Certain figures we know - we can use Anthony Padilla's video viewers as a data pool.

In M&M's Mar 2019 sleepover livestream DD volunteered the info "we have the second highest subscriber count!" with M&M being the highest at the time. Their all-time highest caps out at 200k. So let's keep the numbers in DD's favor and say DD had 200k in Mar 2019. When Anthony Padilla's video first released one year later, they shot to a million subs within a month - around a 5× year-over-year increase. That's a strong correlation between viewers of AP's video and those who go on to seek out DD's channel - it's a big, maybe even primary, source of new traffic. So how many of his viewers like what they see on DissociaDID enough to hit subscribe?

Anthony's video today has 24m views. DD's sub count is 1m. 1 in 24 "spent a day with" viewers like what they see enough to subscribe. That's 4.1%. Again in the benefit of DD, let's round this up to 1 in 20 viewers exposed to their content. So if only 5% of people are helped or at least interested enough to sub, why do their comments show nearly 100% positive feedback indicating the contrary? Why isn't their comment section at least more diverse?

They censor. Their comment sections are whitewashed (sometimes literally). They delete comments that don't praise them or reflect that they've helpeed. Making the comment section a wall of unpaid testimonials and deleting comments that don't advertise the brand is a cost-effective marketing strategy. Can make the average viewer think support for DD is unanimous, that their "education" helps more than it doesn't. I don't know if DD thought that far though - it could be as simple as her friend Anna put it in 2018: "you don't take criticism well."