zlacker

What you're saying is that the high quality educational content is subsidized by the trash.

It doesn't make it net-bad. It makes it an ad-supported educational resource. Is that surprising, given that it's owned by an ad company?

>>scroll+(OP)
It does make it net-bad because the educational content should exist without the trash, which is far more prevalent. It forces the positive stuff to comply with the trash algorithms that make them worse and also forces them to comply with the monopoly of one of the largest, most monolithic corporations in the world that can do whatever the fuck they want with the content. Of course it's not surprising! It's just shitty and needs to be different.

>>elliot+0t2
But the educational content DOESNT exist without the trash and you cannot make a case that it just would, that’s unlikely and impossible to prove.

“Net bad” means the world would be absolutely and inarguably better without YouTube. This is so outlandish, honestly; YouTube at its core is an information sharing platform and a lot of useful things have come out of it. Immense amounts even.