'It's Our Hope': Former YouTuber MatPat Launches Creator Economy Caucus
Making a play for politician of the year with his brave career change, former YouTube star MatPat has officially declared his candidacy for public office, not bringing a game theory, but a bill theory to the game.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
On June 10, Patrick took to the House floor to announce the creation of the Creator Economy Caucus, a new bipartisan effort to connect lawmakers with the rapidly growing world of content creation.
From YouTube Algorithms to Congressional Advocacy
Famously analytical and critical in his dissection of pop culture and internet culture on channels like Game Theory, Patrick's creative presence in online spaces has recently shifted toward an entirely civic example. With wife and long-time collaborator Stephanie 'Steph' Patrick by his side, he launched the caucus as a place where creators and policymakers can work together on issues at the heart of the digital economy.
"New quest: Washington DC! After two years of work, Steph and I have just launched the Creator Economy Caucus in the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group where creators can work alongside lawmakers to ensure legislation is timely and relevant for the Internet age. We've already got ~10 reps on board and we're just getting started. We'll eventually want to assemble creator advocates from around the country, so if you're interested in helping Washington understand our world, stay tuned here for more info!" Patrick posted on X.
The caucus, already supported by roughly 10 representatives, hopes to be a direct line between content creators and Congress. Their mission—which we echo here? To make sure that any federal legislation is able to move as quickly as a world that changes often even faster than law books can be updated.
Addressing Internet-Age Policy Gaps
At the press conference, Patrick laid out broader policy discussion goals for the caucus, including the promotion of online privacy legislation, AI ethics, algorithmic responsibility, and child safety online.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
He highlighted the need for legislative certainty when it comes to creator taxation and accessibility to small business resources, issues that seldom make the front page but matter most to the digital entrepreneurs building them.
'These aren't flashy topics,' Patrick admitted, 'but they're critical to the survival of this budding ecosystem.'
A New Kind of Representative Voice
One fan joked, 'We're going into politics with this BITE OF 87!!!' Others commented, 'He's extremely more qualified than like 90% of people currently in office.'
With the Creator Economy firmly established as a billion-dollar industry and on the rise, Patrick's departure marks a bigger trend: the internet has outgrown being just a place to engage with culture. It's more and more often dictating policy, and creators are calling for their voices to be heard.
Only time will tell if MatPat's 'new quest' is enough to succeed in changing Washington's relationship with the digital world for the better. Except for one thing: it's no longer a game for the theorist—it's a very real game, with very real stakes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Why Google and Latin America's largest airline LATAM are fighting a court battle over a YouTube video
Alphabet's Google has reportedly launched a legal battle against Chile-based LATAM Airlines in a U.S. federal court in San Jose, California, seeking to block Brazilian courts from forcing the removal of a YouTube video in the United States. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The video, which alleges that a LATAM employee sexually abused a child, has sparked a heated dispute over jurisdictional reach, Reuters reported. Google's lawsuit argues that LATAM is attempting to bypass U.S. constitutional protections for free speech by leveraging Brazilian courts to demand the video's global removal. "LATAM is trying to sidestep U.S. law," the filing stated, accusing the airline of overreaching its authority. LATAM Airlines did not immediately respond to Reuters' inquiries regarding Google's claims. Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, emphasized the company's stance, stating, "Google has consistently upheld the principle that a country's courts can govern content within its borders but should not dictate what is accessible in other nations." What is the Google vs LATAM case about At the heart of the current dispute is a 2018 YouTube video uploaded by Raymond Moreira, a Florida resident and U.S. citizen. The video features his 6-year-old son describing alleged sexual abuse by a LATAM employee during a trip as an unaccompanied minor. In 2020, Moreira sued LATAM in Florida over the incident, reaching a confidential settlement. LATAM responded by filing a lawsuit in Brazil in 2018, seeking to compel Google, YouTube's parent company, to remove the video. Brazil's highest court is set to decide next week whether it can mandate a worldwide takedown. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Google's Thursday filing in California asks the court to affirm that LATAM cannot enforce such a removal in the U.S. What Google vs LATAM case shows The case mirrors a February lawsuit in Florida, where Trump Media and Rumble, two right-wing social media platforms, challenged a Brazilian judge's order to delete U.S.-based accounts linked to a supporter of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. A federal judge in that case ruled that the platforms were not required to comply with the Brazilian directive in the U.S. This case highlights ongoing tensions over global content regulation. In a similar 2018 case, Canada's Supreme Court ordered Google to remove certain search results worldwide, but a California judge blocked its enforcement in the U.S. in 2017, underscoring the challenges of reconciling national laws with global digital platforms.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Triumph of India's diplomatic crusade against terror
