zlacker

>>ra7+(OP)
Towards the end the author talks about how Google News doesn't do a good job of actively promoting good, well researched content. I wonder why YouTube doesn't face this same problem. I know it's very subjective, but I've managed to find a plethora of incredibly well made videos on YouTube. It used to have a much worse clickbait problem in the past but at least in the last few years I've usually been able to .

I suppose it comes down to 2 main differences.

1. It's much easier to post a good looking but badly researched piece of writing than it is to make a good video. So it's hard to tell before clicking or investing time in reading something that it's good.

2. Google knows everything about a YouTube video's metrics so can base recommendations off of much more information than it can over just the click through rate that it knows about articles on Google News. So articles with high click through rate will be recommended regardless of whether they're actually high quality which incentivizes clickbait. Meanwhile a YouTube video with high click through rate but terrible audience retention won't be recommended.

>>xmprt+jl1
> I wonder why YouTube doesn't face this same problem.

Could be personalisation. It could be that you habitually reach out to same high quality sources(channels) and hence YT promotes those to your profile more aka the bubble.

Contrast to my uncle, always getting right wing garbage, plenty of conspiracy and “what-if-ism” and promotion of private insurance/hearing aids etc.