3 ms·

> For somebody who is avoiding news, nothing is changing. If you choose to believe youtube, sure, but I don't think they deserve your trust.

jsnell 3y ago
Well, the article is entirely sourced on a blog post by YouTube [0]. If you don't believe them, there's no story in the first place. That blog post is basically just announcing a feature that recommends related news videos when you're watching a news video. That's it. You're presumably reacting to the article headline, but the claim in the headline that "YouTube wants you watching more news" appears to be entirely made up by The Verge's headline/clickbait editor. But ok, let's trust the headline and not the blog post. What do you think the lie is? That the news recommendations will actually be shown for non-news videos not related to the event? That there's some totally separate YouTube feature in the works unrelated to the announced feature that's about making you (yes, you!) watch more news from authoritative news sources, that some buffoon at The Verge was privy to, and accidentally revealed in the headline even though it was unsupported by their single piece of public source material? [0] https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/investing-in-a-multi-format-news-watching-experience/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/investing-in-a-multi-fo...
- colpabar 3y ago
  So I will admit my comment isn't really substantial or that relevant to this particular situation. I also didn't read either article, and probably won't. My opinion is that anything that appears on any blog of any organization that is touting some change or improvement will always describe said change/improvement in the most charitable way possible, because it was written by the org's PR team. Because of this, I do not trust them by default, and will wait to see what actually happens when they make the change. So through that lens, your comment saying "actually nothing will change because youtube said so" just doesn't hold up for me. Unless they are legally forced to do so, I assume that there is always something they aren't telling us, and frankly I think it's naive to take their word for it as you are suggesting.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    I don't know, it feels like your thinking could be used to justify absolutely any conspiracy theory no matter how nuts. It's obviously totally fair to be skeptical about any statement anybody makes. Anything could be a lie. But this isn't the OP being skeptical about a claim YouTube made. It's the OP making an assumption about what was being done based just on a misleading headline, and then you posting that it's a legitimate concern because YouTube could be lying about the totally different thing they're doing.
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      It's important to point out that the vast majority of conspiracy discoveries start as conspiracy theories.
      - OttoVonBizark 3y ago
        its more important to point out that the vast, vast majority of conspiracy theories end up as false

jsnell 3y ago

Well, the article is entirely sourced on a blog post by YouTube [0]. If you don't believe them, there's no story in the first place. That blog post is basically just announcing a feature that recommends related news videos when you're watching a news video. That's it. You're presumably reacting to the article headline, but the claim in the headline that "YouTube wants you watching more news" appears to be entirely made up by The Verge's headline/clickbait editor. But ok, let's trust the headline and not the blog post. What do you think the lie is? That the news recommendations will actually be shown for non-news videos not related to the event? That there's some totally separate YouTube feature in the works unrelated to the announced feature that's about making you (yes, you!) watch more news from authoritative news sources, that some buffoon at The Verge was privy to, and accidentally revealed in the headline even though it was unsupported by their single piece of public source material? [0] https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/investing-in-a-multi-format-news-watching-experience/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/investing-in-a-multi-fo...

colpabar 3y ago
So I will admit my comment isn't really substantial or that relevant to this particular situation. I also didn't read either article, and probably won't. My opinion is that anything that appears on any blog of any organization that is touting some change or improvement will always describe said change/improvement in the most charitable way possible, because it was written by the org's PR team. Because of this, I do not trust them by default, and will wait to see what actually happens when they make the change. So through that lens, your comment saying "actually nothing will change because youtube said so" just doesn't hold up for me. Unless they are legally forced to do so, I assume that there is always something they aren't telling us, and frankly I think it's naive to take their word for it as you are suggesting.
- jsnell 3y ago
  I don't know, it feels like your thinking could be used to justify absolutely any conspiracy theory no matter how nuts. It's obviously totally fair to be skeptical about any statement anybody makes. Anything could be a lie. But this isn't the OP being skeptical about a claim YouTube made. It's the OP making an assumption about what was being done based just on a misleading headline, and then you posting that it's a legitimate concern because YouTube could be lying about the totally different thing they're doing.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    It's important to point out that the vast majority of conspiracy discoveries start as conspiracy theories.
    - OttoVonBizark 3y ago
      its more important to point out that the vast, vast majority of conspiracy theories end up as false