It's not that simple. If you google "Do youtube views really matter?" "Do youtube subscriber count really matter?" and similar queries and research it comprehensively you'll find that pure view count and/or subscriber count does not really matter much, and that various other metrics are much more useful and used by advertisers. This was not always the case, but it surely is now.

Part of the reason is that someone simply subscribing to a person's channel does not equate to the person actively following the channel nor engaging with the content, and advertisers know this. We've all seen campaigns where people involved in various social media out there reach out to their listeners/followers to get them to click on like or share, subscribe etc. aggressively, and to get others to do so as well. The problem is that many of the people who do actually click like, subscribe, share do not actively follow the person after that, and advertisers KNOW this, and it can be measured also.

Likewise, merely clicking "view" on a video and getting counted doesn't really mean much either. People watch all kinds of videos, both those they enjoy and agree with, and those they don't enjoy nor agree with, and may watch one of someone's videos and never watch them again. Views on a video isn't real engagement.

Advertisers nowadays are looking for engagement, and casual views and like-bait/share-bait marketing of a channel etc. doesn't do anything to increase real engagement so advertisers are less likely to reward such personalities monetarily. They have to work much harder to earn nowadays than cutting corners merely by getting people to jam the like/share/subscribe button and the smart ones out there who have done their homework know this. There are literally hundreds of "howto" videos on youtube by the real pros out there who have learned this over time and share their insight on how it all works, and to not get caught up in cutting corners trying to game the system with view or subscriber counts because they're relatively meaningless.

So if you watch a random person's video(s) from time to time and have no real engagement with them, you're not really contributing in any material way to their profitability.

Nope, it will still count the view and hence a profit share. It is the link/click which counts. They do however also track user habits, so if a streamer has a viewing populace which is blocking too much stuff, he will get less revenue.

One tech channel was really effected by this as they showed how to block most of the stuff. No can't remember the channel anymore.
It depends on the overall numbers as well, one magic number is the 1 million hits. After this the rules change heavily

I imagine it could influence some people's views to find that sort of thing out. Sometimes I'm surprised to find that out about an artist because it was unexpected, but I personally don't care the slightest about that aspect of their lifestyle with regards to their art or who they are as a person. If they're a great writer, actor, chef, singer, whatever - who cares what they do in their own bedroom. I don't.

Some names that immediately popped into my mind when considering the question were:

Rob Halford
Freddie Mercury
Ellen Page
Clive Barker
Elton John

A very small list of talented musicians, actors, writers of which one could add literally hundreds if not thousands more names. I think when an artist comes out of the closet nowadays it is much more widely accepted by society as a whole almost immediately than it would have been 30-40 years ago, however there are people whom can't accept it too.

Unimportant trivia about their personal lifestyle as far as I'm concerned though. I want Clive Barker to turn Weaveworld and Imajica into full feature films or trilogies, and don't care if he sleeps with an orgy of men in his private life, as long as he makes the damned movies. He can get Rob Halford to sing the soundtrack for all I care also. :)

Because WEAVEWORLD!

I watched some things where he spoke quite some later about that and he seemed to feel genuinely angry with himself for making such comments. I got the impression that he was just very angry about being heckled and decided to respond to it with highly charged negative energy as a response that just happened to be in the form of racist comments out of anger, but that he probably is not actually a real racist. When we are very angry at someone and we know certain words and comments are likely to make them upset as well, we can end up saying things we don't really mean just as a form of verbal warfare, and then possibly regret having acted out of our emotions after the fact. Especially true with celebrities and others who are in the public light or caught on camera or with an open mic. When people hear the results out of context and without understanding of who the person saying the horrible things really is as a person, they can be very unforgiving also.

Having said that, while I now think that Michael Richards fell into this category of saying very racist statements without really being a racist, I have to also think that when you're in a public position like that and under the scrutiny of the public eye - you have to be that much more in control of your emotions and way you conduct yourself because people ARE going to judge you by what you say in the end, even if you say things you really don't mean out of anger. So I think he did deserve some flak for what he did, and he sure got it. Sad to see though, as it appears behind the scenes that he's not really that type of guy.

Still, whenever I see him now - that outburst is one of the first things that comes to my mind and while I can and have watched him, his performance is somewhat mired by that former public outburst in my mind, even though I do feel to give him the benefit of doubt that he isn't really a racist underneath.

Celebrities need to be more careful with their mouths in public than the rest of us nobodies. Not only will their words be heavily scrutinized, but they'll also often be spun with different interpretations if there are any to be had that could be in a negative light. I don't envy any of them.

There is a difference between enjoying a piece of art and "accepting" it, though.

For example, by my standards, HP Lovecraft was a creep (although he mellowed out in his late years), and it heavily influenced his works. And yet I enjoy reading his short stories, even if II reaaaally dislike the values they are built on.

Although when the creator is alive and still actively pushing an agenda I dislike, it tends to affect my view, in a "do I really want to support this guy" sort of way. But it does not detract from the quality of his/her work

To me these things have always mattered, it stains the product.

I faced the same dilemma many years ago when I was a Black Metal fan, listening to Burzum. I quit following him and stopped listening to his music because that ideology did not suit my own ideas of what Black Metal stood for.

As DaCostaBR wrote before; I simply can't enjoy the work of an artist if I disagree with their beliefs or actions.

For me this is true in gaming as well, when I see or hear developers say things that are really stupid to me, like Phil Fish's comments on PC gaming, I don't feel like buying or playing their games.

Also, we are not talking about someone who is simply eccentric here, talking to lamps or hoarding cats.
Neo-nazi and White Supremacist groups are gang movements; they are violent organizations that systematically harass, hurt and kill people.

