3048
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
3048 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2789 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nobody said "good", but if it keeps existing, it works or at least isn't harmful. Bit like evolution.
Or there are people with an interest in keeping it that way.
I don't think there's any big conspiracy about YouTube titles, but let's not pretend thing like wealth inequality still exist because they're not harmful.
What "interest" would they have to keep it that way if it wasn't working?
Wealth inequality exists because it works for the people who have the power to control it. In a way, it's not harmful ENOUGH to change evolutionarily.
Are you serious? You literally answered your own question with the very next sentence.
What? The original argument was "Just because it exists doesn’t make it good.", implying that it (click-bait thumbnails) doesn't necessarily work. To which I said that the fact that it exists means it works. To which you seemed to object by saying that there may be people who have an interest in it existing - like they want it to exist despite it actually not working. I'm confused about what it is you're saying.
You can go and read my comment again if you're confused. It's pretty clear that I was saying your original argument might apply to YouTube titles, but doesn't apply in many other parts of life.
Since Youtube is what we were talking about, I see no reason to assume that wasn't what you were talking about. Also, I do think that the principle can be applied in most situations, some more easily, some less.
Me: "thing like wealth inequality"
You: "oh he must still be talking about YouTube!"
Please
Your original comment said nothing about wealth inequality.
Bruh
https://lemmy.ca/comment/1271997
Wasn't you then, cool. It's been a while since this nonsense started. Even worse though, you brought up an entirely different thing out of nowhere. Have a nice life.