[foerbert]

I don't think the financial incentives question was so much a sincere question as it was bringing up a concern about other influences on his position.

I think it's a valid one. Humans are really bad at fully separating and understanding our influences, never mind selectively ignoring some them.

Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates, I think it's reasonable to bring up. Now to be fair, most any YouTuber that's likely to be a topic of discussion has almost certainly moved far past the point of actually being that 'pure' ideological advocate.

[equality_1138]

The article mentions about selling kits, so it's pretty obvious that his videos would be at least partially motivated by commercial aspirations. Yes? I called the comment silly as it seemed to be saying "I not only disapprove of this entrepreneur's target market, he is also employing deceptive marketing tactics"

[foerbert]

I mean yes, but also no? And I think a lot of it depends on how much you want to take from the overall tone of the comment vs a particular statement in it.

Not everybody is going to read the whole article. Not everybody is going to put 2 and 2 together while they're reading and reevaluate his previous statements with that new context.

I think it's pertinent information when evaluating his statements and coming to a decision about how you feel these things should be handled. I'd say mentioning his financial interest is more akin to a pointed summary

That said I don't think this was an attempt a deception, nor particularly deceptive given all the context. But still, it's relevant. Some people would give an explicit disclaimer, others not. I don't think this is clear cut enough to say one way is absolutely correct.

[TeMPOraL]

> Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates

What do you mean by this? Perhaps I haven't searched deep enough, but to me, YouTube these days consists primarily of:

- Content creators, who are in it absolutely for the money, and whatever channel they run is just an excuse to get people to view ads (including product placement, and ads for creator's Patreon);

- Conspiracy nuts, who may or may not also be in it for the ad money;

- People reposting copyrighted content without having the copyright (i.e. the category that's responsible for YouTube's success in the first place);

- Media companies posting copyrighted content legally to take over the ad revenue stream.

There's some sprinkling of people who genuinely want to talk about their hobbies or ideas, without optimizing it for monetization. And here and there someone uploads some random video to share with friends. But the way I experience YouTube, almost all content creators are either marketers or wannabe marketers.

[foerbert]

Right. I wouldn't put things quite so extremely, and I think many YouTubers would honestly disagree with you. Which is why I think the GP's point was relevant in the first place.

But that's where people end up, not where they begin. Usually. At least that's the perception, for the kinds of channels you probably find most of the HN folks watching - including the channel ran by the man in question.

Somebody starts a channel about something they're passionate about, and are able to bring something to the table in relation to it, which lets them make some really cool videos that most people couldn't do.

Over time, things start moving in the direction you mentioned as it turns from a passion project they expect to go nowhere into a living. However I don't think most viewers exactly see it this way. I think there are a variety of reasons for this, including in particular just how far the medium pushes parasocial relationships. The slow change is also a factor for both the audience and the YouTuber themselves, I think.