3 ms·

The problem with social media is you can be a complete quack and yet have as much of a platform as someone who applies rigorous standards. Also, YouTube will au

The problem with social media is you can be a complete quack and yet have as much of a platform as someone who applies rigorous standards. Also, YouTube will automatically recommend and show you a steady stream of similar quackery and echo chamber opinions. It's wonderful for snake oil salesmen, including the political kind.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Print news and TV have the same problem. Without transparency, the source data, repeated trials, there is always an opportunity to scam.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  To a degree. They generally have at least some standards, and are also subject to regulation.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Other than nudity and profanity, are there any standards? Oprah, arguably the biggest and most popular TV star, hosted anti vaccine idiots. And then there are the countless garbage Dr shows peddling their BS.
  - shortoncash 8y ago
    I don't think the mass media is any better. I remember the hard pushes for things like low fat diets, ignoring the dangers of sugar and sugary drinks, etc. I don't recall the pre-internet magazine covers being any better or worse than the sorts of things Youtubers push today.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Not to mention radio - talk radio is infamous for producing Alex Jones types.
redisman 8y ago
Youtube algorithms also optimize for "engagement" which means more outrageous and radical clips score higher and pop up in everyones feeds, more so than a boring science based vegan facts clip would
papermill 8y ago
That's the problem with all media, not just social media. Pretty much every diet fad and health recommendation you get from traditional media has been debunked. The only difference is that traditional media doesn't allow for counter arguments. At least on social media, people can counter quackery. In traditional media, their quackery can't be disputed until they decide it is in their financial interest.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

Print news and TV have the same problem. Without transparency, the source data, repeated trials, there is always an opportunity to scam.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
To a degree. They generally have at least some standards, and are also subject to regulation.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Other than nudity and profanity, are there any standards? Oprah, arguably the biggest and most popular TV star, hosted anti vaccine idiots. And then there are the countless garbage Dr shows peddling their BS.
- shortoncash 8y ago
  I don't think the mass media is any better. I remember the hard pushes for things like low fat diets, ignoring the dangers of sugar and sugary drinks, etc. I don't recall the pre-internet magazine covers being any better or worse than the sorts of things Youtubers push today.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Not to mention radio - talk radio is infamous for producing Alex Jones types.

redisman 8y ago

Youtube algorithms also optimize for "engagement" which means more outrageous and radical clips score higher and pop up in everyones feeds, more so than a boring science based vegan facts clip would

papermill 8y ago

That's the problem with all media, not just social media. Pretty much every diet fad and health recommendation you get from traditional media has been debunked. The only difference is that traditional media doesn't allow for counter arguments. At least on social media, people can counter quackery. In traditional media, their quackery can't be disputed until they decide it is in their financial interest.