Create

The entire MoistCr1TiKaL and DarkViperAU drama explained

Sucheta
Charlie and Matthew argue over reaction streams (Images via Twitch/ MoistCr1TiKaL and Twitch/DarkViperAU)
Charlie and Matthew argue over reaction streams (Images via Twitch/ MoistCr1TiKaL and Twitch/DarkViperAU)

Charlie "MoistCr1TiKaL" and Matthew "DarkViperAU" have recently come into the limelight due to the controversy surrounding the two. Their feud began shortly after Matthew released a controversial 12-page statement criticizing reaction streamers.

Claiming that react streamers benefit from stealing content from other creators, DarkViperAU's tweet soon generated a lot of dissension. Major streamers, including Mizkif and MoistCr1TiKaL responded critically to his views.

All reactors are bad people. They exploit others to benefit no one but themselves. Collectively they have stolen millions of dollars from actual creators and have stopped countless thousands from having a careerHow The React Grift Works By DarkViperAUdocs.google.com/document/d/150…

MoistCr1TiKal, who is also popular for reacting to streaming content, posted a response on his YouTube channel. DarkViperAU soon responded directly to Charlie via a tweet.


A brief breakdown of the DarkViperAU and MoistCr1TiKaL drama

youtube-cover

Reaction content is a gray area in terms of fair use and copyright laws. Several critics of the meta have spoken on it during their streams. However, Matthew's comprehensive statement contained several justifications which were deemed baffling, leading to the controversy of his statement.

DarkViperAU released a controversial 12-page statement on "How The React Grift Works"

Matthew released his statement on February 7, 2022, via a Google document posted on Twitter. His post soon received responses, most of which criticized a strange inference he made.

In his statement, Matthew made a bizarre comparison between reaction streamers and sexual abusers. He stated that reaction streamers shamelessly stole content from other, sometimes smaller, creators. The above analogy indicated the lack of consent taken from original creators by reaction streamers.

@DarkViperAU I appreciate what you’re saying but insinuating that anybody who makes your definition of ‘reaction’ content would sexually assault someone if given the chance is a quite a large leap in logic. I see what you were going for but the two are quite drastically different. https://t.co/xmQoY1nbGE
@adam_w11 People who live their lives exploiting others, their labour or careers, in their own lust for money and power are the very sort of people who would sexually abuse someone. A reactor’s career is specifically about ignoring consent and only respecting people when profit is at risk.
@adam_w11 It is hyperbole, but only slightly so. The difference between actively ignoring consent for financial gain is not so far removed from ignoring consent for sexual gratification; it is abuse of another for a selfish purpose.

Charlie's response video receives retaliation from Matthew

In his reaction video, Charlie validated a few points made by Matthew, but criticized the approach made towards the topic.

"He does make valid points in the document, but it’s overshadowed by this unhinged rant that he goes on...DarkViper’s entire document is about this belief that every reactor is doing it for financial gain and to f*** small channels. And the logic he uses to make these points is deeply flawed and isn’t substantiated by any real evidence."

Matthew responded directly to the video through a tweet and a video of his own. The video accused Charlie of using his large following to manipulate the context of what was being spoken about in the document. He asserted that Charlie only exhibited one side of the debate.

Im Not Sure Who @MoistCriTiKal Is Talking To? I'm DarkViperAU, You Have Me Confused With Someone Else youtube.com/watch?v=cqWNmX…

Through his tweet, Matthew stated that several things Charlie talked about in his video were untrue. However, he reasoned it to misunderstandings. He also expressed his willingness to engage in an open conversation with the star streamer regarding the topic. Charlie responded in kind to that request.

Im going to be charitable and say the things @MoistCr1TiKaL said that were untrue, which is most of what he said, were sincere misunderstandings as opposed to lies. Hard thing to grant, but maybe I'll get the opportunity to speak to him eventually to clarify which is the case.
@DarkViperAU I wanted to reach out yesterday to talk about your perspective and just finished your video now and would still like to talk about it
I have been on YouTube for 10 years. I used to make videos responding to people on the most controversial topics imaginable. I have never had a person respond to my words and "misunderstand" so much of what I said. This is why such charity is hard to give.

DarkViperAU targets MoistCr1TiKaL's reaction uploads

Merely a few hours after their seemingly passive exchange on Twitter, Matthew began posting screenshots of Charlie's popular videos. He pointed out the lack of credit given to the original content that Charlie reacted to in the videos. This characteristic of reaction streamers was among the foremost points Matthew argued about in his original statement.

I've now been told @MoistCr1TiKaL does not even link the creator's videos when he uploads his react livestreams to YouTube. I wish I noted this in the video. It seems his not linking to even my work was not the exception, but the rule. Anything to keep the viewers on his channel. https://t.co/mwRGeR6Qip

He then followed up with another tweet displaying screenshots of uploads from Charlie's unofficial stream highlight channel. The channel, which is run by a fan, meticulously listed the original creators of content Charlie reacted to during his livestream. Pointing this out, Matthew yet again criticized the latter.

The funny part? Even the UNOFFICIAL channel, run by a fan, who uploads his @MoistCr1TiKaL's reactions to YouTube gives credit and links. Fucking yikes. https://t.co/vAzIUKBlew

While Charlie is yet to respond to these posts, onlookers were quick to chime in with their views. The reactions were clearly polarized between the followers of the two streamers.

@DarkViperAU @MoistCr1TiKaL Yeah, this annoys me a lot when I watch his videos because he talks over it so fucking much and then when you want to find the original to watch for yourself you have to skim through his video to find the search bar. He plagiarises videos but then complains about plagiarism…
@DarkViperAU @MoistCr1TiKaL Critikal blew all your points out of the water, and all you could do was compare react streamers to rapists. You used to do reaction videos, you saying you used to be a rapist?!
@LoonWithASpoon @DarkViperAU @MoistCr1TiKaL This is what I HAAAATE about trying to debate with people online, this attitude of "I'm right because I said it". There's no concession that he could have gotten something wrong, maybe made a mistake, or maybe had a bad take, no that's impossible! It's this /c
@DarkViperAU @MoistCr1TiKaL I’m Pretty sure he doesn’t link channels because people like to go and harass them. He’s made multiple vids condemning such actions
@DarkViperAU @MoistCr1TiKaL u're correct, but he does mention what videos he's watching on stream and also mentions the channel that uploaded the video. also... if u check his youtube descriptions.... they're the same for every video he posts.
@DarkViperAU @MoistCr1TiKaL I used to watch his actual content but tbh I got an entirely new perspective on reaction channels after looking through your video

Reaction to streaming content has been a point of contention for several years. Given the sensitivity of this topic, along with the fact that most of the major streamers on Twitch engage in such content, Matthew's statement is as relevant as it is controversial. It may be worth the wait to see further reactions from others in the future.

Read about your favorite creators only on TikTok Wiki & Youtube Wiki

Quick Links

Edited by R. Elahi
Be the first one to comment