Electric Vehicles

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

The point was who is the source of the youtube video first, otherwise you would be attempting passthrough credibility by proxy for whatever their bias may be in presentation of your cited sources, but further from that, you're giving nothing on if the orgs you list themselves are credible. Are they lobbying groups? Landing pages hosting outright purchased white papers from corporations directly?

And thew you go, first link I clicked on from your listed sources is an EV charging network - I.E. a group that does not profit from more self contained, regenerative hybrids on the road. That's context worth having.

Until you can do the above for the channel and all of your cited sources, this is simply a wall of text hoping to abuse the basic appeal to perceived authority most of us hold as humans. 4 of 5 dentists agree.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net [S] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

The point was who is the source of the youtube video first

The youtube channel's name is in the title: Just Have a Think.

The rest of your comment is suggesting I should personally write up a rather compelling case for both the sources and the youtuber himself before it's worth considering watching the content itself, which would in effect be repeating all of the information in the video itself. That is a time investment I am personally not willing to do, but I would certainly welcome anyone else with the inclination to do so.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Qualifying the author prior to blind posting a link is the point. YouTube is full of misinformation landmines and, as I mentioned, you already mentioned one source that would obviously have a conflict here.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net [S] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I'm familiar with the youtuber and find him to be a pretty trustworthy science explainer, and he does acknowledge that one of the studies has a conflict of interest, but it appears to be in line with other studies that do not have that conflict (though he probably would've been better off not including biased studies at all).

But I am a rando on the internet, so my vouching for him to be fairly trust-worthy should not hold much weight. Ultimately people will need to take a look at the studies and determine for themselves if the youtuber is coming to a solid conclusion based on his arguments and interpretation of the data.

If you are concerned about potential misinformation being spread, then, if you happen to have the time and inclination, you yourself could investigate each source and its trustworthiness, watch the video, and come to your own conclusion as to the veracity of the youtuber's conclusion, and then detail your own conclusion in a comment here.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Internet trust is about stacking positive signals until you take a calculated risk to a degree. You providing context of your own history and trust, while not definitive, would have been a great push in the right direction, as you are on Lemmy. Which again, is not full qualification by any means, but says a lot about your general technical competency, analytical thinking and likely stronger relationship with reason compared to the general population.

So just try to give a little beyond a link is all.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

You're doing good work, and it's largely thankless, I'm sorry. 🙇🏽‍♂️

parent

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net [S] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

From my perspective, someone declaring being familiar with and trusting a youtuber when posting their link does not appear to provide a terribly useful function, or add any positive signals.

To elaborate; If I am unfamiliar with a poster, their opinion is practically irrelevant, as I do not know their level of competency in the subject they are posting, their critical thinking ability, their research skills, nor their biases. If I find the subject interesting enough to click, I will still need to determine its merit through my own analysis.

If I am already familiar with a poster themselves and they have shown a history of posting good quality links, then declaring they trust a specific youtuber is now irrelevant for me, since I can already assume the poster is continuing their trend of sharing high quality information.

If someone added "I know this youtuber, he's legit" to their post body, and that altered my perception of whether the video is worth watching or how on-guard I need to be with the information presented without being familiar with the poster at all, then that would, in my opinion, just indicate that I am susceptible to the power of suggestion. You would ultimately still need to determine the worth of the argument on your own, or defer to someone else doing that legwork, if they take the time to present a compelling case.

I do not think it unreasonable to expect others to determine for themselves the merits of a link I post.

I do think it unreasonable to expect someone to do a deep dive on every source referenced in a video and present their findings to a perspective watcher. If that was the standard we adopted here, it would absolutely have a chilling effect on people's incentive or inclination to post anything at all.