I think especially when it comes to education and news there is quite an imbalance.
There are extremely good, educational Youtube videos that barely have views. Often from lecturers or colleges.
While other channeles with clickbait, framing, polarization, partisanship get so much attention often undeserved.
I am refering mostly to politics and education on Youtube.
It must be pretty cruel to see if you are Ivy league educated and try to give a balanced take on a particular topic, emphasizing the limitiation of one's own knowledge just to get like 20-30 views for a one hour lecture. While crazy conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones get insane traffic. Though it is not always that clear. I think some videos are not made for a Youtube audience. They are uploaded on Youtube on top and the target group are college students. And the label conspiracy theorist is also used as a weapon. But I hope we can all agree that Alex Jones is a nut job.
It does not need any reputation to shit your opinion out into the internet. For example, I shit my opinion into the internet every single day. Sometimes a high reputation can help to build trust online. Sometimes it is also a disadvantage. There are some rules one has to follow if one is part of the system and the media elite.
The goal of these scientists is not to get the most attention per se (at least not from a mainstream audience on Youtube). But science also follows corporate rules but they are not equal to the incentive structures of the media landscape.
Of course there are trash videos that receive a lot of attention. But are there big channels out there that regularly produce bad content? Probably yes. It also might depend on the connections one has on Youtube. I would say the algorithm is pretty unfair. But I enjoy watching some gems. I find it sad though when these videos don't get attention they deserve.
I think there are some issues. Most people (also me regularly) don't look for the most nuanced, sophisticated videos because it can be draining for us average people to watch them. It can take mental energy. And this resource is limited. Whereas listening to hot, controversial takes can be funny and entertaining. But aren't these people damaging? Claiming to be experts while not having a substantive in-depth education on the topic? I read that in many societies which broke down there was a counterelite. People who claimed to be experts and to know it better than the actual elite. They received a lot of attention because the population of falling empiries were scared about their wealth and reputation. And the counterelites used this anxiety to gain power. But the counterelite simply accelerated the downfall of these falling empiries. And it seems to be fitting if we look at the current state of the US. Lol.
There are extremely good, educational Youtube videos that barely have views. Often from lecturers or colleges.
While other channeles with clickbait, framing, polarization, partisanship get so much attention often undeserved.
I am refering mostly to politics and education on Youtube.
It must be pretty cruel to see if you are Ivy league educated and try to give a balanced take on a particular topic, emphasizing the limitiation of one's own knowledge just to get like 20-30 views for a one hour lecture. While crazy conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones get insane traffic. Though it is not always that clear. I think some videos are not made for a Youtube audience. They are uploaded on Youtube on top and the target group are college students. And the label conspiracy theorist is also used as a weapon. But I hope we can all agree that Alex Jones is a nut job.
It does not need any reputation to shit your opinion out into the internet. For example, I shit my opinion into the internet every single day. Sometimes a high reputation can help to build trust online. Sometimes it is also a disadvantage. There are some rules one has to follow if one is part of the system and the media elite.
The goal of these scientists is not to get the most attention per se (at least not from a mainstream audience on Youtube). But science also follows corporate rules but they are not equal to the incentive structures of the media landscape.
Of course there are trash videos that receive a lot of attention. But are there big channels out there that regularly produce bad content? Probably yes. It also might depend on the connections one has on Youtube. I would say the algorithm is pretty unfair. But I enjoy watching some gems. I find it sad though when these videos don't get attention they deserve.
I think there are some issues. Most people (also me regularly) don't look for the most nuanced, sophisticated videos because it can be draining for us average people to watch them. It can take mental energy. And this resource is limited. Whereas listening to hot, controversial takes can be funny and entertaining. But aren't these people damaging? Claiming to be experts while not having a substantive in-depth education on the topic? I read that in many societies which broke down there was a counterelite. People who claimed to be experts and to know it better than the actual elite. They received a lot of attention because the population of falling empiries were scared about their wealth and reputation. And the counterelites used this anxiety to gain power. But the counterelite simply accelerated the downfall of these falling empiries. And it seems to be fitting if we look at the current state of the US. Lol.
Last edited:
