1st Amendment "Auditors" and Citizen "Journalists"

Hawki97

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2001
9,229
13,415
113
Iowa City, IA
What do you think of them? I got stuck down an internet worm hole last night when I couldn't sleep and watched a bunch of these guys.

I'm on the fence. I think it's important to "test" the system. A lot of LEO's will overstep their authority because they become accustomed to getting what they want regardless or you've got an over compliant public. In many of these videos, you can see the officers start seeing red - like SUPER pissed off - when challenged with a perfectly legal and within the auditor's rights response.

That said, a lot of these guys go way over the line of professionalism (like the video below where the "auditor" claims they beat their waves or mocks them as they make the "walk of shame"). I think the fact that the auditor - and I'm sure most of these guys - say part of this is entertainment and his desire to grow a social media following is where they lose me.

Thoughts?

 

Hawki97

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2001
9,229
13,415
113
Iowa City, IA
You didn't get stuck on an internet wormhole.

200.gif


Any thoughts on the subject matter of the OP?
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
47,505
39,984
113
40
What do you think of them? I got stuck down an internet worm hole last night when I couldn't sleep and watched a bunch of these guys.

I'm on the fence. I think it's important to "test" the system. A lot of LEO's will overstep their authority because they become accustomed to getting what they want regardless or you've got an over compliant public. In many of these videos, you can see the officers start seeing red - like SUPER pissed off - when challenged with a perfectly legal and within the auditor's rights response.

That said, a lot of these guys go way over the line of professionalism (like the video below where the "auditor" claims they beat their waves or mocks them as they make the "walk of shame"). I think the fact that the auditor - and I'm sure most of these guys - say part of this is entertainment and his desire to grow a social media following is where they lose me.

Thoughts?


I've seen multiple ones and honestly they run the gambit. There are certainly ones where police are trying to overstep their bounds by a great deal and they deserve the pushback. Some ones where the cops where completely unprofessional as well.

But I remember seeing some other ones where I felt like the "auditor" was just trying to make the cop's job as hard as possible without being held responsible for a crime.

To be fair I saw one that praised the cops after they where called some place because some people had a problem with them recording in a public place and claimed that he "might have a gun" and the cops basically investigated and told them that he has the right to record in a public place.
 

Hawki97

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2001
9,229
13,415
113
Iowa City, IA
I've seen multiple ones and honestly they run the gambit. There are certainly ones where police are trying to overstep their bounds by a great deal and they deserve the pushback. Some ones where the cops where completely unprofessional as well.

But I remember seeing some other ones where I felt like the "auditor" was just trying to make the cop's job as hard as possible without being held responsible for a crime.

To be fair I saw one that praised the cops after they where called some place because some people had a problem with them recording in a public place and claimed that he "might have a gun" and the cops basically investigated and told them that he has the right to record in a public place.

Yeah, that’s kind of what I saw after a couple hours of scrolling last night. Some of them I walked away with complete satisfaction as some uppity meathead LEO got owned. Then others I was just shaking my head at the complete douchebaggery of the “auditor.” Like I said in my OP, the feeling I get is that 99% of these people are there for the subscribers - which means they have to be outlandish because that’s what triggers our feeble little minds to follow them. Kind of sad because I think if done professionally, it’s a good think to challenge people in authority to know what their limits are.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
47,505
39,984
113
40
Yeah, that’s kind of what I saw after a couple hours of scrolling last night. Some of them I walked away with complete satisfaction as some uppity meathead LEO got owned. Then others I was just shaking my head at the complete douchebaggery of the “auditor.” Like I said in my OP, the feeling I get is that 99% of these people are there for the subscribers - which means they have to be outlandish because that’s what triggers our feeble little minds to follow them. Kind of sad because I think if done professionally, it’s a good think to challenge people in authority to know what their limits are.

I think it's a good thing to know your rights and not have some LEO decide they can intimidate you into giving up those rights.

But there is also a such thing as using your rights for nothing other than the purpose of being a douchebag. And some of the auditors it feels where looking for a confrontation with police.
 

Hawki97

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2001
9,229
13,415
113
Iowa City, IA
I think it's a good thing to know your rights and not have some LEO decide they can intimidate you into giving up those rights.

