What I learned from a year of watching bad financial advice on TikTok(vice.com)
vice.com
What I learned from a year of watching bad financial advice on TikTok
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dg5qz/what-you-learn-from-a-year-of-watching-bad-financial-advice-on-tiktok
72 comments
This is the reason for my strong dislike of online content moving to video. It's way, way harder to skim a video to see if it's decent quality.
I feel like this is the inevitable result of video content having a lower entry bar than written. And even when writing's bad, it's more immediately obvious.
I feel like this is the inevitable result of video content having a lower entry bar than written. And even when writing's bad, it's more immediately obvious.
>This is the reason for my strong dislike of online content moving to video. It's way, way harder to skim a video to see if it's decent quality.
It depends on what people mean by "hardware". If the hardware is comparing something like graphics cards, then yes, text content with table of performance numbers and some charts is faster to parse.
But if the hardware is more physical hands-on like mechanical tools, drones, grills, etc, videos of people demonstrating its use and/or reveal the flaws is easier and faster to digest. ("Picture is worth a thousand words.") E.g. a Youtube video comparing a bunch of miter gauges is better than a magazine article that's just text and photos. Text+photos is too static so the reader can't see and hear the slop in bad products that machined are out of tolerance. Conveying that type of quality is more effective in videos.
If you're viewing Youtube on desktop instead of mobile, the fastest way to to skim is to press the keys 1 to 9 on the keyboard which jumps to timeline at 10%, 20%, 30% ... 90%. There's latency for 2160 4k 60ps videos but for lower bandwidth videos, it works well. If the video looks good, press 0 to rewind to the beginning.
It depends on what people mean by "hardware". If the hardware is comparing something like graphics cards, then yes, text content with table of performance numbers and some charts is faster to parse.
But if the hardware is more physical hands-on like mechanical tools, drones, grills, etc, videos of people demonstrating its use and/or reveal the flaws is easier and faster to digest. ("Picture is worth a thousand words.") E.g. a Youtube video comparing a bunch of miter gauges is better than a magazine article that's just text and photos. Text+photos is too static so the reader can't see and hear the slop in bad products that machined are out of tolerance. Conveying that type of quality is more effective in videos.
If you're viewing Youtube on desktop instead of mobile, the fastest way to to skim is to press the keys 1 to 9 on the keyboard which jumps to timeline at 10%, 20%, 30% ... 90%. There's latency for 2160 4k 60ps videos but for lower bandwidth videos, it works well. If the video looks good, press 0 to rewind to the beginning.
It’s also monetized better
Not the gp but the "Enhancer for YouTube" extension for firefox supports up to 5x (given enough bandwidth) and MediaPipe for Android up to 3x.
Yeah but then you don't understand what they say, so it's not useful.
I guess this is what the Internet has come to.
I guess this is what the Internet has come to.
It took me a while to come across an actually-convincing example [1] of where 5x speed is useful. But the current top HN item [2] is stunning at 5x. Not to mention that it clocks in at a minuscule and almost entirely procrastination-guilt-free 35 seconds!
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh_ukt8g53c
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30312694
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh_ukt8g53c
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30312694
But the truly important question: "Did you like and subscribe, bro??"
I'm sure you can get quality information on YouTube and even TikTok, but it's likely to be buried under all the highly ranked LikeAndSubscribe spam. That's the problem the interviewee in the article points out:
> What's really sad about all that—in my opinion—is the way that the algorithm works on TikTok is based purely off of views and likes and comments. It's not based on actual good information. The people who post good information don't get a lot of views. It's the people who post ridiculous stuff that get a lot of views.
Curation based on popularity doesn't work, and we seem to fail to learn this over and over: Media content likes, product reviews in online stores, star ratings in app reviews, upvoted/downvoted comments. You can't crowdsource quality--you can only crowdsource popularity. And as soon as you introduce an algorithmic black box, you are handing the top spots over to whoever can game the algorithm the best.
Oh, and if you like this comment, remember to smash that upvote button!
I'm sure you can get quality information on YouTube and even TikTok, but it's likely to be buried under all the highly ranked LikeAndSubscribe spam. That's the problem the interviewee in the article points out:
> What's really sad about all that—in my opinion—is the way that the algorithm works on TikTok is based purely off of views and likes and comments. It's not based on actual good information. The people who post good information don't get a lot of views. It's the people who post ridiculous stuff that get a lot of views.
Curation based on popularity doesn't work, and we seem to fail to learn this over and over: Media content likes, product reviews in online stores, star ratings in app reviews, upvoted/downvoted comments. You can't crowdsource quality--you can only crowdsource popularity. And as soon as you introduce an algorithmic black box, you are handing the top spots over to whoever can game the algorithm the best.
Oh, and if you like this comment, remember to smash that upvote button!
I ran into this at a higher level recently. The YouTube channel HardwareUnboxed made a few videos last year where they needed to face questions about the impact of RAM parameters on software performance. They demonstrated a complete lack of understanding yet continually made up some bullshit and claimed they were an authority on the matter. The right thing to do in their position is to identify gaps in their knowledge and research it. Instead they are confidently wrong and selling the idea that they are the go-to for computer knowledge.
This is one of the many issues with YouTube removing dislikes... With the dislike to like ratio, you would have spotted this immediately, and wouldn't need to waste your time.
This was probably by design
"[search terms] + reddit" does usually the trick for me. But I agree that it is getting harder by the day
Yep, site:reddit.com provides consistently better results than a plain search for reviews. An undomained search ends up with an endless list of sponsored/generic "top 10" sites which if you know anything about the products are clearly not written for the benefit of consumers.
I wonder if there could be some mechanism to counter this, like some kind of a button that you can press and other see that you're not happy with the content ... but that would probably be impossible to implement right, no way we're there technologically ... maybe some day ....
What add-on are you using to watch at 3.25x speed?
It's called 'Video Speed Controller'. I try to minimise addons but I couldn't get by without it. 'd' key speeds up by 0.25 and 's' slows down by 0.25. It works on videos on most sites, not just youtube. Also handy are Youtube default shortcuts: right arrow to skip 5 seconds forward and left arrow for back 5 seconds. Tap them a bunch of times to skip product placements or long intros. Just a warning when you use these a lot it will make regular TV unbearable (if it isn't already).
To skip intros and sponsored content, I use SponsorBlock extension. It skips those segments automatically.
First time seeing this. Are the timestamps crowdsourced or AI generated? In your experience how accurate is it? I notice it's got <1000 reviews. I can see this really taking off in the next few years. Thanks a lot for the recommendation, I've installed it and look forward to seeing it in action.
Timestamps are crowdsourced, not AI generated (AFAIK). It is 100% accurate of most of the videos. Since it is crowdsourced, less famous videos or videos with less views won't be skipped during the sponsor content, but we can be a good citizen and add the timestamps ourselves to help others.
2022 is going to be a rough year for many folks speculating on assets going up forever. It’s come-to-jesus time. Inflation is driving real wages down and stimulus is being withdrawn while we’re looking at 5 rate hikes this year. We’ll be very lucky if it’s just a flat year and even then some of these strategies will get killed by finance costs while trying to ride it out.
assets will not go up every year, year over year, but I'm fairly comfortable in the fact that assets will go up over a 30 year period.
why do I think this? because the individuals and groups that control the financial market created it in such a way that they can make money from it. they make a lot more than me, but I can still hitch my cart to their engine and go along for the ride.
barring some huge financial collapse of global proportions, the likes that have never been seen except for maybe the bronze age collapse, or fall of the western Roman empire, I'm comfortable knowing that the assets I purchase today will be worth more in the far horizon (even adjusting for inflation) that they are today.
why do I think this? because the individuals and groups that control the financial market created it in such a way that they can make money from it. they make a lot more than me, but I can still hitch my cart to their engine and go along for the ride.
barring some huge financial collapse of global proportions, the likes that have never been seen except for maybe the bronze age collapse, or fall of the western Roman empire, I'm comfortable knowing that the assets I purchase today will be worth more in the far horizon (even adjusting for inflation) that they are today.
Would be interesting to hear your opinion on why you think certain assets will not keep going up.