That is far more extreme than supporting an artist who's a weirdo Creationist or Scientologist.

It shouldn't but it does, because the enjoyment of their art creates a form of complicity, intimacy, togetherness. It's like laughing with someone. So, when the artist is antipathic, you suddenly don't want to share this thing, this weird artist-public bond.

It's a tough thing to navigate though. Actors, supposedly hidden behind their role character ? Yeah, dunno, sometimes it's hard to forget whose mug incarnates said character. Filmmakers, telling you a clever story unrelated to their rants or personal lives ? You still sit on their knees for a while. Singers, pouring their soul onto you ? Eek, go do that elsewhere. Writers, making you visit their brain ? Well, some of the rooms stink, it may make the adjacent ones unappealing.

So I suppose thresholds are very subjective and very media-dependant. Personally, I deal fine with filmmakers (I'm a bit indifferent to whether I like their persona or not), and with actors (it's a bit of a flaw in a movie, like manga designs in an animation, but it's a mere detail). Writers, I can be forgiving (I have to or I wouldn't read often), a book is such an heteroclite aggregation anyway. But singers, nope. It's generally unpleasant to me, to listen to a singing twat. Very similar to stand-up comedians, don't wish to share a laugh with a terrible person. As for videogames, well, there's such an abundance of them, I welcome any pretext to shove one outside my backlog.

And youtubers, pundits, politicians, editorialists, etc... by default it's epidermic rejection, whatever their beliefs. You could copy-paste the pulp fiction dialogue about pork, here.

________
Edit : Oh, also, historical context is important. We can't judge artists with the same expectations independantly from their epoch, cultural background, and information at hand at that time... Nowadays, global communications, education and information availability make some stuff much much less forgivable, but applying the same standards to the past would be unfairly anachronical.

Ordinarily, no.

A person's religious beliefs, gender attitudes or sexual orientation play no role in my attitude to any person anyway, so it won't affect how I view their work, unless they let it affect their work.

Politically, creators with strong views will tend to let those views flow into their work. I was introduced to Chuck Norris movies fairly late in the day for instance, and honestly they don't entertain me - for the most part, they simply appall me for the way that they serve as bizarre propaganda for his neo-conservative attitudes (Missing in Action, Delta Force). That being said, I did enjoy his cameo in Expendables 2 and the way he parodied himself.

A different example would be Clint Eastwood. I like his films, despite his political views. In fact, Gran Torino is one of my favourites of all time. That being said, I have lost a lot of respect for him for his support of Trump. I generally had no problem with him being a Republican, which he's always been - there are a fair few decent moderate Republicans out there who barely get a voice nowadays - but his support for Trump and his recent comments about young people have cast a bit of a dark shadow over his legacy. Still, it isn't reflected in his work, so I enjoy his work.

On another note, I'm usually adverse to Chinese cinema as well, especially given the rather propagandistic way it presents China against the West. Even Hollywood movies with Chinese funding tend to sneak in Chinese propaganda (the most insidious example in recent history - The Martian).

tl;dr: If the work's main purpose is to push a political or religious viewpoint, it's uninteresting to me.


Pot, meet kettle...

Yup, he's an interesting case. His personal views seem completely black-and-whitish idiotic, and his movies are impressively clever, subtle and nuanced. But it's not only that. Remember that this ravenous conservative was amongst the few ones hiring all these black-listed leftist actors around the gulf wars times. He's an... interesting dude.

It depends. It should not automatically influence the enjoyment but it may. It's all context and surely context matters, sometimes it gives you even more enjoyment, sometimes less. You can try to first enjoy the piece of art without knowing anything else and later search for context (unfortunately going back then will be difficult since that would be like cheating on yourself).

Example: Could I enjoy a skillfull painting by a Nazi who killed hundreds of Jews for example if I would also know this? Probably not very much. I would first see the beauty in the painting, then the ugliness in the creator and then I would feel appalled and would back off. I would not feel genuine enjoyment anymore. However in other, less severe cases, it could actually work to give somebody I already labeled as not likeable a second chance. I could maybe rethink my judgement. It all depends and there surely is a red line beyond of which all hope of enjoyment is lost for me.

So sneaking in political or religious viewpoints as side comments is okay as long as it doesn't distract too much from the entertainment? Maybe like kind of an advertisment which also only tries to send subliminal messages through happy faces?

I'm not sure this is so much better. Even the most idiotic entertainment movies have some kind of philosophical basis (some norms/moral/conventions) and promote some values (freedom, having fun, drinking a lot, free sex, ...) one way or another. They all want to tell a story. So how can you tell a story without basing it on some idea you have about the world?

Lovecraft was a Nazi?

Basically. He was a "whargh our pure noble white race is being corrupted by brown-looking foreigners and theirfilty ways" psycho. Much of his fears and worldviews are echoed in his short story "the street" (i think that was the title).

But again, such outlook on life may also be at the roots of his delicious nightmares.

I don't care what it might be the root of. Fuck him.

I had no idea.

Getting rid of this avatar for starters.

That's a bit unfair. He was not a nazi partisan per se. Or political.

He was some sort of neurotic recluse, who was afraid of more or less anything unfamiliar. This sensitivity probably underlies his playful fictional cosmogony, but of course it also tainted his views on society.

Also, we're talking of the 1920s, there. He deserves some slack cut.

Edit :

Also, while I detest Houellebecq, his psychological biography of Lovecraft was really brilliant. Maybe you should check it out : https://www.amazon.com/H-P-Lovecraft-Against-World/dp/0575084014

Well then he can get it from someone else. :P