Current Events > Do you think it is impossible for a youtuber to be credible on any subjects?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It seems like no matter the subject any time a youtuber is mentioned all people do is scoff.

I think people mostly scoff at topics/posts where the TC doesn't say anything other than "watch this 30 minute video to understand my stance on an issue".

I think when it comes to niche topics most people are comfortable accepting that certain youtubers are experts on those subjects. Wendigoon is one of my favorite youtubers, and in his little bubble of dark history, conspiracy theories, myths and religon, etc, he pretty clearly seems to know what he's talking about and does his research. Same with Dead Meat for horror movies.

But when it comes to stuff like modern politics, current news, etc, people tend to be more unbelieving, and you kinda cant really blame them.

Just don't be a politics based youtuber and you're fine.

Anyone can post anything on YouTube, so they have a long journey to establish their credibility.

There's a ton of good youtubers with excellent videos and information that are free, some are comparable to stuff you'd see on Discovery or Nat Geo. Thinking it offers nothing of value is dumb.

The issue is that many many many famous youtubers have no fucking clue what they are talking about and are talking to an audience that largely lacks the ability to critically evaluate or investigate the things said. So even if there are some youtubers who are actually knowledgable, the ecosytem largely prevents viewers from seeing them.

Which is why youtube is such a giant resource for right-wing propaganda.

s0nicfan posted...

I think people mostly scoff at topics/posts where the TC doesn't say anything other than "watch this 30 minute video to understand my stance on an issue".

Youtubers are also trying to normalising these 7-10 hours review.

if they were any good they would be out writing research papers or doing actual work instead of posting YouTube videos.

shironinja posted...

if they were any good they would be out writing research papers or doing actual work instead of posting YouTube videos.

Seems like a weird assertion. YouTube is a great way to reach people who might not other wise learn about your subject.

Also, it's entirely possible to do the things you said and make YouTube videos.

a lot of youtubers know what they are talking about or at very least they are close enough

shironinja posted...

if they were any good they would be out writing research papers or doing actual work instead of posting YouTube videos.

youtube videos is actual work,you people need to stop with this idea that if they are not doing a 9 to 5 job under other people then it's not actual work,that is just dumb, youtube videos take a lot more work then some 9 to 5 jobs

shironinja posted...

if they were any good they would be out writing research papers or doing actual work instead of posting YouTube videos.

That's a pretty backwards way of thinking at this point tbh.

How many research papers have you read in the past year?

Now how many Youtube videos have you watched in the past year?

People want their work to be read/watched. Youtube, for all of its flaws, is super accessible and relatively easy to get your work out there and seen by people. If the same amount of research and study will be more watched/seen by others in one format over another, of course people are gonna go with the more accessible format.

majin_nemesis posted...

youtube videos is actual work

Also this. Really good Youtubers are doing the same amount of research that would go into a research paper, while also still writing out their script for the video, then on top of all that are filming, editing, and marketing said video.

Youtube videos can be credible since a lot do do their research on the subject.

But if you make a topic saying a claim and then ask me to watch an hour long video to understand your point, I'm not clicking it.

Video is a terrible medium for getting information across because it's temporal by nature. Combine that with it being hard to quickly cross reference information if most information is presented in video format, and it makes it an excellent medium for mis/disinformation. Textual information isn't amazing for getting your message out there to the largest audience, but it is amazing for verifying that there's any truth in it whatsoever. If you post a reference in a video, it could just as easily be a ChatGPT hallucination. If you post it in a paper, I copy/paste the reference, search it on google or a scholarly article compendium, and have the primary source to verify that it does, in fact, say what you say it does.

Voted the wrong way in the title. Voted yes, meant to vote no. Positing questions as a negative tends to be more confusing and more likely to get incorrect responses, btw.

warlock7735 posted...

Voted the wrong way in the title. Voted yes, meant to vote no. Positing questions as a negative tends to be more confusing and more likely to get incorrect responses, btw.

Report that shit for trolling because he damn well knew this when he posted it.

willythemailboy posted...

Report that shit for trolling because he damn well knew this when he posted it.

What the fuck?

Its more that the title of YouTuber sort of implies that they are just a random individual on YouTube. If, for example, they were a doctor of medicine sharing information on YouTube, they tend to be referred to as a doctor instead of a YouTuber.

willythemailboy posted...