Treasury bonds rates are low (especially once you consider shadow inflation), inflation is fairly high atm. Where can investors park their money for some return above inflation?
Treasury bonds rates are low (especially once you consider shadow inflation), inflation is fairly high atm. Where can investors park their money for some return above inflation?
Bubbles pop. Pyramid schemes reach their conclusion. This is a natural cycle. Also starting to seem some bans on wasting electricity for useless number crunching.
But I guess the answer still stands, from investor(especially regular investor) point of view, where can you park your money that is likely to generate return on part/slightly higher than inflation, while not investing into too high risk assets? There are not many options available, ie t-bonds etc are not an option for many
Nft for moment. Something else soon.
Land seems like the default dumping ground for excess money.
Lots of cities are having a high percentage of homes being owned by mega-corps.
Lots of cities are having a high percentage of homes being owned by mega-corps.
Not sure if your suggestion of NFT is a sarcasm or you actually believe it. I haven't seen any studies on risk/potential return on NFT, but my bet would be that average person with some money that needs investing would lose, rather than make money.
NFT is the current scam.
Of course I said that when bit coin was a few Dollars..
people said that in 2021, 2022, and for about decades prior...
There was a 30% drop in March 20202: it just happened to recover quickly once people stopped panicking about the lockdowns. There was no reason why people had to stop panicking though: it could have continued.
Also, in 2018Q4, the S&P 500 drew down by 20%.
Per Adams: DON"T PANIC.
Also, in 2018Q4, the S&P 500 drew down by 20%.
Per Adams: DON"T PANIC.
Amazon lost 90% of its value once upon a time. If you can hold beyond a decade then you have nothing to fear.
And yet, here we are...
It's so unfortunate that kids are getting terrible financial advice from TikTok, instead of from TV like their parents' generation.
To be fair though, the financial advice my parents generation got was stuff like mutual funds, real estate, and 401ks. Not necessarily "good" advice, but unlikely to leave them worse off than before. From what I gathered from the article, some of the advice on TikTok is stuff like meme stocks, shitcoins, and NFTs - investments which are very likely to bankrupt them.
That's true, I was more getting at the Mad Money sort of analysis that is entertainment masquerading as financial advice, but it's fair to say that it never reaches the level of crap that's on TikTok.
[deleted]
HERE IS WHAT I LEARNED SO FAR. I'M NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR.
RESEARCH THE THINGS I SAY.
One important bit is how the guy working in investments keep his money in ETF. I was lucky enough to work in the Silicon Valley 10 years ago and have colleagues that knew about ETF and explained them to me. It took me still 8 more years to understand fully what they are and open an investment account and buy one. ETF are quite well-known in the US but scarcely known in Europe, at least in my social circles.
Most of the people I know in Europe doesn't know about ETF and only invest in it's mortgage of the house where s/he lives. They only know about Real Estate and as soon as you speak about ETF they think you are preaching some get-reach-money-scheme and they ask you stuff like:"Ah so I should buy a lot of gold OR bitcoin?"...mmm...NO...do not buy a lot of gold and crypto...buy ETF which are diversified group of stocks to have a diversified investment.
FEW TIPS FOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT ETF ARE:
1) research passive investing with ETF
2) DO NOT TRY TO BEAT THE MARKET: The chances you are the smartest person on the planet and have incredible financial ideas that no-one else had are practically 0 and even financial geniuses get it worse than just buying a little bit of everything after a couple of years.
3) BUT Warren Buffet did it! Warren Buffet is not just an investor. He's a business man, he got down in trenches many times to save up companies. He created value as war-time temporary CEO.
4) do not invest with Robinhood/Etoro, get a investment bank that has been around 10-30 years but not a dinousaur. https://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/ is available in many countries.
5) Start by buying only one ETF of a very generic market index with the lowest fees. For example MSCI World.
6) Do not buy ETF of niche sectors because they are just not diversified and you might as well just buy stocks and gamble.
7) Do not try to time the market. Just keep the ETF and instead of wasting time buying/selling stocks spend time working as an employee or startup founder.
8) People that tell you that they make money daily-investing should be taken as serious as professional poker player (to be clear both daily-investing and poker playing are NOT profession but just pure gambling and luck. The Casino always wins in the long run. Find something you love that creates value and do that.).
