5 ms·

> The fact is, if YouTube makes up a sizeable portion of your income, and that can increase by a factor of 10% just by making a dumb face, you’d be silly not to

> The fact is, if YouTube makes up a sizeable portion of your income, and that can increase by a factor of 10% just by making a dumb face, you’d be silly not to do so. Sorry, I don't believe profit motive alone should ever be acceptable justification for making the world a worse place. You might argue that stupid faces and clickbait titles don't really make the world a worse place, and if that's the case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
This guy makes free high quality content for random strangers online to enjoy and learn from and you’re unironically accusing him of making the world a worse place? Spend 1 week doing the work of making free content for strangers online and then you can get on your soapbox about YouTube thumbnails. Until then you just sound like a parasite.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Yes, I am. It's only a tiny bit worse mind you, but it all adds up. Just because you make something and give it away doesn't entitle you to a pass for making the world a worse place in the process. People make systemd for free and get endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, google produces chrome for free and gets endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, etc. Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they?
  - CyberRabbi 5y ago
    > People make systemd for free and get endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, google produces chrome for free and gets endless shit The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. The world would unequivocally be a worse place if they did not exist. > Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they? You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. That’s clearly his passion and it’s a net benefit for the world. To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. To support himself he must optimize his view count to get his ad revenue to a minimum amount, as well as generate other revenue sources. This should all be obvious to any functioning human so either you are completely detached from reality or you have some problem with independent creators needing money to live. But then why? It’s a job like any other, except in his case his job provides you with free high quality technical content.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free. > You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. Incorrect. > He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words. > To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do? > It’s like you have a problem with independent creators needing money to live. Quite the contrary! But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"... with the expectation of receiving ad revenue from our views, a not-insubstantial portion of which were admittedly provoked by exploitation of human psychology.
      - CyberRabbi 5y ago
        >> The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. > Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free. You’re moving the goal post. My initial comment wasn’t because you criticized him. You may do that all you like without any issue from me. My comment was responding to your claim that he was making the world a worse place because of his YouTube thumbnails. >> You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. > Incorrect. Prove me wrong, link me to anything you’ve independently created for others online. >> He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. > Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words. Then, lets all take a moment to ponder the meaning of "free". You’re joking right? Free as in people do not have to pay money to watch his content. >> To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. >Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do? He’s not entitled to anything. This has nothing to do with him doing the work he wants. You accused him of making the world a worse place for styling his YouTube thumbnail in a way that maximizes the number of people who click on his video. That’s obviously silly when his videos are adding much more to the lives of many hundreds if not thousands of people. YouTube gives everyone the ability to create custom thumbnails. Should he make one that’s all grey? Obviously not. Accusing him of psychological manipulation because he puts the effort into making his thumbnails more appealing is ridiculous. That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation. Given the option, it’s only rational to make appealing thumbnails and appealing art just the same. Intentionally choosing to not do so would be more concerning. > But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"... His content is unequivocally free, no scare quotes needed. Most people get value out of watching his videos. Also advertisers make money from people watching it. It’s a win-win. Not everything is zero sum. You aren’t paying just because he’s earning.
opheliate 5y ago
I agree if we’re talking about YouTubers who are already making millions, but if you’re a smaller channel making high-quality videos, I would imagine that view bump is the difference between being able to work on producing videos full time, and having to work multiple jobs. At that point then, maybe the thumbnails do make the world a worse place, but I believe that’s offset by having more of the good-quality videos produced (since more time can be spent on them if you don’t have to work 2 jobs). I’d be interested to hear your perspective on this. Obviously the same utilitarian calculus doesn’t apply if the content a channel is producing is crappy alongside the obnoxious thumbnails.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  The ends justify the means? I'm not convinced that's a good rationale. For one, everyone thinks their ends are the important ones so of course they justify the means, even though no one else necessarily sees it that way. Again, I point at the thread with the discussion of gym membership cancelation practices. Of course the gym can justify that to themselves: it's better for the customer because as long as they're paying anyway they're probably going to use the service and become healthier people! Or even just: I like money! There is an argument to be made that engaging in this metric-chasing behavior will invariably lead to worse content anyway. After all, if there was a lot of demand for the content being produced then such tactics shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Over time, the kind of content they produce could continue to regress towards the mean, which is garbage.
  - Shish2k 5y ago
    > The ends justify the means? So how do you justify the existence of this comment, given that the electricity used transmitting and storing it has contributed to global warming?
_zoltan_ 5y ago
what a lot of bull. he is doing exactly the opposite: sharing knowledge and making the world a better place! arguing over stupid faces just for the sake of arguing, however, absolutely does not add anything to the world...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  You can share knowledge without optimizing for increased clicks leading to ad revenue. Let us not kid ourselves about the altruism of the youtuber.
  - _zoltan_ 5y ago
    I do not kid myself, I said nowhere he is altruistic. I'd do the same thing if I were him - increase my income. If somebody tells me now that I get a 20-30% salary bump right now and I need to make a silly face once a day I ask back: where do I sign?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Precisely my point. Where would you personally draw the line? Would you invent a new kind of unstoppable popup ad? Unbreakable DRM? Would you implement an overly complicated and error prone gym membership cancellation procedure? You can easily justify all that to yourself for selfish reasons. That does not mean that I have to think it is ok.
      - intpx 5y ago
        yea, i totally agree with everything you are saying except that making a silly face in a thumbnail does not carry the same ethical weight (or really any at all) as unbreakable DRM or malicious pop-ups or uncancellable subscriptions. So i guess, in conclusion, i don't agree with you at all and i think your argument is complete horseshit. cheers!
        HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
elwell 5y ago
If his 'stupid face' [sic] made the world 1x10^-9 percent worse, your negative comment made the world 1x10^-8 percent worse.

