@rrraksamam was that the original video title, or did you editorialize it? I'm asking because on YouTube it shows "Exposing Why Farmers Can't Legally Replant Their Own Seeds" as the title for me....
@rrraksamam was that the original video title, or did you editorialize it? I'm asking because on YouTube it shows "Exposing Why Farmers Can't Legally Replant Their Own Seeds" as the title for me. And AFAICT, nowhere in the video does it ever definitively claim "Monsanto products cause cancer".
It does talk about the shady history of Monstanto, its part in producing Agent Orange (along with Dow Chemical), and how dioxin (a byproduct/contaminant in Agent Orange) causes birth defects, amongst other things, which Monsanto potentially covered up. It also talks about how IARC labeled Monstanto's newer Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) a "probable carcinogen" in "Group 2A" (the same category as eating red meat), as well as discussing the Dewayne “Lee” Johnson/Monsanto Papers lawsuits, and Monsanto's other shady behavior like producing ghostwritten studies and articles. However, one of the experts being interviewed even stated that "from the data I've seen, glyphosate doesn't seem to be a particularly potent carcinogen". They do then go on to say, "but high exposure to glyphosate is certainly associate with a modest increase in your ability to get certain types of cancer. And people who have higher exposures are clearly at higher risk." But that is still a far cry from what the current title here on Tildes states.
Don't get me wrong, IMO Monsanto is probably one of the most evil corporations to have ever existed, but the current title here doesn't seem to accurately reflect the actual contents of the video... Which has me tempted to edit it to be more accurate (adding a "potentially" maybe?), or to even have it be the same as it currently is on YouTube.
cc: @Deimos, since your input would definitely be appreciated here.
YouTube now allows creators to AB test video titles. They have allowed this for thumbnails for a long time, but now video titles can be tested. In my direct experience, Veritassium uses this...
YouTube now allows creators to AB test video titles. They have allowed this for thumbnails for a long time, but now video titles can be tested. In my direct experience, Veritassium uses this feature extensively, and the titles often seem very different from each other. So this is probably the feature causing the confusion here.
Sigh, yeah, fucking A/B tests. However, AFAICT, the only other variant they officially used, besides the one you found, was: "How did this herbicide get into everything?" None of the alternate...
Sigh, yeah, fucking A/B tests. However, AFAICT, the only other variant they officially used, besides the one you found, was: "How did this herbicide get into everything?"
None of the alternate titles I can find mention the cancer part though, and Tildes is the only result when searching within the last week for "Monsanto products cause cancer". So for now, I'm just going to add a "potentially" to the title. If anyone has a better idea for making it more accurate I am on open to suggestions though.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. That's why I asked if that was the original video title, since I didn't want to assume that it was simply editorialized by OP. But even if it was the original title on...
Yeah, I'm aware of that. That's why I asked if that was the original video title, since I didn't want to assume that it was simply editorialized by OP. But even if it was the original title on YouTube which has since been edited, or is one of Veritasium's A/B test titles, it stills feels inaccurate, and a bit clickbaity, IMO.
Yeah, I've gradually lost respect for Derek over the years as he got more and more clickbaity... but the private equity acquisition of Veritasium has definitely been the final nail in the coffin...
Yeah, I've gradually lost respect for Derek over the years as he got more and more clickbaity... but the private equity acquisition of Veritasium has definitely been the final nail in the coffin for me. :(
I understand if someone wants to take the bag but I'm fairly sure Veritasium (and many others) were already doing well. I'm always baffled by the choice to get more than you need. I can't look...
I understand if someone wants to take the bag but I'm fairly sure Veritasium (and many others) were already doing well. I'm always baffled by the choice to get more than you need.
I can't look into their wallets, maybe the team needed this to become financially independent, or maybe they were greedy. Who knows.
No respect lost for me, but a heaping of scepticism about their content was gained. It's on them to make that choice and they chose to pay with trustworthiness.