One important bit is how the guy working in investments keep his money in ETF. I was lucky enough to work in the Silicon Valley 10 years ago and have colleagues that knew about ETF and explained them to me. It took me still 8 more years to understand fully what they are and open an investment account and buy one. ETF are quite well-known in the US but scarcely known in Europe, at least in my social circles.
Most of the people I know in Europe doesn't know about ETF and only invest in it's mortgage of the house where s/he lives. They only know about Real Estate and as soon as you speak about ETF they think you are preaching some get-reach-money-scheme and they ask you stuff like:"Ah so I should buy a lot of gold OR bitcoin?"...mmm...NO...do not buy a lot of gold and crypto...buy ETF which are diversified group of stocks to have a diversified investment.
FEW TIPS FOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT ETF ARE:
1) research passive investing with ETF
2) DO NOT TRY TO BEAT THE MARKET: The chances you are the smartest person on the planet and have incredible financial ideas that no-one else had are practically 0 and even financial geniuses get it worse than just buying a little bit of everything after a couple of years.
3) BUT Warren Buffet did it! Warren Buffet is not just an investor. He's a business man, he got down in trenches many times to save up companies. He created value as war-time temporary CEO.
4) do not invest with Robinhood/Etoro, get a investment bank that has been around 10-30 years but not a dinousaur. https://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/ is available in many countries.
5) Start by buying only one ETF of a very generic market index with the lowest fees. For example MSCI World.
6) Do not buy ETF of niche sectors because they are just not diversified and you might as well just buy stocks and gamble.
7) Do not try to time the market. Just keep the ETF and instead of wasting time buying/selling stocks spend time working as an employee or startup founder.
8) People that tell you that they make money daily-investing should be taken as serious as professional poker player (to be clear both daily-investing and poker playing are NOT profession but just pure gambling and luck. The Casino always wins in the long run. Find something you love that creates value and do that.).
Just to point out it's index trackers you're recommending. The "ETF" part is just a method of purchasing an index tracker. There are other ways. ETFs are also available that invest in all kinds of garbage and are not necessarily index trackers.
My take on this as someone who lived in the UK the last 10 years or so: the main reason why ETF are less known are: less disposable income in the middle class/upper middle class(compared to the USA), it was much harder to buy stocks > 10 years ago imho
Generally it's customary to define an acronym before using it. I had no idea what an ETF was after reading this lengthy post about ETFs
My assumption is that it is an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF)
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp
My assumption is that it is an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF)
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp
Yes, frankly though the acronym doesn't mean much and doesn't explain much of what it does. It became sort of the facto name for a stock that contains a tiny piece of many stocks. Instead of buying 1 stock of Apple you buy one stock of an ETF that contains many stocks.
For example this is the ETF I currently buy given by Italian investment account:
iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) - SWDA - AFF
Acc=Accumulating
large and mid-cap
Benchmark MSCI World NR USD (NR= Net Return)
ISIN IE00B4L5Y983
1,585 companies from 23 Developed Markets (DM) countries
TOP 10 CONSTITUENTS APPLE 4.44% MICROSOFT 3.28% AMAZON 2.69% FACEBOOK 1.22% TESLA 1.16% ALPHABET C 1.08% ALPHABET A 1.08% JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.85% JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 0.77% VISA A 0.64%
TOP 10 CONSTITUENTS APPLE 4.44% MICROSOFT 3.28% AMAZON 2.69% FACEBOOK 1.22% TESLA 1.16% ALPHABET C 1.08% ALPHABET A 1.08% JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.85% JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 0.77% VISA A 0.64%
As a European I have a pension fund that invests for me.
I don't pretend to have the intelligence or guile to get rich on the stock market.
ETF aren't rocket science. They are not super easy either, maybe 2-4 weeks of research. It's quite probably they will literally DOUBLE your savings when you will retired. And you will be able to retire when you say so not when the governments tells you that you can.
There are 2 types of pensions funds essentially.
