Wikipedia sells information (in the form of "Donate or this could all go away") and is financially incentivized to make that information comprehensive and high quality. YouTube sells influence, and it is precisely that practice I object to.
Think about the videos on your homepage, in your recommended videos, which publishers you hear from immediately and which disappeared. I can see it trying to manipulate me.
There are billions of videos on YouTube with millions getting added every day.
YouTube has to decide what to put in front of you.
I know many people who spend 10 hours+ a day just listening to inflammatory content
It's also not just the consumers. So many great educational channels have been forced to appeal to click bait or lower quality content because of the nature of the platform
I disagree, shouldn't be used even for entertainment. Going to YouTube for entertainment and relying on it to guide you is how you end up being radicalised on certain topics.
Huntrx singing soda pop, Lego singing soda pop, Sonic singing soda pop, ponies singing soda pop… the amount of slop there is brutal
. I literally don’t see any way to approach it except just banning YouTube and downloading and curating videos in advance.
aeternum•1mo ago
They could easily require creators to label videos that have AI-generated video and also build detection tools themselves. Will they?
add-sub-mul-div•1mo ago
blibble•1mo ago
at which point they won't have to pay pesky creators