CyberRabbi 5y ago

This guy makes free high quality content for random strangers online to enjoy and learn from and you’re unironically accusing him of making the world a worse place? Spend 1 week doing the work of making free content for strangers online and then you can get on your soapbox about YouTube thumbnails. Until then you just sound like a parasite.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Yes, I am. It's only a tiny bit worse mind you, but it all adds up. Just because you make something and give it away doesn't entitle you to a pass for making the world a worse place in the process. People make systemd for free and get endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, google produces chrome for free and gets endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, etc. Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they?
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > People make systemd for free and get endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, google produces chrome for free and gets endless shit The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. The world would unequivocally be a worse place if they did not exist. > Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they? You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. That’s clearly his passion and it’s a net benefit for the world. To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. To support himself he must optimize his view count to get his ad revenue to a minimum amount, as well as generate other revenue sources. This should all be obvious to any functioning human so either you are completely detached from reality or you have some problem with independent creators needing money to live. But then why? It’s a job like any other, except in his case his job provides you with free high quality technical content.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free. > You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. Incorrect. > He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words. > To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do? > It’s like you have a problem with independent creators needing money to live. Quite the contrary! But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"... with the expectation of receiving ad revenue from our views, a not-insubstantial portion of which were admittedly provoked by exploitation of human psychology.
    - CyberRabbi 5y ago
      >> The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. > Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free. You’re moving the goal post. My initial comment wasn’t because you criticized him. You may do that all you like without any issue from me. My comment was responding to your claim that he was making the world a worse place because of his YouTube thumbnails. >> You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. > Incorrect. Prove me wrong, link me to anything you’ve independently created for others online. >> He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. > Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words. Then, lets all take a moment to ponder the meaning of "free". You’re joking right? Free as in people do not have to pay money to watch his content. >> To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. >Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do? He’s not entitled to anything. This has nothing to do with him doing the work he wants. You accused him of making the world a worse place for styling his YouTube thumbnail in a way that maximizes the number of people who click on his video. That’s obviously silly when his videos are adding much more to the lives of many hundreds if not thousands of people. YouTube gives everyone the ability to create custom thumbnails. Should he make one that’s all grey? Obviously not. Accusing him of psychological manipulation because he puts the effort into making his thumbnails more appealing is ridiculous. That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation. Given the option, it’s only rational to make appealing thumbnails and appealing art just the same. Intentionally choosing to not do so would be more concerning. > But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"... His content is unequivocally free, no scare quotes needed. Most people get value out of watching his videos. Also advertisers make money from people watching it. It’s a win-win. Not everything is zero sum. You aren’t paying just because he’s earning.

opheliate 5y ago

I agree if we’re talking about YouTubers who are already making millions, but if you’re a smaller channel making high-quality videos, I would imagine that view bump is the difference between being able to work on producing videos full time, and having to work multiple jobs. At that point then, maybe the thumbnails do make the world a worse place, but I believe that’s offset by having more of the good-quality videos produced (since more time can be spent on them if you don’t have to work 2 jobs). I’d be interested to hear your perspective on this. Obviously the same utilitarian calculus doesn’t apply if the content a channel is producing is crappy alongside the obnoxious thumbnails.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
The ends justify the means? I'm not convinced that's a good rationale. For one, everyone thinks their ends are the important ones so of course they justify the means, even though no one else necessarily sees it that way. Again, I point at the thread with the discussion of gym membership cancelation practices. Of course the gym can justify that to themselves: it's better for the customer because as long as they're paying anyway they're probably going to use the service and become healthier people! Or even just: I like money! There is an argument to be made that engaging in this metric-chasing behavior will invariably lead to worse content anyway. After all, if there was a lot of demand for the content being produced then such tactics shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Over time, the kind of content they produce could continue to regress towards the mean, which is garbage.
- Shish2k 5y ago
  > The ends justify the means? So how do you justify the existence of this comment, given that the electricity used transmitting and storing it has contributed to global warming?

_zoltan_ 5y ago

what a lot of bull. he is doing exactly the opposite: sharing knowledge and making the world a better place! arguing over stupid faces just for the sake of arguing, however, absolutely does not add anything to the world...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
You can share knowledge without optimizing for increased clicks leading to ad revenue. Let us not kid ourselves about the altruism of the youtuber.
- _zoltan_ 5y ago
  I do not kid myself, I said nowhere he is altruistic. I'd do the same thing if I were him - increase my income. If somebody tells me now that I get a 20-30% salary bump right now and I need to make a silly face once a day I ask back: where do I sign?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Precisely my point. Where would you personally draw the line? Would you invent a new kind of unstoppable popup ad? Unbreakable DRM? Would you implement an overly complicated and error prone gym membership cancellation procedure? You can easily justify all that to yourself for selfish reasons. That does not mean that I have to think it is ok.
    - intpx 5y ago
      yea, i totally agree with everything you are saying except that making a silly face in a thumbnail does not carry the same ethical weight (or really any at all) as unbreakable DRM or malicious pop-ups or uncancellable subscriptions. So i guess, in conclusion, i don't agree with you at all and i think your argument is complete horseshit. cheers!
      - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago

elwell 5y ago

If his 'stupid face' [sic] made the world 1x10^-9 percent worse, your negative comment made the world 1x10^-8 percent worse.