This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on December 16th, 2025. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.
The SVT documentary “Hatet” about Joakim Lundell misses the most powerful player in its investigation. The actor that enables threats and the spreading of rumours is not asked a single question.
In ancient Rome, gladiatorial games were a popular form of entertainment. In the arena, fighters battled both each other and wild animals to see who would emerge victorious — and alive — from the spectacle.
It is hard not to think of gladiatorial games when watching the third and final part of SVT’s documentary “Hatet.”
Here an obvious human tragedy unfolds before a public audience, but SVT appears to have missed the arena in which it takes place. Back then it was the Colosseum, with an emperor dictating the terms. Today it is YouTube. Why are no questions asked of those who have the most to gain from this brutal entertainment?
We have come a long way from the entertainment monopoly that SVT once held. Not so long ago there were two TV channels to choose from — both from SVT — and you watched what was broadcast. Today the competition is something else entirely. You watch when you want, content ranging from 10 seconds to three hours — from TikTok to SVT Play to YouTube and back again.
Some of this media logic appears to have stuck at SVT. Why else would you make three hours of documentary about an influencer family and its feuds? Because they are famous. And as former SVT journalist Anna Hedenmo notes in Expressen: they want to reach a young audience. “If you can’t beat them, join them,” as the saying goes.
The irony is therefore striking when you have worked through these three hours and realise that at no point is a single question put to the platform where all of this takes place.
The conflict between brothers Joakim Lundell and Christofer “Chrippa” Lundström has been called the biggest internet drama in Swedish history. So big that the subject has also become the focus of countless videos from other creators. YouTube is mentioned constantly — it is the family’s primary source of income and channel of communication — but the company is not asked any questions.
A large share of all the threats and accusations shown in the documentary take place on YouTube, where the format is very simple: controversies work. More clicks lead to more advertising revenue. There is a reason why video titles with nuance are not popular. The headlines that attract viewers are screaming, in capitals, with garish images.
YouTube is not alone in this commercial logic. But unlike other journalistic products, there is no responsible publisher, and the platform does not explicitly approve clips before they are posted.
The advertising revenue does not only benefit Joakim Lundell, Christofer “Chrippa” Lundström, Pontus “Anjo” Björlund, and the others in the documentary. The single biggest winner is YouTube — economically too.
Without lifting a finger, the family drama drives millions of ad impressions and cements the service as an entertainment hub to visit daily. The incentives not to intervene in the content, regardless of what consequences it has for those affected, are therefore very clear. YouTube’s automated systems are designed to scan everything that is published and flag up inappropriate material. But the system is far from perfect, and many videos slip through anyway.
In the documentary podcast Badfluence from SvD and Podme, 16 examples of video clips containing potential violations were sent to YouTube. After review, one of them was taken down and another appears to have been edited. But this only happens, it seems, when they are specifically brought to attention by the media.
The standard explanation from YouTube is usually that so much material is uploaded that it is not possible to review everything manually — and that a great many clips are never allowed to be published in the first place. But anyone who has spent more than ten minutes on YouTube knows that these grey zones are extraordinarily large. And therefore also very profitable.
An obvious thing to do, therefore, would be to hold the arena where all of this takes place to account. Why does SVT not ask YouTube any questions? Why do they not see that it is the site’s algorithms that encourage the behaviour shown in the documentary?
When SVT surveyed this new media landscape, they identified Joakim Lundell as a new power player — popular with the coveted young audience. So far so correct. But they appear not to understand the context in which he operates — how one of the world’s largest tech companies provides, encourages, and indirectly pays for these controversial videos on its platform.
In their eagerness to accommodate young viewers, they forgot to scrutinise — or even ask questions of — the most powerful player in the industry.
“Hatet” makes YouTube appear to be neutral ground. It is the absolute opposite. Almost everyone knows this. Had SVT asked any of the young people they are trying to reach, they could have explained how it works.
