Just because you make something and give it away doesn't entitle you to a pass for making the world a worse place in the process. People make systemd for free and get endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, google produces chrome for free and gets endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, etc.

Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they?

The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. The world would unequivocally be a worse place if they did not exist.

> Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they?

You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. That’s clearly his passion and it’s a net benefit for the world. To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. To support himself he must optimize his view count to get his ad revenue to a minimum amount, as well as generate other revenue sources.

This should all be obvious to any functioning human so either you are completely detached from reality or you have some problem with independent creators needing money to live. But then why? It’s a job like any other, except in his case his job provides you with free high quality technical content.

Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free.

> You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life.

Incorrect.

> He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online.

Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words.

> To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content.

Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do?

> It’s like you have a problem with independent creators needing money to live.

Quite the contrary! But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"... with the expectation of receiving ad revenue from our views, a not-insubstantial portion of which were admittedly provoked by exploitation of human psychology.

> Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free.

You’re moving the goal post. My initial comment wasn’t because you criticized him. You may do that all you like without any issue from me. My comment was responding to your claim that he was making the world a worse place because of his YouTube thumbnails.

>> You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life.

> Incorrect.

Prove me wrong, link me to anything you’ve independently created for others online.

>> He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online.

> Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words. Then, lets all take a moment to ponder the meaning of "free".

You’re joking right? Free as in people do not have to pay money to watch his content.

>> To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content.

>Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do?

He’s not entitled to anything. This has nothing to do with him doing the work he wants. You accused him of making the world a worse place for styling his YouTube thumbnail in a way that maximizes the number of people who click on his video. That’s obviously silly when his videos are adding much more to the lives of many hundreds if not thousands of people.

YouTube gives everyone the ability to create custom thumbnails. Should he make one that’s all grey? Obviously not. Accusing him of psychological manipulation because he puts the effort into making his thumbnails more appealing is ridiculous. That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation. Given the option, it’s only rational to make appealing thumbnails and appealing art just the same. Intentionally choosing to not do so would be more concerning.

> But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"...

His content is unequivocally free, no scare quotes needed. Most people get value out of watching his videos. Also advertisers make money from people watching it. It’s a win-win. Not everything is zero sum. You aren’t paying just because he’s earning.

Sure, in a very literal interpretation of the word "free", the same interpretation that would allow me to say "I'm free to not pay my taxes".

> You accused him of making the world a worse place for styling his YouTube thumbnail in a way that maximizes the number of people who click on his video. That’s obviously silly when his videos are adding much more to the lives of many hundreds if not thousands of people.

Can you not see how much this reads like marketing copy? You make it almost sound like they're doing the world a service by getting them to click on the video (thus generating money for them) they otherwise wouldn't have.

Putting that aside, as I mentioned elsewhere I am not convinced by the "ends justify the means" argument on display here.

> That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation.

They are, but that's also precisely what they're selling. We view art with the expectation and desire for it to manipulate us. I suppose you could make the argument that at least some people actually want that from youtube thumbnails, but I would point out that that is roughly equivalent to saying people actually like the addictive qualities of lootboxes.