Urgrevling 说:
No one's saying the media is without fault, but I hope you're not saying we're better off turning to youtube randoms for our news. As much as the quality control isn't always up to par, youtubers aren't held accountable to any quality control but their own, or of other youtubers who they're feuding with.
No, but it is being implied that the media is at least somewhat reliable due to these standards, I don't even agree with that. They are allowed to do too much that is completely and factually false and sweep it under the rug for me to ever say that. I consider the news networks equally as implacable to criticism as random Youtubers... and no, I literally never said that. You're implying too much from me here, I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying it's equally flawed.
Urgrevling 说:
Look, I dislike youtube as a medium for news on several grounds. Not only does it create bubbles, the fans of popular youtubers are often rabid. For example, Sargon of Akkad posted a pic of a lady wearing a t-shirt that said "feminist", and his followers doxed and harassed her. He made an
apology video but really should have known better. That kind of fanaticism is created by the echo chamber effect of youtube.
Don't the more popular ones have patreons? Don't they also have an interest in getting views and followers?
Everything creates bubbles, including news networks. Huffington Post, Fox, even BBC have an extremely loyal core following that will believe anything from that source and disbelieve anything contradicting it. As for Youtuber's fans, unless the Youtuber is actively encouraging the behaviour, I consider it pretty irrelevant. Even if I didn't, again, news networks do this too. Look at the trials by the public that happen with high-profile cases. If you're falsely accused of rape or child abuse and the media picks it up, your life is ruined. People assault, even murder, innocent defendants due to what the news said about them. That kind of fanaticism is caused by the echo effect of literally our entire modern society, not just Youtube.
Also, that's kind of a huge assumption. I wouldn't say that even most Youtube channels have a Patreon, although on a tangent I would say that Patreon often makes Youtubers more honest than relying on ad revenue, and as well, some Youtube channels are completely unmonetized. However, even if we do assume that they are chasing cash, which many are, fine that still puts them on an equal footing with networks, not a lesser one.
It seems like you're lumping all of the Youtube together rather than employing those critical thinking skills you mentioned and judging each channel on its own merits.
I notice how I wrote "read" and you quoted "watch", so please start reading my posts. Television is crap, yeah, people would be better off reading newspapers and books. Television is brain poison, but youtube is just another kind of brain poison.
Uh, well I did miss that unintentionally, but I really don't see a difference, so hold onto your pedantry
As for the rest, I mean damn, dude I was joking earlier about the old man quips but... Anyway, the same networks run the television, radio and written news businesses so I really don't see the relevance. You can negatively influence people through ink on paper just as surely as the spoken word.
But yeah, the world has changed with the coming of the Internet and people are increasingly living in their own bubble. That doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and retreat further into that bubble, which is what you end up doing if you get your information from youtubers.
I agree with you that this is the age of the echo chamber, I just don't agree that it's completely limited to the internet. It greatly exacerbates the effect, but many facets of modern society are responsible here. I agree again that you should not just accept that, but I disagree that is what you're doing by seeking a second opinion on anything from one of the best sources of (largely, with many caveats) free information out there, which is Youtube. Basically anyone, from the village idiot to a literal PhD world-renowned expert on a topic, can make a Youtube channel and put information and opinions out there. If you can't see the value in that, I don't know what to tell you. Retreating further into the bubble of your favourite news network, whether that's MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Huff Po or the BBC is just as bad as watching literally only one Youtube channel.
If it's not clear, I'm saying that there's value to both, or any outlet really, with proper context and review. For me, I'm subscribed to a large variety of people, many of whom I could see having pretty raucous arguments if put in the same room.
Oh yeah, and TitanToe is right. Sometimes I get the feeling you look for things to make fun of in my posts, Aust.
I don't, I swear. I thought you sounded like an old man who drinks Budweiser while watching Fox every morning before work in rural America
before I remembered your thing with the wolves.
