Hacker News Reader

Comment by TazeTSchnitzel | Hacker News Reader

The problem with social media is you can be a complete quack and yet have as much of a platform as someone who applies rigorous standards. Also, YouTube will automatically recommend and show you a steady stream of similar quackery and echo chamber opinions. It's wonderful for snake oil salesmen, including the political kind.

View on HN

Youtube algorithms also optimize for "engagement" which means more outrageous and radical clips score higher and pop up in everyones feeds, more so than a boring science based vegan facts clip would

Print news and TV have the same problem. Without transparency, the source data, repeated trials, there is always an opportunity to scam.

To a degree. They generally have at least some standards, and are also subject to regulation.

I don't think the mass media is any better. I remember the hard pushes for things like low fat diets, ignoring the dangers of sugar and sugary drinks, etc. I don't recall the pre-internet magazine covers being any better or worse than the sorts of things Youtubers push today.

Other than nudity and profanity, are there any standards? Oprah, arguably the biggest and most popular TV star, hosted anti vaccine idiots. And then there are the countless garbage Dr shows peddling their BS.

Not to mention radio - talk radio is infamous for producing Alex Jones types.

That's the problem with all media, not just social media. Pretty much every diet fad and health recommendation you get from traditional media has been debunked.

The only difference is that traditional media doesn't allow for counter arguments. At least on social media, people can counter quackery. In traditional media, their quackery can't be disputed until they decide it is in their financial interest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com