Can you do that? I mean are they going to do anything? And if they rated a book based on their values, is that really an unfair review?
I only ever reported a book review once, and it was a comment actively endorsing pedophilia. That was one comment I couldn’t let stand.
I recently knocked a star off a book about trauma because the author kept, apropos of nothing, describing liberals as “moral aberrations.” He didn’t even make a good argument. I could have made a better one. It was disappointing because the book was otherwise a solid takedown of Bessel Van Der Kolk’s The Body Keeps the Score - he just seemed more motivated by hatred of liberals than actually helping trauma survivors. And he kept bringing up climate change. It was bemusing.
YouTube is a [relatively] uncurated media platform. There is a lot of dreck on YT, but also a lot of worthwhile content produced by credible individuals and organizations (e.g., LegalEagle, Patrick Boyle, Simon Whistler). IMO, it is a mistake to disregard the legitimacy of the latter merely because of the presence of the former.
A couple days ago I ordered an organizer gizmo you hang from the rod in your closet.
When I ordered it I got an email acknowledging my order for a “housewares item”. Today I get an email about a “furniture item” being delivered tomorrow. Same item. Oops.
I ordered a flow restrictor for a shower head sold as a plumbing fixture. The email said it was a Lawn & Garden item. It’s manufactured by a company that makes bathroom accessories.
Saying you don’t trust YouTube is like saying you don’t trust the radio. It’s just a platform. Stuff on the radio runs from rabid right wing ranting to NPR to real-time sports reporting. YouTube has plenty of of dreck , and also, quite a lot of excellent content in a variety of styles and genres. It seems particularly strong on “how to” and history. Both of which genres include terrible stuff. But there’s also really good stuff in both those genres. You need to consider the source, not the platform.
The person who cited the YT vid included nothing about the channel it came from. Neither did the vid preview include anything that gave away which channel it came from.
So even somebody who knows about a lot of quality YT sources would have no way of knowing whether this was dreck or gold without following the link to the vid’s page, then clicking through to the channel’s page, then reading about the channel hoping to learn if this is a worthwhile source or not.
Unrelated to the above:
For me at least, the big complaint about YT is the vast time for negligible content. I can watch the content of a 30 minute video in 6 minutes. The rest is filler. If only I could separate the filler from the meat ahead of time. And I could read the 6 minutes of video meat in about 2 minutes if it was delivered as a block of text on a page.
So post a written transcript or better yet written summary with the filler edited out. YT has a transcript feature but it’s designed to be unusable.
It varies a lot from channel to channel. But yes, if posting a link to a YouTube video as a source, it’s good form to say who the author is and perhaps why you trust them and a couple of key points they make.
Which means I gave them a click, and thus more income. If the poster had explained all that, i would have given it a try.
Yeah, other than music, or something with a lot of animated graphics, it takes many times as long to get their points across, and then- posters can nor snip and share a relevant paragraph.
In any case, the fact that Walmart has just the same market share and thus “massive market presence” so Walmart could do the same.
Conclusions: YouTube is not a reliable source of medical and health-related information. YouTube’s popularity-driven metrics such as the number of views and likes should not be considered quality indicators. YouTube should improve its ranking and recommender system to promote higher-quality content. One way is to consider expert reviews of medical and health-related videos and to include their assessment data in the ranking algorithm.
and maybe not for political-
and sharing a massive amount of fake news-
YouTube is a major conduit of online disinformation and misinformation worldwide and is not doing enough to tackle the spread of falsehoods on its platform, according to a global coalition of factchecking organisations.
A letter signed by more than 80 groups, including Full Fact in the UK and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, says the video platform is hosting content by groups including Doctors for the Truth, which spread Covid misinformation, and videos supporting the “fraud” narrative during the US presidential election.
“YouTube is allowing its platform to be weaponised by unscrupulous actors to manipulate and exploit others, and to organise and fundraise themselves. Current measures are proving insufficient,” states the letter to YouTube’s chief executive, Susan Wojcicki, which describes YouTube as a “major conduit” for falsehoods.
So, it is proper to remain skeptical about a bare YT as a cite.
And how do i know it is a reliable source from that?