I'm strictly considering the definition as "an alternative to dominant [as opposed to popular] opinion and social mores".
I'd probably agree the bulk of indier-than-thou creations are produced by people on the left (not all of whom demand we also bow to their political interpretation of the world); some of the work excellent, most of it perhaps not.
That's not what the article is about. The article is about creative content, and how YouTube content is aesthetically all the same. Jordan Peterson videos have the same stupid thumbnails as all other clickbait.
People have said it in the thread, but counter-culture is really defined retrospectively. You look at the movements that existed on the periphery but later inspired the mainstream. Velvet Underground wasn't selling millions of records, but everyone who started a band listened to them. Lou Reed is pretty indier than thou.
> The article is about creative content, and how YouTube content is aesthetically all the same.
Yeah, but Youtube is mainstream now; it comes installed on almost every single consumer TV available for sale right now. You don't get more mainstream than that.
If you wanted to see counterculture, you'd have to use the youtube alternatives.
Well, it's no wonder since you're looking at YouTube which is basically a curated experience. Take a look at Rumble and other YT alternatives and you'll see plenty of counter-cultural video content. Plus there's other media like image macros, real-world social stunts etc. The counter-culture is quite real.
I'd probably agree the bulk of indier-than-thou creations are produced by people on the left (not all of whom demand we also bow to their political interpretation of the world); some of the work excellent, most of it perhaps not.