Any title will change the state of the reader's mind. The question is what is the split of benefits or harms between the reader and the writer. This goes beyo

Any title will change the state of the reader's mind. The question is what is the split of benefits or harms between the reader and the writer. This goes beyond Youtube, and even interactions motivated by money. This is an area where I was initially very bothered, but over time have arrived at the opinion that it is very nuanced, and that things like this can be incredibly positive. If I go to the grocery store, they have a display of fruit, and I decide to buy a few, I have been manipulated. They were motivated by profit (sell more fruit). This required consuming some of my attention (I had intended to go to the store and buy different items). However, both I (yummy healthy fruit) and the grocery store (money to owners, employees, suppliers) benefit from this interaction. There are other types of interactions where one or more parties are negatively affected in the sum of the overall interaction. This are obviously bad, but are besides the point. If someone has a product with the highest value for the opportunity cost, I want to be manipulated into using it. However I also want to avoid manipulation where I gain little, zero, or negative benefit. It's a complicated problem, and I have found that the maximum benefit to me (and everyone involved) sits squarely (and very annoyingly) in the grey area. As for Veritasium, I have watched his videos for roughly a decade. Any video of his in my subscription feed is going to be watched. Any increase in viewership which allows him to increase his budget and quality only benefits me, provided he's behaving ethically. I see from this video that he's examining the problem and at least trying to be ethical, which I appreciate.