> I don't think he gets it right 100% of the time, but when you are that vulnerable (and what appears to be authentic)

Saying anything less than glowingly positive about Rossmann is dangerous due to his fan base, but I think this mentality of pre-forgiving his misinformation is not healthy.

Being passionate and putting on a vulnerable schtick shouldn’t excuse someone from misleading their large audience.

Rossman is a drama YouTuber, like many others. This is an entire YouTube genre. Most of them have the same schtick where they appear to be the most passionate, vulnerable, on-your-side narrator of a story. His schtick is common in the drama YouTuber genre.

You shouldn’t develop such a parasocial relationship with a person that you reflexively defend every topic they engage in. Discuss the topics each on their own factual merits and be prepared to look for second sources. Don’t align yourself with someone because they are passionate and appear “vulnerable”. At the end of the day, you need to remember that putting on this display is how he makes his money. It’s a show.

▲

preuceian 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Rossman is a drama YouTuber, like many others.

I dont see how he is “like many others”. A lot of YouTubers cover controversy for controversy sake, or just as material for another sponsored video. He does not do sponsored content, and usually seems to push for something concrete around consumer rights. So I think the comparison to other drama Youtubers is unfair.

In my view, the drama is more a way to draw attention to his activism. He does tend to put his money and time where his mouth is.

But perhaps my view is biased, since I only see the videos the YouTube algorithm suggests to me, and those may be the ones that are more focused on consumer rights than drama. Still, that has consistently been my impression.

▲

starkparker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Favoring emotion over facts while advocating for a cause is still a sugar high of advocacy, regardless of the cause's righteousness. A short burst quickly forgotten, with a chance of discrediting what you're trying to advocate if the facts aren't right.

Even amongst YouTubers, you can favor facts over emotions (without discarding emotion!) and be a more effective advocate who arms others with both motivation and useful, effective knowledge.[1]

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

	▲	preuceian 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Rossmann is still relevant and to my knowledge has not discredited his cause. Your comment about him needing to get his facts right or risking irrelevance is wishful thinking and clearly not reflective of the reality of his impact on Right to Repair legislation (if you are suggesting that he does not get his facts right). Technology Connections is an educational channel that occasionally offers political commentary. Telling his audience to vote is a call to action, but not the same as organizing. Rossmann is an organizer who engages with policymakers. To treat them as being on the same level is to misunderstand what they are each doing.
	▲	isityettime 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't follow Rossman very closely but I am familiar with his grumpy, griping style. To be clear, is the claim here that his advocacy work frequently features factual errors, or just that his presentation is too emotive? Aside: What does "facts over emotion" mean? Aren't facts and emotions orthogonal?

▲

rpdillon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is an uncharitable take. Rossman has actual repair expertise, founded the consumer rights wiki to help organize activists that want to forward right to repair, and attends public meetings to discuss these topics with local governments. His YouTube channel raises awareness, but there's a lot of substance behind the style.

https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Main_Page