Talk:BreadTube

Destiny left wing?

Sorry, this guy is a self described capitalist, definitely not on the left left, if you get what I mean, he should be considered a moderate leftist or even a centrist leaning to the left — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:2F69:9563:268A:1FF4:6D05 (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The Independent described Destiny in 2021 as "an early Breadtuber named Destiny". Wikipedia is not based on our own opinions, but that of reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources saying that Destiny is no longer a Breadtuber, then that's another matter, but there are two good sources for the fact as present (whatever you or I may think of this person). — Bilorv (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That the Independent is a reliable source IS an opinion. I know that Wikipedia editors shouldn't do their own research, but if we find videos where Destiny vouches for capitalism, we should be able to rip them, post them to the Internet Archive, and cite those as sources too. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

In 2019, Bonnell began debating in favor of capitalism against socialists and communists :https://www.wired.com/story/twitch-politics-online-debate/

he said "The rioting needs to fucking stop, and if that means like white redneck fucking militia dudes out there mowing down dipshit protesters" :https://win.gg/news/destiny-loses-twitch-partnership-for-encouraging-violence/https://thereader.com/2021/03/05/after-cutting-ties-with-controversial-streamer-gudgel-staying-in-mayoral-race/

transphobia : https://www.pcgamer.com/politics-streamer-destiny-receives-indefinite-ban-from-twitch/ ProudWatermelon (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

NYT describing hime a liberal : https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html ProudWatermelon (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we just blindly trust everything a journal write ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems like an endorsement to them, Which is clearly against WP:NPOV, So the article should be rewritten to portray both sides fairly. 209.97.89.182 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it you object to the phrase "Whereas right-wing creators' videos are often antagonistic towards their political opponents...". This seems factual and sourced to me, and it is also germane since it is mentioned in contrast to the style used by most BreadTubers. I don't see this as an endorsement or any violation of the NPOV position.Sjö (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You cannot just rewrite content so it reads to you as if it were neutral. Each sentence should summarise a reliable source and you should not write something that is not said in the references cited at the end of the relevant text. If reliable sources are mostly positive towards a topic then the article will be mostly positive. If they are mostly negative then the article will be. If they are balanced equally then the article will be balanced equally. In either case, however, we are not "endorsing" anything in Wikipedia's voice. — Bilorv (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

To dredge this thread back up from the depths, I do think this article does need some rewriting due to what I perceive as unintentional bias due to over reliance on a single source. Many descriptions of the typical format of BreadTube videos, come from source number 7, YouTube as Praxis? On BreadTube and the Digital Propagation of Socialist Thought. This article focuses on four specific BreadTube creators and their content. I have a problem with how the Wikipedia article extrapolates what are arguments specific to these four creators and applies them to BreadTube and the YouTube politics/commentary scene as a whole. Many points, specifically under the "Format" heading, are based on the analysis of few creators but are used to represent the genre as a whole. For example, the sentence "Whereas right-wing... ...employing subversion, humor, and "seduction". cites sources 7 and 16. Both sources are based primarily on arguments made about the channel Contrapoints, with source 7 focusing on one of her videos and source 16 being an article by The Verge about her. My issue is that the sentence and section as a whole projects the actions of a small number of creators to represent the entire genre, not properly using the source. In summary, we need to either find sources that clearly support the statements that are currently supported by source 7 and 16, properly clarify that these points only apply to around four channels in the genre, or remove/rewrite the section entirely. MiiMe19 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes the "other side" is pro-flat earth or worse. Fascists historically manipulate liberal concepts like "both sides" and "free speech" to gain public platforms and public acceptance as an ideological survival strat and before gaining sufficient political power to remove freedom of speach. There lies the rub. Its the tolerance paradox. Aprilshadows (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Well the reason I'm saying this, is because "whereas right wing creators are often antagonistic to their opponents, Breadtubers seek to understand their political opponents" Has "OFTEN" only on the right wing part,If we were trying to be anti biased here then the part about breadtubers should have often in it as well, So that it doesn't paint a biased picture like it did before.≈≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.89.182 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"the community host[ing] a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from Social Democratic to Maoist" is a "a case study in deradicalisation." lolwut. Maoists are not radical? 124.170.122.108 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nowhere in the article that connection is made. You are presenting a strawman. Sjö (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that we do not call BreadTube "a case study in deradicalisation". We quote that it is, according to The Conversation, "increasingly referenced in media and academia as a case study in deradicalisation" (emphasis mine), which is verifiably true according to the reference presented and attributed in prose.

