[shiredude95]

how does this service deal with a coordinated advertising campaign -- most likely also driven by LLM's over a period of say X months. Moderators on subs can be bought out or marginalized, while youtube reviews can also be bought out. In other words, how is an aggregated source a better and more trustworthy source of information than a single blogger who people can ascribe some amount of trustworthiness to over a period of time.

[dawalker]

Great question. This would be a bigger issue if we were only aggregating results and summarizing them, but because we both aggregate and show (in our opinion) the highest credibility reviews from YouTubers (and other sources like blogs once we add them), our idea is that while the general mass opinion can be shifted through campaigns like that, the top end of the spectrum should hopefully still remain pure.

If on the other hand the top end of the spectrum is corrupted, then hopefully the masses can compensate for that. If both are corrupted and all of the data sources available are, then it really comes down to our ability to filter out LLM or promoted content which comes down to how well they can hide it. AI detection tools have been scaling alongside models, so it's also a question if that will continue over time. We'll think of some more advanced things if that becomes a bigger issue for us :)

At the end of the day, if a company can do a coordinated advertising campaign across the internet over months to block out any negative opinion, it's a big deal for both us and the social media/data sources we pull from that's going to be a challenge we have to deal with.