dan Brown of romance.
> You’re talking about formal science. Therapy and much of the things that take place in psychology aren’t formal.
It's not formal. It's the most common definition.
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
Look, if you can't actually use your theory to predict with any modicum of success, it's not science, it's philosophy. Which isn't bad per se, but it shouldn't be used for any real life application.
If you are familiar with psychology, then you are aware of the damage Freud ""theories"" that showed to be extremely unreliable. To me, that's the real danger of mixing philosophy with science. People confuse what they think is correct with reality.
According to Aristotelian Philosophy, there are only four elements and you can't disprove it. It's all the 5th element playing tricks on you.
> I can read between the lines but choose not to.
If you aren't ready to read it with a critical eye, then you'll fall for the PR in it. The point of the newcomer guidebook is to sell new guys on the benefits of organization, and push away people who don't fit that mold.
> “concentration camp” and torture
That's the extreme point of your statement. And you confirmed it. To me, that crosses several ethic and formalism bridges.
Even if it wasn't utterly immoral to do that test, it wouldn't give you any usable knowledge because of confounding factors.
> comparisons to rape
I made an offhand remark, that it's quite literally the anti-anti-rape slogan. And I discarded that, so why are you still going about it?
There's many many definitions going along the gradient of formality from informal to formal. The science you're referring to is more on the formal end where there's data gathering that's written down, a hypothesis is made and what not. Additionally we tend to use statistics to numerically quantify the information.
At the most informal end, data is simply gathered through observation, a hypothesis is made intuitively. We still did science in the sense that it's possibly still valid. Do you need formal science to prove there's ground beneath your feet before you jump off your bed?
>Look, if you can't actually use your theory to predict with any modicum of success, it's not science, it's philosophy. Which isn't bad per se, but it shouldn't be used for any real life application.
science in it's most technical form can only falsify a hypothesis. When a theory is successful it means science only failed to falsify that hypothesis.
Philosophy as a whole is a bunch of BS. It's a bunch of conjecture that they try to formalize stuff that can be formalized and made up stuff that can never really be formalized. It's a mishmash of everything and is therefore nothing. You have the philosophy of science which is good by itself, but when you have something like the philosophy of morality side by side with the philosophy of science and Logic as if these things are equal... it becomes pure BS.
>If you are familiar with psychology, then you are aware of the damage Freud ""theories"" that showed to be extremely unreliable. To me, that's the real danger of mixing philosophy with science. People confuse what they think is correct with reality.
Freud made up his theories and verified it with his limited anecdotal data. It's much faster and is sometimes right. Formal Science is much more accurate but is slow.
>If you aren't ready to read it with a critical eye, then you'll fall for the PR in it. The point of the newcomer guidebook is to sell new guys on the benefits of organization, and push away people who don't fit that mold.
Doesn't mean what you said is even remotely true. Like freud this type of prediction needs a bit more "formality" to back up what you said.
>That's the extreme point of your statement. And you confirmed it. To me, that crosses several ethic and formalism bridges.
Not even close. In it's most extreme form people go to jail. This is far from that and uncalled for.
>Even if it wasn't utterly immoral to do that test, it wouldn't give you any usable knowledge because of confounding factors.
No it gives you knowledge of the test and what happens in the presence of confounding factors. It also indicates the possibility that the same results could happen without the confounding factors.
>I made an offhand remark, that it's quite literally the anti-anti-rape slogan. And I discarded that, so why are you still going about it?
Because it's extreme and unnecessary language that increases the hostility of the conversation and the accusation. I'm telling you that your response is over the top.