Yankee Marshall Iraqveteran8888 YT fued

[wagyu52]

.

 

[wagyu52]

Really liked YM when he first started, his garnet/bead blasting videos are top notch. Then the written overlays on his videos went from somewhat funny to down right prevented and disturbing.

Always try to Watch one of his videos every now and then hopping he will get back to doing actual firearms videos and not act like a 13yr old boy in a middle school locker room.

Truth is, think there’s a better chance of one day he will go full Howard Hughes and show us his new germ free foot wear.

 

[HoughMade]

YankeeMarshall is calling out James Yeager now...

I would surmise that YM has seen his views spike lately....not that he would debase himself to court controversy just for YouTube fame and "fortune".

 

[Fargo]

I would surmise that YM has seen his views spike lately....not that he would debase himself to court controversy just for YouTube fame and "fortune".

Involving yourself with J.Y. isn't really "courting controversy" IMO. It is more like seeking out and diving into a vortex of middle school drama spinning above a giant lake of raw sewage.... But with guns.

 

[INPatriot]

At the end of the day this is all entrepreneurialism and these guys are all fighting for marker share. These YouTube personalities can share common core values but still compete with each other like any avenue in media.

IV8888 makes money reviewing guns. Great for him! How's a guy/team that spends that much time in front of the camera and editing videos supposed to offset the cost of time and effort? It's his business model.

There are no product costs for man cans. Did any savvy individual really believe IV8888 was buying those products?

TYM can make money picking internet squabbles and calling people out. Vince McMahon became a billionaire using this business model. Why re-invent the wheel?

Purity is not lost with revenue streams. It's called capitalism. If they want to squabble so be it. Hannity and O'Reilly never publicly got along until recently when they needed each other.

 

[JAL]

Never cared for the Yankme marshal. 8888 is pretty good. I sure hope these guys putting out videos get paid. It takes a lot of time, equipment, money, ammo.....etc to make a video. It's just business.

I don't care about an honest reviews either. At the end of the day it's me who makes the decision to purchase based on my own findings and research. The videos aid in decision making sure but not by the words coming out of the reviewers mouth.

If their YouTube channel is monetized, they get money from YouTube based on number of views of their videos. Anyone getting any money from the folks that make the stuff they're reviewing is actually making infomercials for financial quid pro quo gain as an agent for the manufacturer, not financially unbiased editorial reviews, and they need to be transparent about it. Not doing so is an outright deceptive practice demonstrating their greed has made them morally and ethically bankrupt with ZERO integrity. There are print blogs shamelessly doing the same thing masquerading as an "unbiased review" site. It's a half-step shy of fake news.

John

 

[kscessnadriver]

If their YouTube channel is monetized, they get money from YouTube based on number of views of their videos. Anyone getting any money from the folks that make the stuff they're reviewing is actually making infomercials for financial quid pro quo gain as an agent for the manufacturer, not financially unbiased editorial reviews, and they need to be transparent about it. Not doing so is an outright deceptive practice demonstrating their greed has made them morally and ethically bankrupt with ZERO integrity. There are print blogs shamelessly doing the same thing masquerading as an "unbiased review" site. It's a half-step shy of fake news.

John

For what its worth, within the last 6 months, youtube absolutely gutted youtube ad-revenue for videos that don't conform with the agenda that YT pushes.

 

[tacticalmaster45]

I used to be ambivalent about "theYankeeMarshall" but that all changed when he went on his recent tirades. He is now a POS in my book. On the other hand "IV8888" has always been a reliable, levelheaded channel and I find most of their content great. Other "you- tubers" that I enjoy include: "mrgunsngear", "militaryarmschannel", "thewarriorpoetsociety", "sagedynamics", "garandthumb"

 

[Bfish]

Anyone seeing this stuff being posted though? Makes you just hate youtube etc even more...

[video=youtube;H0Atpwo_AuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Atpwo_AuY[/video]

 

[lonehoosier]

Anyone seeing this stuff being posted though? Makes you just hate youtube etc even more...

[video=youtube;H0Atpwo_AuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Atpwo_AuY[/video]

So suck on that! LOL

 

[Floivanus]

If their YouTube channel is monetized, they get money from YouTube based on number of views of their videos. Anyone getting any money from the folks that make the stuff they're reviewing is actually making infomercials for financial quid pro quo gain as an agent for the manufacturer, not financially unbiased editorial reviews, and they need to be transparent about it. Not doing so is an outright deceptive practice demonstrating their greed has made them morally and ethically bankrupt with ZERO integrity. There are print blogs shamelessly doing the same thing masquerading as an "unbiased review" site. It's a half-step shy of fake news.

John

biased crappy reviews that were nothing but ads for new products I didn't want or couldn't afford, with nary a bad word said about any of them are why I never kept up with gun magazines, and car magazines. The moment you are taking money to feature a product and give a biased review is when I have no use for it.

try to sell me ammo? Who cares? A few targets? Whatever? Carry case? Holster? Whatever, I came to see the gun, not the accessories.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Anyone seeing this stuff being posted though? Makes you just hate youtube etc even more...

[video=youtube;H0Atpwo_AuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Atpwo_AuY[/video]

Speaking about the irony of having anti-2A before pro-2A videos... is acknowledged. The irony of complaining about the YouTube platform, while using YouTube....completely lost. YouTube is a worldwide private business. Given the sheer amount of diverse content on the platform, I doubt their is anything shady going on. I think in most instances some sort of bot picks the ads based on keywords and interests. I've looked into videos asking "is XYZ a scam?," and when I pick a video explaining the scam, I often get an pro advertisement for the very thing that I want to know if it's a scam.