It's usually about risk, and being tired of having to own the risk. What a youtube channel owner has when they fully own their business is mostly capital - that if things are working well, can...
It's usually about risk, and being tired of having to own the risk. What a youtube channel owner has when they fully own their business is mostly capital - that if things are working well, can produce recurring revenue.
But the key is if things are working well. There's a myriad of things that can happen, from things that are in your control to things that are not.
When you sell the business, you exchange that capital - that maybe - for cold hard liquid cash. The whole channel could go up in flames tomorrow and he would have cold hard cash as a reward for his efforts, whereas it would wipe out the value of the capital.
To add to what @stu2b50 said, YouTube can be super finicky with their algorithm revenue. Once you’ve built up beyond a one or two man operation, to having staff and a professional presence, your...
To add to what @stu2b50 said, YouTube can be super finicky with their algorithm revenue. Once you’ve built up beyond a one or two man operation, to having staff and a professional presence, your views dropping fifty percent (because of a minor tweak to the algorithm) can be devastating. So, YouTubers hedge against that, with shorts on multiple platforms, with merch, with sponsors, with algorithm chasing, and with someone else buying them out on the biz side.
To be honest, I have almost unsubscribed from Veritassium because of this. The titles are so clickbaity now. I’m not usually bothered by clickbait, but their titles are so extremely bad now.
To be honest, I have almost unsubscribed from Veritassium because of this. The titles are so clickbaity now. I’m not usually bothered by clickbait, but their titles are so extremely bad now.
I haven't totally unsubscribe yet either, but I did disable the bell notifications for the channel after the Waymo sponsored video a few years ago, and have been wary of the channel ever since....
I haven't totally unsubscribe yet either, but I did disable the bell notifications for the channel after the Waymo sponsored video a few years ago, and have been wary of the channel ever since. And when I recently heard about how his channel is now majority owned by a private equity company I was definitely tempted again to unsubscribe. And at this point I think the only reason I haven't is to make it easier to keep an eye on the channel in a "what next" sort of morbid curiosity way. :/
As for clickbait, for most channels I can actually overlook stupid thumbnails, and even a little bit of clickbait in the titles too... so long as they're not egregious or spreading misinformation. YouTubers do need to get eyes on their videos to pay their bills, after all. But when a channel paints itself as a science-based, educational channel like Veritasium does, IMO it should be held to a much higher standard.
I assume they're riffing off the part at 38:54 where they talk about how Monsanto responds to "Roundup causes cancer" but I don't like it for a title if so. Especially when you have to watch 45...
I assume they're riffing off the part at 38:54 where they talk about how Monsanto responds to "Roundup causes cancer" but I don't like it for a title if so. Especially when you have to watch 45 minutes of a video to be able to productively respond or critique.
@rrraksamam was that the original video title, or did you editorialize it? I'm asking because on YouTube it shows "Exposing Why Farmers Can't Legally Replant Their Own Seeds" as the title for me. And AFAICT, nowhere in the video does it ever definitively claim "Monsanto products cause cancer".
It does talk about the shady history of Monstanto, its part in producing Agent Orange (along with Dow Chemical), and how dioxin (a byproduct/contaminant in Agent Orange) causes birth defects, amongst other things, which Monsanto potentially covered up. It also talks about how IARC labeled Monstanto's newer Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) a "probable carcinogen" in "Group 2A" (the same category as eating red meat), as well as discussing the Dewayne “Lee” Johnson/Monsanto Papers lawsuits, and Monsanto's other shady behavior like producing ghostwritten studies and articles. However, one of the experts being interviewed even stated that "from the data I've seen, glyphosate doesn't seem to be a particularly potent carcinogen". They do then go on to say, "but high exposure to glyphosate is certainly associate with a modest increase in your ability to get certain types of cancer. And people who have higher exposures are clearly at higher risk." But that is still a far cry from what the current title here on Tildes states.
