YouTube Reactors: Critics or CyberBullies?

Reaction videos are now a staple of online media. From music and movies to politics and viral trends, YouTube creators reacting to other people’s content routinely attract millions of views. But their popularity raises a persistent question: are these creators offering legitimate critique, or engaging in cyberbullying disguised as commentary?

At their best, reaction channels function like modern critics. They add context, explain creative choices, and help audiences interpret complex or controversial material. In these cases, reacting is a form of analysis—no different from a review or opinion column.

Problems arise when commentary shifts from critique to humiliation. Mocking appearance, replaying embarrassing clips, or repeatedly targeting the same individual can invite harassment, even if the creator never explicitly calls for it. Tone matters, and audiences often mirror what they see.

Power imbalance is a crucial factor. When large reaction channels turn their attention on much smaller creators, the impact can be overwhelming. What feels like casual commentary to one creator can feel like public shaming to another.

YouTube itself amplifies the issue. Content driven by outrage and conflict tends to perform better in recommendations, creating incentives for harsher reactions. While the platform has policies against harassment, enforcement remains uneven.

So are YouTube reactors critics or cyber bullies? The answer lies somewhere in between. Some provide thoughtful, responsible commentary; others chase clicks through ridicule and outrage. The difference is not the act of reacting, but intent, tone, and awareness of impact.

As reaction culture continues to shape online discourse, both creators and audiences must decide what kind of commentary they are willing to reward.

Steve Nfor (Retired Senior Journalist)