It is not clear what text you are proposing be added or removed (nor why you wouldn't just make those changes yourself), but take care to consider avoidance of synthesis. — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Where in hbomb video does he mention breadtube

Near the end it mentions hbomberguy's Plagiarism and You(tube) but in that video I couldn't find a single reference to Breadtube (or even "Bread"), Lefttube, or discomfort with channel labels at all. Should this be removed? Does someone have a citation with a timestamp? 2603:7000:6440:BC4E:6771:173A:36F7:11B1 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think he does mention it but it's not so simple as him "rejecting the label", more joking about waking up to be told that he's in BreadTube and people hate him because of it. A four-hour video definitely needs a timestamp to be a usable source. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I just came here from the hbomberguy video Plagiarism and You(tube). He says this at 1:35:30:

(Talking about people copying the lighting style of another Youtuber) "This is a whole style of video now. By style, I mean one person did it first and then a bunch of boring people ripped her off. Stealing from lots of places is inspiration, but stealing from one place is plagiarism, unless you call it the BreadTube style, and then its fine. I don't even know what a BreadTube is. I just woke up one day and was told that I was in it and that people hated me for being in it. I don't even know what it is! Anyway - " Then he continues his discussion of the topic. 66.169.124.34 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

He has also discussed Bread Tube in an interview on Anthony Padilla's Channel (20:33).

He says

> What is Breadtube?

and at 22:13

> It's interesting when like fans construct a term for the people they're watching, because a lot of the criticisms they then level at that, sort of, group they made up is almost a criticism of them. Like, when the term breadtube was being invented, Like, I didn't ... I got involved in youtube just to make my friends laugh. Like I didn't have a political project but when I started making stuff that involved my political beliefs or whatever people were like "I've put you in this group of people I like and I've noticed that everyone in this group of people I watch are white people". It's like...this is a group you made. Like, I ... Like why would you ... why would you make such poor choices of viewership and then get mad at me? I didn't make you do that. It is just tough when you're like, you're in a group that you don't have a say at what these other people are doing but whatever they do it now reflects on you and you had no say in that.

Which I think it's clear that while he doesn't necessarily agree the term is useful or meaningful indicates he accepts it as a label that's been applied to him. SPACKlick (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Rejection of the term by the people to which it is applied.

To the best of my knowledge, all the people mentioned in the article, and especially all the people that have their picture in it, do not use the term to describe themselves. Four out of five most prominent youtubers mentioned in the New Republic article have rejected the term in various degrees, with Natalie Wynn notably saying that the term should not be used by any of her audience.

I feel like this should be reflected more strongly in the article, or at the very least, be mentioned in the introduction. 2001:1C04:3E0A:DD00:A824:7E46:544A:E601 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that for every example you can find of creators disliking the term, you can find an equal amount of people within the space choosing to use it as a label for various reasons. That, in conjunction with the lack of notable media examples documenting this disillusionment with the term from those in question, seems to make this not relevant enough. We can't have this article be a recounting of every bit of discourse on the space. WhykiUser (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article for later

I'm putting this here for later and in case anyone wants to comb through it before I do. Idk how to add it to the list of articles to use when improving it, but if someone could do that it would be great.

The source does a great job of summarizing what BreadTube is and the various subsections within the community, which could be useful for expansion. Here's the link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11616-025-00890-x WhykiUser (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

BreadTube Name origin incorrect timeline

It states BreadTube derives from Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread & that Kropotkin likely adopted the "bread" reference from the female factory workers' demonstration demanding "Bread and Peace" in 1917. The problem is "The Conquest Of Bread" was published decades before the 1917 demonstration H.B Desiato (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Qualifying Criteria

What requirements exist for addition the list of channels? Subscriber count, channel history? Aprilshadows (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If the channel already has an article and there is a good reliable source explicitly calling it "breadtube" or "lefttube" then I think that would cover it. DanielRigal (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

"Philosophers of YouTube" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Philosophers of YouTube has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 3 § Philosophers of YouTube until a consensus is reached. I₂Overcome ^talk 03:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

"Philosophers of YouTube" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Philosophers of YouTube has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4#Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4 § Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo]] until a consensus is reached. I₂Overcome ^talk 02:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)