[equality_1138]

Exactly. I read this as a much broader critique of the scientific community. As YouTube is seen as a mass media company, it's not hard to accept their content decisions. He didn't fight it. I also believe any company that markets themselves as tech industry should not be this cagey about their relationship to science. It's an ethical question not a legal one. Jumping to the legal aspect seems like a big misunderstanding of the piece.

Also funny to question whether the guy is acting on financial incentives to promote his ideas. Of course he does.

[foerbert]

I don't think the financial incentives question was so much a sincere question as it was bringing up a concern about other influences on his position.

I think it's a valid one. Humans are really bad at fully separating and understanding our influences, never mind selectively ignoring some them.

Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates, I think it's reasonable to bring up. Now to be fair, most any YouTuber that's likely to be a topic of discussion has almost certainly moved far past the point of actually being that 'pure' ideological advocate.

[equality_1138]

The article mentions about selling kits, so it's pretty obvious that his videos would be at least partially motivated by commercial aspirations. Yes? I called the comment silly as it seemed to be saying "I not only disapprove of this entrepreneur's target market, he is also employing deceptive marketing tactics"

[TeMPOraL]

> Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates

What do you mean by this? Perhaps I haven't searched deep enough, but to me, YouTube these days consists primarily of:

- Content creators, who are in it absolutely for the money, and whatever channel they run is just an excuse to get people to view ads (including product placement, and ads for creator's Patreon);

- Conspiracy nuts, who may or may not also be in it for the ad money;

- People reposting copyrighted content without having the copyright (i.e. the category that's responsible for YouTube's success in the first place);

- Media companies posting copyrighted content legally to take over the ad revenue stream.

There's some sprinkling of people who genuinely want to talk about their hobbies or ideas, without optimizing it for monetization. And here and there someone uploads some random video to share with friends. But the way I experience YouTube, almost all content creators are either marketers or wannabe marketers.