/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>66285720
Nope, only spiky bots and raids without retention harm the channel.

>>65897986
That only works with cheap bots and raids that don't have retention.
Curly bots just get culled in the VODs, they have no other effect.

>>61873995
The only "proof" about anything we've had is SpiffingBrit's video about raid retention : https://youtu.be/SeJVya3TBwg?t=4450
From what I remember, the conclusion was that consistently having live streams on your channel get "raided" and then having 90% of them leave would eventually leave a horrible indication about your channel in Youtube's algorithm and cause them to not push you anymore.
Some of the cheaper bots like the ones that were used during Millie's 11$ incident will give a graph that's similar to having shit raid retention, and over time if you get multiple graphs like these, your channel would get algo nuked. Of course, /#/fags never knew about this during the 11$ thing since the SpiffingBrit video came much later.

Some retards here think the worm graphs can cause the same issue, but there's never been any proof of THOSE type of graphs ever causing channel nukery within the algorithm - in fact I think there's been occasions were botted crypto shit has reached Youtube's own fucking trending page just due to the amount of "viewers" it had.

Ultimately, as long as the "botted" graph doesn't look like a failed raid, and unless that same graph happens multiple times, the channel itself will not be affected.