1) The ones that do not save money. You pay pensions taxes now that just go to pay the people retired today. Believe it or not the vast majority of governments pension funds are like this. In Italy it's like this. You IRPEF money doesn't go in an investment, it pays the retirees of today. Now just wait and see what we'll happen with life expectancy increasing and population reduction.
2) The ones that buy things for you. And guess what they buy: usually 3 bonds and 2 ETFs. And they will take 1-2% for that. And you might think: "oh but 1-2% I can give awayt if I do not have to care about anything". In practice though ETFs return 5-8% per year when kept for decades and the earnings are averaged. So the pension fund takes 1-2% from 5-8% which is 20-30%. On top of that there is compounding interest. When you will have retired it's likely you will have given away half of your savings to the company managing the pension fund/retiring plan.
Watch this video from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver that explains the last concept very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvZSpET11ZY
AS USUAL, DO NOT JUST TRUST ME, RESEARCH WHAT I SAID (AND NOT ON TIK TOK)
There are 2 types of pensions funds essentially.
1) The ones that do not save money. You pay pensions taxes now that just go to pay the people retired today. Believe it or not the vast majority of governments pension funds are like this. In Italy it's like this. You IRPEF money doesn't go in an investment, it pays the retirees of today. Now just wait and see what we'll happen with life expectancy increasing and population reduction.
2) The ones that buy things for you. And guess what they buy: usually 3 bonds and 2 ETFs. And they will take 1-2% for that. And you might think: "oh but 1-2% I can give awayt if I do not have to care about anything". In practice though ETFs return 5-8% per year when kept for decades and the earnings are averaged. So the pension fund takes 1-2% from 5-8% which is 20-30%. On top of that there is compounding interest. When you will have retired it's likely you will have given away half of your savings to the company managing the pension fund/retiring plan.
Watch this video from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver that explains the last concept very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvZSpET11ZY
AS USUAL, DO NOT JUST TRUST ME, RESEARCH WHAT I SAID (AND NOT ON TIK TOK)
There are many pension funds out there with varying degrees of performance. Just like with your health, in matters of personal finance you have to be an active participant and your own agent. Even if that means picking around for the best pension fund for you.
Not sure where you are but you can often check where your money is invested and change funds
> Not sure where you are but you can often check where your money is invested and change funds
I did and I found out they just buy 3 bonds and 2 ETFs. Very standard stuff. You can learn enough about bonds and ETFs to buy them yourselves and literally save HALF of your savings at retirement time.
I did and I found out they just buy 3 bonds and 2 ETFs. Very standard stuff. You can learn enough about bonds and ETFs to buy them yourselves and literally save HALF of your savings at retirement time.
This is typical in Spain too. If you have any kind of investiment you're mostly some kind of evil libertarian. It's basically what people is being told by the local press, so...
I'm moving to Valencia this summer! I'll use the Beckam Law and take a mortage.
If you are available I would love to ask you some financial questions about Spain! Please write me if you have time: g i o r g i o z a m p a r e l l i AT gmail DOT com (without spaces :)
Im not the guy to take financial advice. The best place for that are Rankia forums.
I don't want to give you financial advice neither receive it.
If you have bought a house or done a mortgage I just wanted to know how is the process in Spain!
I just invest in ETFs & Stocks, and a bit of playing in Etoro, and I have money in a roboadvisor, so I can't help you in that. Again, in Spain, the best place for asking for financial help, aside from professional, is the Rankia.com forum.
> HERE IS WHAT I LEARNED SO FAR. I'M NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR. RESEARCH THE THINGS I SAY.
Most of personal finance can fit on a very small piece of paper. While the advice is slightly US-centric, I think it's fairly universal (it works for us Canadians):
For Canadians: 401(k) ~ RRSP, (Roth) IRA ~ TFSA, 529 account ~ RESP.
The 20% seems high, (retired) actuary Fred Vettese recently came out with a good book, The Rule of 30:
> Easy: Save an amount equal to 30% of gross income, minus the amount you are paying towards a mortgage or rent, minus extraordinary short-term expenses like daycare costs.
> The rule aims to strike a better balance between competing financial priorities. It also makes it easier to decide how much to set aside each year, and is more realistic and achievable than saving a flat percentage of pay, especially during the expensive childcare years.