Don't get me wrong, IMO Monsanto is probably one of the most evil corporations to have ever existed, but the current title here doesn't seem to accurately reflect the actual contents of the video... Which has me tempted to edit it to be more accurate (adding a "potentially" maybe?), or to even have it be the same as it currently is on YouTube.
cc: @Deimos, since your input would definitely be appreciated here.
YouTube now allows creators to AB test video titles. They have allowed this for thumbnails for a long time, but now video titles can be tested. In my direct experience, Veritassium uses this feature extensively, and the titles often seem very different from each other. So this is probably the feature causing the confusion here.
An archive link shows they have definitely used 'Exposing the Monsanto Conspiracy' as an alternate title.
Sigh, yeah, fucking A/B tests. However, AFAICT, the only other variant they officially used, besides the one you found, was: "How did this herbicide get into everything?"
None of the alternate titles I can find mention the cancer part though, and Tildes is the only result when searching within the last week for "Monsanto products cause cancer". So for now, I'm just going to add a "potentially" to the title. If anyone has a better idea for making it more accurate I am on open to suggestions though.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. That's why I asked if that was the original video title, since I didn't want to assume that it was simply editorialized by OP. But even if it was the original title on YouTube which has since been edited, or is one of Veritasium's A/B test titles, it stills feels inaccurate, and a bit clickbaity, IMO.
That's what you get with PE owned YouTube channels.
Yeah, I've gradually lost respect for Derek over the years as he got more and more clickbaity... but the private equity acquisition of Veritasium has definitely been the final nail in the coffin for me. :(
I understand if someone wants to take the bag but I'm fairly sure Veritasium (and many others) were already doing well. I'm always baffled by the choice to get more than you need.
I can't look into their wallets, maybe the team needed this to become financially independent, or maybe they were greedy. Who knows.
No respect lost for me, but a heaping of scepticism about their content was gained. It's on them to make that choice and they chose to pay with trustworthiness.
It's usually about risk, and being tired of having to own the risk. What a youtube channel owner has when they fully own their business is mostly capital - that if things are working well, can produce recurring revenue.
But the key is if things are working well. There's a myriad of things that can happen, from things that are in your control to things that are not.
When you sell the business, you exchange that capital - that maybe - for cold hard liquid cash. The whole channel could go up in flames tomorrow and he would have cold hard cash as a reward for his efforts, whereas it would wipe out the value of the capital.
To add to what @stu2b50 said, YouTube can be super finicky with their algorithm revenue. Once you’ve built up beyond a one or two man operation, to having staff and a professional presence, your views dropping fifty percent (because of a minor tweak to the algorithm) can be devastating. So, YouTubers hedge against that, with shorts on multiple platforms, with merch, with sponsors, with algorithm chasing, and with someone else buying them out on the biz side.
To be honest, I have almost unsubscribed from Veritassium because of this. The titles are so clickbaity now. I’m not usually bothered by clickbait, but their titles are so extremely bad now.
I haven't totally unsubscribe yet either, but I did disable the bell notifications for the channel after the Waymo sponsored video a few years ago, and have been wary of the channel ever since. And when I recently heard about how his channel is now majority owned by a private equity company I was definitely tempted again to unsubscribe. And at this point I think the only reason I haven't is to make it easier to keep an eye on the channel in a "what next" sort of morbid curiosity way. :/
As for clickbait, for most channels I can actually overlook stupid thumbnails, and even a little bit of clickbait in the titles too... so long as they're not egregious or spreading misinformation. YouTubers do need to get eyes on their videos to pay their bills, after all. But when a channel paints itself as a science-based, educational channel like Veritasium does, IMO it should be held to a much higher standard.
I assume they're riffing off the part at 38:54 where they talk about how Monsanto responds to "Roundup causes cancer" but I don't like it for a title if so. Especially when you have to watch 45 minutes of a video to be able to productively respond or critique.