[saberience]

What qualifies someone as a “top tech reviewer”? It’s a phone for gods sake and some random YouTubers opinion isn’t anymore valid than a random Hackernews commentators opinion.

If we were getting opinions on the latest PhD paper on attention mechanisms than I’d trust someone with a PhD versus a random person, but for getting opinions on the new Google phone? Think for yourself.

[collin128]

Agree with you re: think for yourselves.

Two things:

1. He's held / seen the phone live, I buy online so won't get a chance to before I decide.

2. He's also held hundreds (thousands?) of phones which I haven't.

While he does have preferences that differ from mine, his perspective is still interesting.

>what qualifies them?

19.3m subscribers on yt

[saberience]

Joe Rogan has a lot more subscribers and listeners than this guy, does it mean I should listen to his opinions?

Valuing someone by reach makes no sense at all. Most professors at MIT have no social media reach at all, I still value their opinions extremely highly.

In fact, valuing someone's opinion purely based on the size of their megaphone is partly why we're the world is in such a bad state politically (and in other ways) these days. E.g. people listening to social media influencers opinions on vaccines.

[nogridbag]

I think this is a fair take. The parent comment shouldn't have added subscriber count as one the qualifications. But for MKBHD's qualification, simply use point number 2.

[wiseowise]

Whatever I watch==top tech reviewer, apparently.