> This is all about consumption smoothing – not depriving oneself of a standard of living during the years of juggling competing financial goals. It backloads the high savings rate to later years when childcare expenses are long gone and the mortgage or rent payments make up a much smaller percentage of your gross income.
* https://boomerandecho.com/the-rule-of-30-book-review/
Also, there is some 'rule of thumb' floating around that says who need 70% of your pre-retirement income. This is inaccurate as Vettese and others show:
* https://findependencehub.com/qa-with-author-david-aston-abou...
* https://pmac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/07-02-series-ari...
If during working life you had/have a mortgage and kids, you may only need as little as 40%. MacDonald has published a bunch of research on this:
* https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/library/newsletters/...
* https://econpapers.repec.org/article/cupastinb/v_3a46_3ay_3a...
Most of personal finance can fit on a very small piece of paper. While the advice is slightly US-centric, I think it's fairly universal (it works for us Canadians):
The original index card, pictured above, has:[9]
1. Max your 401(k) or equivalent employee contribution.
2. Buy inexpensive, well-diversified mutual funds such as Vanguard Target 20xx funds.
3. Never buy or sell an individual security. The person on the other side of the table knows more than you do about this stuff.
4. Save 20% of your money.
5. Pay your credit card balance in full every month.
6. Maximize tax-advantaged savings vehicles like Roth, SEP and 529 accounts.
7. Pay attention to fees. Avoid actively managed funds.
8. Make financial advisors commit to the fiduciary standard.
9. Promote social insurance programs to help people when things go wrong.
For Canadians: 401(k) ~ RRSP, (Roth) IRA ~ TFSA, 529 account ~ RESP.
The 20% seems high, (retired) actuary Fred Vettese recently came out with a good book, The Rule of 30:
> Easy: Save an amount equal to 30% of gross income, minus the amount you are paying towards a mortgage or rent, minus extraordinary short-term expenses like daycare costs.
> The rule aims to strike a better balance between competing financial priorities. It also makes it easier to decide how much to set aside each year, and is more realistic and achievable than saving a flat percentage of pay, especially during the expensive childcare years.
> This is all about consumption smoothing – not depriving oneself of a standard of living during the years of juggling competing financial goals. It backloads the high savings rate to later years when childcare expenses are long gone and the mortgage or rent payments make up a much smaller percentage of your gross income.
* https://boomerandecho.com/the-rule-of-30-book-review/
Also, there is some 'rule of thumb' floating around that says who need 70% of your pre-retirement income. This is inaccurate as Vettese and others show:
* https://findependencehub.com/qa-with-author-david-aston-abou...
* https://pmac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/07-02-series-ari...
If during working life you had/have a mortgage and kids, you may only need as little as 40%. MacDonald has published a bunch of research on this:
* https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/library/newsletters/...
* https://econpapers.repec.org/article/cupastinb/v_3a46_3ay_3a...
While “maximizing” is a vague word, truly maximizing contributions to various retirement plans is out of reach for most people.
The median individual income in the US is about $36k. Maxing out just a 401k is about $20k.
The median individual income in the US is about $36k. Maxing out just a 401k is about $20k.
Nick Maggiulli:
> But seriously, his advice has little to nothing to do with how he retired early. The reason his advice misses the mark is simple:
>> All the expense tracking and goal setting in the world cannot make up for an insufficient balance.
* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-biggest-lie-in-personal-fin...
But we're on HN, so I would hazard to guess most folks reading/posting around these here parts have higher-than-average income.
> But seriously, his advice has little to nothing to do with how he retired early. The reason his advice misses the mark is simple:
>> All the expense tracking and goal setting in the world cannot make up for an insufficient balance.
* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-biggest-lie-in-personal-fin...
But we're on HN, so I would hazard to guess most folks reading/posting around these here parts have higher-than-average income.
Sounds like there is real money to be made by giving out horrible advice on TikTok at next to no risk.
Or CNBC.
Or fox news. Ever notice how many commercials for gold/silver they play? It feels predatory
I also feel sorry for those polar bears, bald kids, and puppies.
IN THE AAARMS OOOF AN ANGEL
So it's always, buy low, sell high.