But there is also a such thing as using your rights for nothing other than the purpose of being a douchebag. And some of the auditors it feels where looking for a confrontation with police.

And a large part of the American public’s response?

Subscribe
Like
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Like
Like
Subscribe
….
 

Hawki97

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2001
9,229
13,415
113
Iowa City, IA
Do you understand that every one you clicked on generated revenue?

Tiktok pays approximately 2 to 4 cents per 1,000 views. I watched about 10 of them on one Tiktok creator's channel and did not like or subscribe. I'm OK with my contribution to the whole thing.

You seem like you're a little triggered in this thread and just want to argue for arguing's sake. You one of these folks?
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,185
19,554
113
Tiktok pays approximately 2 to 4 cents per 1,000 views. I watched about 10 of them on one Tiktok creator's channel and did not like or subscribe. I'm OK with my contribution to the whole thing.

You seem like you're a little triggered in this thread and just want to argue for arguing's sake. You one of these folks?
I'm not triggered. Did you just learn that word?

You really think tik tok paying artists is the same as ad revenue generated by clicks?

I'm just pointing out that you try to portray one thing but seem to have other motives, kind of like those auditors.
 

Hawki97

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2001
9,229
13,415
113
Iowa City, IA
I'm not triggered. Did you just learn that word?

You really think tik tok paying artists is the same as ad revenue generated by clicks?

I'm just pointing out that you try to portray one thing but seem to have other motives, kind of like those auditors.

First question. No. You just seem like someone pissed in your cheerios because you don’t really want to address the content of the OP. Your prerogative I guess but you came in hot and stuck with it so I’m guessing you’re butt hurt with me from some other thread. Oh well.

Second question. I guess I’m not really sure what the breakdown is but when I’ve researched what the average creators make in total from their videos (including bundled ad revenue and in-app monetization) - they estimate between .02 and .04 per 1,000 views in many articles I read. I’m sure there are different situations out there, but that seems to be relatively consistent with “average” creators and not the megastars. Regardless, I remain unconcerned about my monetary contribution of 10 views to a single providers content.

Third point. I provided a point and counterpoint for these folks. Some are good and I like their approach and feel it’s a worthwhile activity. Some are bad and look childish while only looking like they’re doing it for the clicks. Kind of like posters on here - some are shit, some are great.
 
Last edited:

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,185
19,554
113
First question. No. You just seem like someone pissed in your cheerios because you don’t really want to address the content of the OP. Your prerogative I guess but you came in hot and stuck with it so I’m guessing you’re butt hurt with me from some other thread. Oh well.

Second question. I guess I’m not really sure what the breakdown is but when I’ve researched what the average creators make in total from their videos (including bundled ad revenue and in-app monetization) - they estimate between .02 and .04 per 1,000 views in many articles I read. I’m sure there are different situations out there, but that seems to be relatively consistent with “average” creators and not the megastars. Regardless, I remain unconcerned about my monetary contribution of 10 views to a single providers content.

Third point. I provided a point and counterpoint for these folks. Some are good and I like their approach and feel it’s a worthwhile activity. Some are bad and look childish while only looking like they’re doing it for the clicks. Kind of like posters on here - some are shit, some are great.
Nope. Just because I didn't respond the way you wanted me to respond doesn't make me triggered.

I'm not butt hurt at all. You need to get a thicker skin if you're going to be posting here. I don't particularly care about you one way or another.
 

GarryO37

HR Heisman
Mar 31, 2013
6,559
4,516
113
I’m okay with 1st amendment auditors, even the ones that are pushing boundaries as long as it’s within the law. Officers are supposed to be above all that.

Police officers should be tested because they are also not above the law and should know the law just as well as some of these “auditors”. They are to protect and serve the public, and I think sometimes officers can forget the serve part. It’s just as important.
 

Hawki97

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2001
9,229
13,415
113
Iowa City, IA
I’m okay with 1st amendment auditors, even the ones that are pushing boundaries as long as it’s within the law. Officers are supposed to be above all that.

Police officers should be tested because they are also not above the law and should know the law just as well as some of these “auditors”. They are to protect and serve the public, and I think sometimes officers can forget the serve part. It’s just as important.

This is pretty much where I’m at. I think they cross the line when they start mocking the officers or blatantly make up lies about them though. Seems childish and counterproductive.