Skip to main content

TechRax; Should throwing away money for YouTube views be allowed?

TechRax is a YouTuber who makes countless videos destroying phones and other expensive products in order to gain views.

TechRax has been making videos on YouTube for 8 years, creating content such as phone unboxings, tech reviews and phone comparison videos. However, since 2013, TechRax has begun making more "phone drop test" and "scratch test" videos until his content devolved to the point of continually and only producing content such as "What Happens If You Pour Molten Aluminum on 50 iPhones?" and "Burning Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus vs iPhone 7 Plus - Which Is Stronger?".


Since he began producing these videos, TechRax has gained millions of subscribers, with 5 million and 700 thousand subscribers as of now, and averaging between 500 thousand and 2 million views each video. One cannot deny that TechRax's newer style of videos work, gaining him the most views and subscribers, is destroying countless amounts of expensive technology worth it?

Ethan from h3h3productions makes it clear that he doesn't believe the ends justify the means, asking "what was the point" when viewing TechRax's videos, believing that instead of wasting money on destroying expensive equipment, why don't you donate the money to charity and people that need it instead of flying a $1500 drone into a pool filled with Coca-Cola. 

Since Ethan's video in september of 2016, TechRax has rapidly lost views and slowed in gaining subscribers, but still has a highly active subscriber count at 5.7 million, and receiving between 500 thousand and 2 million views on each video, but as Ethan said, "What's the point" of these videos? Should we be allowing ourselves to be entertained by this waste of money? Should channels like this even by allowed on YouTube?

- David (Happy to keep a phone not covered in molten aluminium)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Content Cop: Where are they now?

How effective is Content Cop? Content Cop is an immensely successful YouTube series by YouTuber iDubbbz. But how much does it affect the YouTubers that it is made about?  The first content cop made was made about Jinx, a growing reaction channel during the time on YouTube when reaction channels were really popular. He was close to 1.3 million subs at the time of the Content Cop. iDubbbz exposed Jinx for his lackluster and uncreative content. Following this Content Cop Jinx slowly released videos less frequently and lost more and more subs and views. It's hard to say whether Content Cop is the main reason Jinx's YouTube channel has died. But it did affect it greatly.  The FineBros were up next after their decision to trademark "react videos". However the Content Cop didn't add much to the already sinking ship that was their channel. They did decide to change their decision to trademark "react videos". Overall the Content Cop didn't affe

Children and ethics, our 10 cents worth

Check out our very own YouTube video here ! Our video discusses the issue of YouTube videos which contain content that are either controversial or manipulative, especially for their target markets. Although to have your own YouTube account the minimum age is 12, anyone can access YouTube videos without an account. We have chosen to review videos from AWSMR KIDS and Toy Family. The AWSMR KIDS YouTube channel  contains a whole heap of toy reviews, but are all from the one brand... They do not disclose if they are sponsored or paid which we believe is unethical. Children, especially young ones are vulnerable and can be easily manipulated. Therefore this content is obviously trying to get children to purchase their products. The Toy Family channel is the most controversial of the two. Visualised here are adults dressed as popular kids movie characters such as Spiderman and Elsa. They are shown to be acting out various indecent acts which is just outrageous.. Each me

Demonetisation and where to now?

Where do we go from here? (Check out our previous post about this before reading on!) "The YouTube community is the body armour that stops competitors at getting at Youtube" - Casey Casey believes this recent disruption to the Google owned video platform may pave the way for possible competitors that can offer much more such as, a wider audience and better opportunities for creators to monetise their content. Twitch is an example of a platform that appears to be a viable competitor. Majority of its users are gamers who make videos.. who knows what could happen next? We're going to go through the suggestions that Casey Neistat have provided. Remember that drama with Jimmy Kimmel and the ad controversy? YouTube attempted to explain below that some select partners are allowed to run their own ads --> Casey asks the question "Why can't I or other creators create our own ads?"  This is a great idea that creators could h