220
YouTube clickbait is out of contrule
(i.postimg.cc)
I'm sure these freak events really happened, but it seems irresponsib(ru)le to make people feel like this might happen to them, just for views
Update: I have hidden channel names in the interest of letting people know this is criticizing the tr(ul)end, and not any specific YouTubers
Edit: If you're here to discuss any particular YouTuber, please scroll down. I've already had this discussion, and I have nothing more to consider or add regarding this derailment. I've fixed the problem by posting an edited image. Thank you so much!
Responsible reporting would include the cause in the title instead of making you click to learn this basic information. YouTube culture is a blight.
It's literally what happened to the individual. Its not a bait and switch and chubby emu especially goes into detail explaining exactly what happens with a disclaimer at the beginning citing the journal this came from and explaining that this is uncommon but if you do show symptoms after licking to seek medical help and mention you have pets.
The title is very clickbaity. It's only interested in getting you to click on the video. Whatever caused this person's loss should be included in the title.
Even when I plug that video URL into youtubetranscript.com, the exact cause isn't disclosed upfront. It's specifically written to increase engagement and monetization. That's the opposite of credible reporting.
Maybe that's what it takes to survive in YouTube's hellscape, but it's still irresponsible clickbait.
What exactly makes it irresponsible?
It's vague enough to spread fear, it implies that the cause is the lick itself and omits definitely relevant details. It deliberately doesn't provide these details upfront.
I've now entered that video's URL into the YouTube Transcript site, and it's actually even worse than I thought. The script appears to be deliberately written not to disclose the relevant facts upfront, but instead to keep you in the dark for most of the video.
Responsible journalists include all relevant facts in the headline and first paragraph, then may go in depth into methodology, etc.
Videos like this have one goal: To make money
The video series he does is to essentially put the viewer in the shoes of the diagnosis process and mystery of it all. Is it irresponsible when videos showing mystery stories dont lead with who the killer was or when jokes dont start with the punch line?
If you just clicked the video you'd see the first image is a disclosure mentioning that this kind of case is uncommon and explaining the circumstances in which you should seek medical attention.
Overall I dont see why putting all the facts in a headline makes it more or less responsible. You want to know the story then watch it. It's not like the story is misleading or wrong, and his video in particular is pretty thorough in going over exactly whats happening and why.
But then it still doesn't make sense to lead with the dog lick. Clearly, there were symptoms. I doubt they rushed someone to the ER immediately after a dog licked them. That's absurd.
The dog lick is literally what transmitted the disease that eventually lead to the patient getting sepsis and dying.
Yes, but the patient didn't present with a dog lick, and I doubt it was even a consideration to begin with. "Dog lick shuts down man's organs!!!!!!1!!1!" just gets views. It's not really honest imo.
Cool, I'll talk here then. Yeah they presented with an illness that was transmitted to them via dog lick. Still not clickbait. The dog lick caused the illness in a weird fashion. There's nothing sensationalizing dogs, or fear mongering or anything else. It's a weird medical case, BECAUSE it was transmitted by a dog.
I'll block his channel so I don't accidentally screenshot him again in the future. I hope he keeps you warm at night.
But the headline should just be... What? Man dies? I guess that's not clickbait. Not very interesting, either. Almost like YouTube videos are made to be entertainment, with some knowledge sprinkled in.
Chubbyemus videos are some of the least clickbait stuff I've seen, hands down lol.
It's a video made for entertainment and light reporting. Not a journalism piece. He includes the relevant facts, and he breaks the case down on a turn by turn basis. I guess every documentary about a killer or some shit is "clickbait" if they don't tell you who did it in the first few minutes, eh? Nevermind mystery and intrigue.
Yes, congratulations! You've described a widespread trend that I find harmful. This dishonest clickbait is "normal," and that's the bad part, but I've already tired of this discussion
Bait implies a dishonesty. There is no dishonesty, there is no bait.
Hey, if you scroll down you'll see I've already had this conversation. You're giving me no new information to consider, and I've nothing more to add.
Clickbait is usually technically true, yes. Doesn't make the practice any better.
In my experience, clickbait makes wild claims, that don't show up in the video, or are drastically overstated. Like, if he said "dog lick sends man to hospital with multiple organs failure" and then yeah, he was licked by a dog then ate some arsenic, that's one thing. That's clickbait. Implying a weird thing caused the issues, when it was really just arsenic. The dog lick directly leading to it, though, is a different story.
Again, scroll down, and have a good day.
Saying "This video is about a patient with c.diff" goes against the whole point of the presentation. The video is designed in line with vignette cases that would be presented in med school. You're supposed to get the history and presentation and develop a diagnosis as you go.
But the presenter already knows the details. We're not livestreaming the event lol
Anyway, I've changed the post to omit the channel names. It's this whole style of presentation that I oppose. Even major news outlets started doing this at some point because they learned that it gets clicks. I find it ethically questionable, but clearly you disagree.
It’s the viewing experience that’s the point. Would you want every murder mystery movie to be named “the killer was X”?
Murder mysteries are typically works of fiction that aren't exploiting other people's grave misfortune for the sake of profit
So the only acceptable way to communicate medical cases is in 2 sentences covering the context and final conclusion? And the only reason for that is that they happened to a real person?
Please scroll down. This is not a new discussion, and I've already addressed all of this.