They totally forgot, pick the right numbers at the lottery and always bet on the winner.
They totally forgot, pick the right numbers at the lottery and always bet on the winner.
I wonder if we will ever have fact checking regulation that every media outlet needs to conform to.
A German comedian once stated that an esoteric could claim more BS in 5 minutes than a scientist could disprove in one lifetime.
I know there is a YouTube series from renowned lecturers that discuss the same concept, but sadly can't find it right now.
The problem is that any instrument being introduced could be abused for censorship as well.
As much as I would like to have some things in place to counter the amount of BS in social media or on YouTube I fear it would backfire.
I think much would be gained if the platforms dismantled their algorithms optimized for engagement that lead people down a rabbit hole of more extreme content. Because in the end statistically this leads to more ad revenue from more clicks.
I know there is a YouTube series from renowned lecturers that discuss the same concept, but sadly can't find it right now.
The problem is that any instrument being introduced could be abused for censorship as well.
As much as I would like to have some things in place to counter the amount of BS in social media or on YouTube I fear it would backfire.
I think much would be gained if the platforms dismantled their algorithms optimized for engagement that lead people down a rabbit hole of more extreme content. Because in the end statistically this leads to more ad revenue from more clicks.
Addendum:
I found the lecture on YouTube [1]. The lecturers made a book from the lecture [2].
[1]: https://youtu.be/A2OtU5vlR0k [2]: https://www.callingbullshit.org/
I found the lecture on YouTube [1]. The lecturers made a book from the lecture [2].
[1]: https://youtu.be/A2OtU5vlR0k [2]: https://www.callingbullshit.org/
Not exactly what you are looking for but MIT has a partially animated series on YouTube about econometrics that is excellent.
Yes, I call it a denial of service attack. Not sure what the solution is.
It wouldn't work. How and which facts are presented can shape whatever narrative the presenter wants.
In topics like science, the 'when' also matters because what we consider facts can change over time as more studies are done.
In topics like science, the 'when' also matters because what we consider facts can change over time as more studies are done.
Would it be fair to describe such a regulation as a law that abridges, in any way, the freedom of the press?
If so you will need a massive and bipartisan political effort for it to be so, at least in any US jurisdiction.
If so you will need a massive and bipartisan political effort for it to be so, at least in any US jurisdiction.
Nope.
It's not possible logistically or politically. Assuming we're talking about the USA, any such body would likely end up as a federal agency, which means it would turn into a political football whenever administrations change over. Each administration would have its own personal approach to the fact-checking, which means that even if you trust politicians (lololol), the fact-checks wouldn't be consistent.
The only way to avoid this would be for Congress to be really specific in drafting the legislation, but Congress has incentive not to touch the topic.
It's not possible logistically or politically. Assuming we're talking about the USA, any such body would likely end up as a federal agency, which means it would turn into a political football whenever administrations change over. Each administration would have its own personal approach to the fact-checking, which means that even if you trust politicians (lololol), the fact-checks wouldn't be consistent.
The only way to avoid this would be for Congress to be really specific in drafting the legislation, but Congress has incentive not to touch the topic.
Can't edit anymore, should have elaborated more:
I'm not suggesting we need this for many reasons, I'm wondering how this will evolve.
FB, Insta,TikTok, newspapers etc have these issues, many opportunists hiding behind the fact that scale fact checking is HARD.
I'm just cynical and fear governments jump in with the a hammer called regulation.
Will there ever be enough ponzi schemes were the governments will say "enough"?
I don’t think this will help. Everything will be posted as an opinion or with lots of question marks.
Also, what is a fact? Who determines it? And: we need unpopular opinions for innovations.
Also, what is a fact? Who determines it? And: we need unpopular opinions for innovations.
China already has this :/
The key to the success of this video (and others) was that the presenter was nothing more than a salesperson, not for the product they were talking about, but for themselves.
They're trying to sell themselves as experts, and if we're not careful, we end up trusting them and paying (with our time).
I got duped, but it's a continual arms race between viewers looking for useful content, and facile content creators trying to game the system by imitating the hallmarks of great content without any substance to back it up.