>>331954Not really. His "case against Dan Schneider" is that Dan maintained a bad workplace culture by demanding that those involved with his productions always be on call and having a large amount of control over them, lacked boundaries in decency and being sexist, had a wild temper that made people afraid of coming to him about things they didn't like, removed people who inconvenienced him, sexually harassed women by demanding massages, lovebombed the stars of his shows to the detriment of the public image of these stars when they didn't meet his expectations, had poor boundaries with his actors, lacked of maturity, and sexualized actors, especially in his later works because Dan probably wanted to be writing adult comedies by that point.
He dedicates the third section to allegations of Dan making fetish content, particularly around feet. He counts that there are a little over two dozen episodes of iCarly lacking foot jokes, but he admits that he was counting the intro. Without the intro, the show is split almost evenly. His next point in this section is an attempt to tackle Dan's inclusion of feet from the perspective of him as innocent. Since Dan entered the industry in the late 80s, he may not have known there's such a thing as a foot fetish or it wasn't present in his mind. Back then, the people, even those interacting with culture, had almost no exposure to fetish content that they did not seek out. This caused a lot of content which was juvenile back then but is seem as sexual now because of non-consensual the acquisition of knowledge of fetishes has become. He recognizes that Nick's brand at the time was gross out, including feet, and that it is still that to some extent, pointing to the overreaction people online have to episodes of Nick shows where something gross out is taken as sexual. Opposing this, he tackles Dan's inclusion of feet from the perspective of him as guilty. He says that Dan probably knew about the foot fetish and that a good case could be built for him having it because of how feet were represented and treated very similarly to those in foot fetish content, theSlap.com content had the puppet from Victorious play a character who was really similar to the allegations made against Dan, and Dan's often cited foot tweets. He ends the section by saying that if Dan is innocent, he's really bad at optics.
The fourth section covers "bad actors", pedophiles associated with Dan's productions. He doesn't lay the blame on Dan for the individual instances of pedophilia involving those on set, he does lay the blame on Dan for enabling an environment which allowed it to occur. He takes a shot at Dan for focusing on things like his perception of women disrupting the writers room, rather than paying attention to the conduct of the men he was working with, but he says that Dan shouldn't hold the lifelong blame for what happened. Supporting this, he points out how Quiet on Set has caused opposite reactions toward Dan and Drake Bell, despite Drake being, in Quinton's and the public's perception, a sex criminal, yet Drake is let off the hook because he was part of the cycle of abuse while more scrutiny comes to Dan. He reasons that this turn in public opinion is because Drake is beloved in the public's memory and integral to the documentary being made. Dan is in a similar position, at least among those who worked with him. Quinton thinks they can't believe Dan would do anything grossly inappropriate because they owe him so much and like him. He ends the section by saying that there's no proof Dan did anything criminal, but he's so weird and irresponsible that he shouldn't be allowed to make television anymore.
His fifth section is one that he doesn't linger on, but does recognize it's one of the most unpopular things to recognize in Dan's work, that who Dan sees himself as is always someone he writes into the main cast. In Drake and Josh, it was Helen, and in iCarly, it was Spencer. He springboards from this to a rebuttal of everything his own reputation online has become: he always wanted to prove that it's impossible and ridiculous to neglect Dan and the influence he had on these shows and that whether it's ethical to enjoy something even after learning about the actions and character of its creators is something for you to decide. The sixth section elaborates on this by attempting to answer why iCarly was rebooted. It was a try to "reclaim" the show from Dan's legacy and fill the niche that the stars of the show couldn't fill elsewhere in their lives.
The final section is an explanation that Dan is a fall guy in culture. However, he does insinuate that Dan was a fall guy for the rampant sexual misconduct in the industry but says he can't go into that because he'll be sued for it. He posits that Dan is the fall guy for the Hollywood exploitation of child actors, and that the existence of his works is the fulfillment of a quota that could have been met by anyone yet would have achieved the same result on its actors. He caps the video by stating that media as a whole is entering a period where shows are greenlit more for their immediate cultural impact rather than the fostering of new talent to create a legacy because almost all television now operates at a loss.
TL;DR No. This video explains that he made this video and his previous videos about Dan's works to showcase that trying to separate creator from content is ludicrous. He says Dan is weird but not criminal and a representative for Hollywood's exploitation of children in the public consciousness, even if he doesn't deserve that position. He finishes by alluding to how the exploitation of children will get worse since the Hollywood of legacies that made Dan is gone, but the demand for nonstop content remains in a landscape that's targeted toward instant cultural highs and operates at a loss. He seems like he's getting closer to being right-leaning on cultural issues and can't get over the cogitative dissonance that he can't like or relate to Dan or see things from his perspective because Dan is unpopular yet has immersed himself so much in Dan's work and history that he can't help but do so, so he makes a middling judgment on how Dan's work should be treated.