Another vital goal was to impress on our international interlocutors Pakistan's complicity in such acts of terror and its malign nurturing of terror groups, weaponised against India as an instrument of state policy. The ultimate objective of this outreach was to garner global support for India's counterterrorism efforts—all while driving home the point that the perpetrators of terror and the victims of it must never be spoken of in the same breath, let alone be the object of mediation, as if terrorists and their victims could be placed on an equal plane. But even while these delegations where on their missions, conflicting views surfaced in our congested (and often confused) news space on the question of their success, with some dismissing it as a drain on taxpayers' money. The truth is that we have succeeded, emphatically and evidently, in what we set out to do. As the leader of one of the seven delegations, these are my reflections on some of the achievements of our outreach across five nations in South, Central, and North America: Guyana, Panama, Colombia, Brazil, and the US. In all these five countries, our delegation was greeted with tremendous enthusiasm and regard for India's democratic, inclusive, and united approach to this crucial national security concern. With our diversity—of political affiliation, faith, mother tongue and native region—on ample display, yet speaking the same language of resolve and righteousness, we undertook a series of high-profile engagements. Notably, we met the President of Guyana, Mohamed Irfaan Ali; Prime Minister of Guyana, Brigadier Mark Anthony Phillips; Vice President of Brazil, Geraldo Alckmin; and Vice President of the US, J D Vance. To ensure that our message resounds in the highest decision- and law-making forums of these countries, we provided thorough briefings on Operation Sindoor and India's evolving counterterrorism policy to government officials and lawmakers—including the heads of external affairs committees in all five countries, presidents of the national assembly in two, and in the US, the Senate foreign relations committee, House foreign affairs committee, and the India Caucus). To shape public discourse in these nations, we extensively engaged with the media and policy experts, participated in think tank deliberations—as with the Council on Foreign Relations in the US— and brought the Indian diaspora up to speed with developments back at home, providing them with accurate information to serve as advocates for India's position. Though our target audience was those concerned with foreign policy who could make an impact and we had no unrealistic expectations of mass media attention in a crowded news space, our outreach was positively covered by major outlets in the countries concerned. While anchored in the core issue of terrorism, our engagements also spanned broader domains of strategic, technological, defence, trade and economic cooperation, serving to deepen our bonds with the five nations.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
House passes $9.4B federal budget cuts targeting PBS, NPR, and foreign aid
(Bloomberg) -- The US House approved $9.4 billion in Elon Musk's DOGE federal spending cuts, with Republican moderates swallowing their concerns about cutting previously approved spending for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The White House's spending cancellation package passed the House on a 214 to 212 vote. It faces a more uncertain future in the Senate where moderates have voiced opposition to some of the cuts and could strip them out of the package. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the Senate may amend the package before it votes on it in July. The bill would codify DOGE's unilateral cuts to the US Agency for International Development and the US Institute of Peace. USAID cuts have been criticized for endangering lives in developing countries that rely on help from the US. The measure also approves cuts of more than $1 billion for the entity that funds the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio. The cuts were designed by the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency but opponents say only Congress can take away funding that it approved. The White House promised to send many more cut requests if this bill passed. 'It's very important for it to pass and if it does, it will be worth the effort and we'll send up additional packages,' White House Budget Director Russ Vought told House members last week. Skeptics of the House tax bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will add $3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, have cited making DOGE cuts permanent as key to their support. 'In DOGE we trust,' said Representative Tom McClintock of California. Cuts to rural PBS stations as well as to a successful foreign aid program to combat AIDS started by former President George W. Bush gave some Republican moderates pause but they dropped their opposition under pressure from GOP leaders. 'They're not touching the medical side of it, the medicine side, so I feel better than what I was hearing last week, that it was going to be a total cut,' Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska said of the anti-AIDS program known as PEPFAR. In the Senate, moderates Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have said they would seek to strip out the anti-AIDS funding cuts. The bill would eliminate advanced funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, entities which have long been targeted by conservatives for alleged liberal bias. President Donald Trump has derided the outlets as a drain on taxpayer money that he says provide unfavorable coverage to him. The public media outlets receive a small portion of their funding from federal sources in addition to dollars from sponsors and individual donors. The networks have said that smaller stations could close as a result of the cut. The proposal was submitted by the Trump administration under a fast-track procedure that cannot be filibustered by minority Democrats in the Senate. If the Senate doesn't act within 45 days, the funds would be distributed. Critics of Musk's DOGE effort say that its unilateral cuts and mass firings are illegal under the 1974 Impoundments Control Act and the only way to legally rescind funding is to go through Congress. Vought has said that without Congress's approval, the administration has the right to simply refuse to spend the money, an assertion that would certainly be challenged in court. --With assistance from Gregory Korte. More stories like this are available on ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
