Why I Don’t Like Reaction/Review Channels

Why I Don’t Like Reaction/Review Channels: 5 Key Reasons

1. Disconnect from the Real Customer’s Context

Many self-styled “expert” reviewers present their opinions with an air of authority, focusing on authenticity and high standards. However, they often ignore the perspective of the everyday consumer-the person who just wants a fun, affordable escape after a long day. For example, a movie reviewer might criticize a blockbuster for lack of originality or depth, but for a tired viewer seeking a cheap thrill and some relaxation, those criticisms are irrelevant. This disconnect means reviews can fail to serve the needs of the actual paying audience, who simply want entertainment, not a lecture on cinematic artistry.

2. Nostalgia Bias: The Past Is Always Better

A common trend among reviewers and reactors is to elevate the music, movies, or art from their own formative years as the gold standard, dismissing newer works as inferior. This “nostalgia effect” clouds their judgment, leading to unfair comparisons and a lack of appreciation for contemporary creativity. For instance, a reviewer who grew up on 80s rock might scoff at modern pop, not because it’s objectively worse, but because it doesn’t trigger the same sentimental feelings. This bias limits the diversity of opinions and discourages open-minded engagement with new art.

3. Pseudo-Expert Influence Can Ruin Hobbies

Many viewers take the opinions of these so-called experts as gospel, adopting their tastes and standards as their own. This can lead to people abandoning hobbies or genres they once enjoyed, simply because a reviewer deemed them “low quality” or “not worth the effort.” The high bar set by these pseudo-experts can make it feel like enjoying something “unapproved” is wrong, turning a source of joy into a source of anxiety or guilt. The end result: people stop enjoying things on their own terms and start chasing the approval of internet personalities.

4. Reaction Channels and the “Fair Use” Grey Area

Reaction and review channels often rely heavily on other creators’ content, sometimes showing large portions of the original work with minimal commentary. While some cases have established that transformative commentary can qualify as fair use, the line is blurry, and many reaction videos add little value beyond piggybacking on someone else’s intellectual property. This practice can divert attention and revenue away from original creators, raising ethical questions about whether these channels are genuinely creative or just cleverly avoiding copyright enforcement.

5. Art Is Too Subjective for Simple Good/Bad Labels

Finally, the core problem: art, whether film, music, or painting, is deeply subjective. What is “good” or “bad” depends on who is experiencing it, their mood, their background, and the era in which it was made. A comedy that flops with critics might be a cult classic for a niche audience. A pop song dismissed by experts could be a personal anthem for millions. Attempting to categorize art with rigid labels ignores the complex, personal, and ever-changing ways people connect with creative works.

---

In summary:
Reaction and review channels often miss the mark by ignoring the real context of everyday viewers, clinging to nostalgia, wielding undue influence, walking the line of IP theft, and reducing the complexity of art to simplistic judgments. For many, this approach does more harm than good-both to audiences and to the creative community.