 

[weedsnager]

At the end of the day this is all entrepreneurialism and these guys are all fighting for marker share. These YouTube personalities can share common core values but still compete with each other like any avenue in media.

IV8888 makes money reviewing guns. Great for him! How's a guy/team that spends that much time in front of the camera and editing videos supposed to offset the cost of time and effort? It's his business model.

There are no product costs for man cans. Did any savvy individual really believe IV8888 was buying those products?

TYM can make money picking internet squabbles and calling people out. Vince McMahon became a billionaire using this business model. Why re-invent the wheel?

Purity is not lost with revenue streams. It's called capitalism. If they want to squabble so be it. Hannity and O'Reilly never publicly got along until recently when they needed each other.

I agree.
Dont understand the people on YouTube bashing him for charging $4000 for a gun review. If he can get that kind of scratch for reviewing a gun, god bless him.

 

[sgreen3]

I just recently was able to secure a few rifles from a couple manufactures for review on my channel, but I think were the rubber meets the road is when those details are not disclosed and if compensation was exchanged or not. I will never except money for a review as i think it cheapens the review somewhat. Id rather do less stuff than take a chance on compromising my channel or my word for a buck. In both my responses to the manufactures are that if they send me the rifle they know up front their rifle will get a fair shake but if it doesn't live up to expectations those views will be expressed in the videos to follow. Ive actually had one manufacture refuse to send a rifle when i told them that and that's perfectly fine. Ive not really watched IV8888 since Berry died, but I think were most guys are getting bent about him taking money for the reviews is that hes not forthcoming about it. Its kinda like being lied to by someone you might have put a little unbiased trust in at some point for a review or an opinion.

Whether its right or wrong i just think IV8888 went about the whole situation the wrong way, he clearly had the brochure were it listed those details, so why not just man up and admit to it.. I would have at-least respected that, I mean I know how much money it takes to run my tiny no name channel. I couldn't imagine the money it takes to do a big channel like IV8888 with all the melt-down stuff so honestly I don't mind him a bit trying to fund and make a buck off his channel. I know what little money I got from ad revenue before YT hosed all the gun channels it wasn't a lot but now its next to near nothing, so I'm sure the large channels took a significant hit, but when your taking money and then asking a manufacture for another firearm in-case the 1st one doesn't live up to expectations that's just not something Id be interested in watching...

 

[Brad69]

I agree to review all firearms for $3999.00 !

This includes having a INGO day at the range selected INGO members will be paid $100.00 to participate.

1. Reliability testing

2. Fit and finish

3. Mag dumps (with sponsorship ammo)

4. Nad63 attempting to break it $50 bonus if he does!

Notice I will not be liable for damage to provided firearms!

I careless about YT warriors most are opinions.
I enjoy the ones who do not take it to seriously and have fun along with the ancient weapons testing.

 

[tacticalmaster45]

Anyone seeing this stuff being posted though? Makes you just hate youtube etc even more...

[video=youtube;H0Atpwo_AuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Atpwo_AuY[/video]

Yes, I emailed "every town for gun safety" last night after sitting thru one of their ads before his video:
The 2nd Amendment was created and incorporated into the Bill of Rights due to its sheer importance. The attendees of the Constitutional Convention realized that potential threats, originating from foreign countries or domestic governments, needed to be guaranteed against. The heroes of that day were not thinking of "target shooting" and/or "hunting" when drafting the language of the 2nd Amendment; rather, they were thinking of a potential future "King George" type governing the United States and wanted assurance that tyranny would not prevail. Additionally, the 2nd Amendment does not only pertain to and subsequently "protect" only the technology of the era of 1787 much like the 1st Amendment's protection isn't limited to word of mouth, parchment, and the traditional printing press. The Framers recognized that technology would continue to improve as it had during their own lifetimes. Further evidence shows that "fast-firing" projectile-shooting weapons existed in that era including: the Belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle, Puckle gun, and pepper-box revolver.
If you want to continue to ignore the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written, then at least look at the Supreme Court case of "Heller v. DC". Here, the court ruled that one is guaranteed the right to a handgun for self defense in the home and the majority opinion included that "firearms in common use of the time" are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment. If AR-15's are not considered "common use firearms" then I simply don't know what would be covered. Multiple articles dating back to even 2013 state that the estimated number of civilian owned AR's in circulation numbers in the 5 - 10 million range. Even though "AR" is an abbreviation for "Armalite" it really should stand for "America's Rifle".

 

[bwframe]

I'm very fond of informative YouTube videos. That said, I'd never make any decision based on one source.

 

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

This all reminds me of Jerry Mc--- reviewing Chiappa's Rhino.
His only complaint was the grip was at a different angle.
He spoke his review with S/W logos all over his body.

 

[JAL]

I agree.
Dont understand the people on YouTube bashing him for charging $4000 for a gun review. If he can get that kind of scratch for reviewing a gun, god bless him.

It's not disclosing he's being paid for it that's the moral, ethical and integrity issue . . . and a BLATANTLY DECEPTIVE practice.

John

 

[Sylvain]

It's not disclosing he's being paid for it that's the moral, ethical and integrity issue . . . and a BLATANTLY DECEPTIVE practice.

John

QFT

Presenting a paid commercial as a honest independent review.