3 ms·
"financially incentivized" -> Welcome to the world. You can search HN and find plenty of arguments that scientific reporting by all major journals are biased a
by FrustratedMonky 3y ago
"financially incentivized" -> Welcome to the world.
You can search HN and find plenty of arguments that scientific reporting by all major journals are biased and no longer factual and are just clickbait.
Researchers have 'clickbait' studies because they are "financially incentivized" to get funding.
You are drawing the line at YouTube, others draw the line at CNN, others draw the line at freaking 'Nature'.
Now AI is generating scientific papers, I think we should be worried about how we determine 'factual' sources across the board.
- blueflow 3y agoThat argumentation does not work out - arguing that "proper science" is not much better does not make that YT video any more reliable.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoNot 'science', our reporting of science. We no longer have trusted sources for 'facts'. Lots of science is reported on YT and it is fine. You can't take a study in 'Nature' and say it is fine, but then if that study is reported in a video on YT, now it is in question. The video on the flood above was fine, there was nothing incorrect in it, why is it 'wrong' by being on YT? Maybe a % of garbage rating? But who does the judging?