Report that shit for trolling because he damn well knew this when he posted it.

Or maybe just use your brain for 2 seconds

JKwaffle posted...

How many research papers have you read in the past year?

Now how many Youtube videos have you watched in the past year?

Lol. This is comical.

MabusIncarnate posted...

There's a ton of good youtubers with excellent videos and information that are free, some are comparable to stuff you'd see on Discovery or Nat Geo. Thinking it offers nothing of value is dumb.

This. Not to mention there are literal licensed doctors, psychiatrists, teachers, etc on there as well.

warlock7735 posted...

Video is a terrible medium for getting information across because it's temporal by nature.

Many if not most YTers put the relevant sources in the description or pinned comment of the video.

Impossible? No, there are loads of great informative YouTubers like GCP Grey, History Matters, the Time Ghost and Great War folks, and Historia Civilis.

But they're not the norm, and the safe bet is that a Youtuber you haven't come across previously is full of shit.

Ok, seems like my perception of peoples opinions on youtubers was misguided.

One of the channels I enjoy is run by a math teacher who enjoys history and has lead me to learn interesting things about various historical/mythological figures.

Course that's all such niche information that it's not like you'll get much better sources and he's very open about when he can't find something.

People think Scishow or Kyle Hill are not credible?

warlock7735 posted...

Video is a terrible medium for getting information across because it's temporal by nature. Combine that with it being hard to quickly cross reference information if most information is presented in video format, and it makes it an excellent medium for mis/disinformation. Textual information isn't amazing for getting your message out there to the largest audience, but it is amazing for verifying that there's any truth in it whatsoever. If you post a reference in a video, it could just as easily be a ChatGPT hallucination. If you post it in a paper, I copy/paste the reference, search it on google or a scholarly article compendium, and have the primary source to verify that it does, in fact, say what you say it does.

Many YouTubers put reference in the description.

LightHawKnight posted...

People think Scishow or Kyle Hill are not credible?

Kyle was infamous for farming content
Always go to PrankInvasion or WebWeebySurf for real science show.

Poorly posted...

Kyle was infamous for farming content
Always go to PrankInvasion or WebWeebySurf for real science show.

Source? While I havent watched every one of his videos, nothing seemed farmed at all. The only thing remotely related to that, is his video talking about fake science youtubers farming content and one of them tried attacking Kyle over it.

COVxy posted...

Lol. This is comical.

How so?

Frankly, the average person isnt reading research papers on the reg. People want their work seen by others. Its pretty straight forward my guy.

Poorly posted...

Kyle was infamous for farming content
Always go to PrankInvasion or WebWeebySurf for real science show.

Don't they pretty much get assignments from the show runners? That's how most of those large channels and collectives operate.

JKwaffle posted...

How so?

Frankly, the average person isnt reading research papers on the reg. People want their work seen by others. Its pretty straight forward my guy.

That's why it's ridiculous. Nobody reads research papers. Hell, i'm an actual researcher and I probably end up watching, on average, more youtube videos than reading research articles. But that's because your average youtube video takes about a minute to consume while I allocate a minimum of an hour to read through a research article in my field of expertise.

But that's because the information is fundamentally different. The goals are different. Watching a youtube video on an academic subject is not comparable to attending an undergrad class on the subiect, nevermind reading research articles.

GeraldDarko posted...

Many YouTubers put reference in the description.

That's very different from inline annotation in terms of referenceability.

COVxy posted...

That's why it's ridiculous. Nobody reads research papers. Hell, i'm an actual researcher and I probably end up watching, on average, more youtube videos than reading research articles. But that's because your average youtube video takes about a minute to consume while I allocate a minimum of an hour to read through a research article in my field of expertise.

But that's because the information is fundamentally different. The goals are different. Watching a youtube video on an academic subject is not comparable to attending an undergrad class on the subiect, nevermind reading research articles.

I never said it was comparable. The user I was addressing was trying to say why dont they just write research papers instead of making YouTube videos.

I was explaining why they would be making informative Youtube videos instead of just writing a research paper.

Maybe read the context of the post next time instead of singling out 2 individual lines.

warlock7735 posted...

That's very different from inline annotation in terms of referenceability.

I can only speak as a layperson, but so what? I don't think people are claiming youtube videos can replace research papers, only that they can be useful in medium in gaining knowledge on a subject, not necessarily an understanding.