> You’re joking right? Free as in people do not have to pay money to watch his content. Sure, in a very literal interpretation of the word "free", the same int

> You’re joking right? Free as in people do not have to pay money to watch his content. Sure, in a very literal interpretation of the word "free", the same interpretation that would allow me to say "I'm free to not pay my taxes". > 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. Can you not see how much this reads like marketing copy? You make it almost sound like they're doing the world a service by getting them to click on the video (thus generating money for them) they otherwise wouldn't have. Putting that aside, as I mentioned elsewhere I am not convinced by the "ends justify the means" argument on display here. > That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation. They are, but that's also precisely what they're selling. We view art with the expectation and desire for it to manipulate us. I suppose you could make the argument that at least some people actually want that from youtube thumbnails, but I would point out that that is roughly equivalent to saying people actually like the addictive qualities of lootboxes.