3 ms·

Huh. I found myself nodding along, perhaps a bit hesitant to jump into conclusions[0], but then she drops from a final emotional outburst straight into... a spo

Huh. I found myself nodding along, perhaps a bit hesitant to jump into conclusions[0], but then she drops from a final emotional outburst straight into... a sponsorship segment pushing some bullshit anti-data-broker data broker service. Feels like VPNs all over again, and I honestly can't treat the earlier parts of the video seriously anymore. I've seen her writings here and there over the years, and I remember she was generally respected as an opinionated expert. What happened? -- [0] - I've seen my share of dramas which started with a message like this video, and where I thought I had a good picture, until some time later some critical details came to light and I ended up flipping my stance on it 180°.

kspacewalk2 2y ago
>What happened? Respected and opinionated experts gotta eat
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Are things going that bad for scientists these days? (I'm not just reacting to the existence of a sponsorship section alone - more to the choice of the sponsor, the presentation, and the very juxtaposition of a "trust me while I quote from private conversation" and "this video was sponsored by a data broker company".)
zen928 2y ago
She wraps up the video and unofficially tells people to leave via 'let me know in the comments', then speaks unemotive capitalist brand advertisement speak about a product, and the video ends. I honestly can't see the merit in your performative outrage here. It's very clearly known why people take advertisement deals, and its placement here is after all the content concluded. You can find ways to dismiss opinions you don't like, but targeting individual contributors that use sponsorships to maintain or alleviate financial stability is an interesting attack. I guess if that's your only critique, you have no claims to any other negative critique about her points? Just a literal ad hominem? "What happened" to actual discourse?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  I'm not trying to dismiss her opinion. I'm surprised to one day read her essays and watch some talks, and now suddenly discover she's became another YouTube influencer. It would be merely off-putting if it was tacked onto a video about hard, verifiable facts - but to make a video that explicitly asks the audience to trust her on her world, and then end it by saying the video itself was sponsored by a company? Surely she's aware of the optics? Even the regular YouTube influencers usually know better and skip the sponsorship section when making a complaint video. I'm also not committing an ad hominem here (if anything, maybe some adjacent fallacy). This is the lens through which I view all YouTube channels, and it applies here, and doubly so given that this is not a video about independently verifiable facts - it's all based about an e-mail she claims she received, and she acknowledges that directly. We have to trust her at her word. Now, I don't know about you, but if someone in one moment tells me some information, and then in the next moment starts giving me "capitalist brand advertisement speak" about some dubious product, I'm going to take it as a sign that someone doesn't actually care about my well-being, as manipulating someone into a bad deal for profit is plain malice[0]. Additionally, I might question that person's integrity - depending on obviously they're knowingly pushing a bad product, or how indifferent they are to what they're promoting. Which, in turn, will make me question everything they just told me before - after all, if they just demonstrated they're fine with lies or bullshit now, why should I assume they held themselves to the highest standards of scientific and personal truth moments before? I'm honestly done complaining over YouTube creators; I just accepted that many of the well-known pop-sci channels turned into content marketing schemes. At least I stopped being surprised by exaggerations and inaccuracies in the main parts. I commented this time only because I totally didn't expect to see a reputable scientist doing this kind of stuff. -- [0] - Yes, I stand firm on this, and yes, if you scale this view up, you end up considering the entire field of "marketing communication" (covering a subset of intersection of sales, marketing and advertising) as a cancer on modern society. I wrote an article about this some time ago, which I've been told has apparently popped up on HN last week.
- davorak 2y ago
  > You can find ways to dismiss opinions you don't like, but targeting individual contributors that use sponsorships to maintain or alleviate financial stability is an interesting attack. > Just a literal ad hominem? I do not read what in the comment as an attack, but an outsider to the field trying to judge the opinion they are absorbing. Some people are going to expect an experts to have an outside money stream that comes from their expertise so in video adds are not necessary. That is not a heuristic that is going to be right 100% of the time, but is is not the worst heuristic or an attack.

kspacewalk2 2y ago

>What happened? Respected and opinionated experts gotta eat

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Are things going that bad for scientists these days? (I'm not just reacting to the existence of a sponsorship section alone - more to the choice of the sponsor, the presentation, and the very juxtaposition of a "trust me while I quote from private conversation" and "this video was sponsored by a data broker company".)

zen928 2y ago

She wraps up the video and unofficially tells people to leave via 'let me know in the comments', then speaks unemotive capitalist brand advertisement speak about a product, and the video ends. I honestly can't see the merit in your performative outrage here. It's very clearly known why people take advertisement deals, and its placement here is after all the content concluded. You can find ways to dismiss opinions you don't like, but targeting individual contributors that use sponsorships to maintain or alleviate financial stability is an interesting attack. I guess if that's your only critique, you have no claims to any other negative critique about her points? Just a literal ad hominem? "What happened" to actual discourse?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
I'm not trying to dismiss her opinion. I'm surprised to one day read her essays and watch some talks, and now suddenly discover she's became another YouTube influencer. It would be merely off-putting if it was tacked onto a video about hard, verifiable facts - but to make a video that explicitly asks the audience to trust her on her world, and then end it by saying the video itself was sponsored by a company? Surely she's aware of the optics? Even the regular YouTube influencers usually know better and skip the sponsorship section when making a complaint video. I'm also not committing an ad hominem here (if anything, maybe some adjacent fallacy). This is the lens through which I view all YouTube channels, and it applies here, and doubly so given that this is not a video about independently verifiable facts - it's all based about an e-mail she claims she received, and she acknowledges that directly. We have to trust her at her word. Now, I don't know about you, but if someone in one moment tells me some information, and then in the next moment starts giving me "capitalist brand advertisement speak" about some dubious product, I'm going to take it as a sign that someone doesn't actually care about my well-being, as manipulating someone into a bad deal for profit is plain malice[0]. Additionally, I might question that person's integrity - depending on obviously they're knowingly pushing a bad product, or how indifferent they are to what they're promoting. Which, in turn, will make me question everything they just told me before - after all, if they just demonstrated they're fine with lies or bullshit now, why should I assume they held themselves to the highest standards of scientific and personal truth moments before? I'm honestly done complaining over YouTube creators; I just accepted that many of the well-known pop-sci channels turned into content marketing schemes. At least I stopped being surprised by exaggerations and inaccuracies in the main parts. I commented this time only because I totally didn't expect to see a reputable scientist doing this kind of stuff. -- [0] - Yes, I stand firm on this, and yes, if you scale this view up, you end up considering the entire field of "marketing communication" (covering a subset of intersection of sales, marketing and advertising) as a cancer on modern society. I wrote an article about this some time ago, which I've been told has apparently popped up on HN last week.
davorak 2y ago
> You can find ways to dismiss opinions you don't like, but targeting individual contributors that use sponsorships to maintain or alleviate financial stability is an interesting attack. > Just a literal ad hominem? I do not read what in the comment as an attack, but an outsider to the field trying to judge the opinion they are absorbing. Some people are going to expect an experts to have an outside money stream that comes from their expertise so in video adds are not necessary. That is not a heuristic that is going to be right 100% of the time, but is is not the worst heuristic or an attack.