• @Lumidaub@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    Nobody said “good”, but if it keeps existing, it works or at least isn’t harmful. Bit like evolution.

    • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Or there are people with an interest in keeping it that way.

      I don’t think there’s any big conspiracy about YouTube titles, but let’s not pretend thing like wealth inequality still exist because they’re not harmful.

      • @Lumidaub@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        What “interest” would they have to keep it that way if it wasn’t working?

        Wealth inequality exists because it works for the people who have the power to control it. In a way, it’s not harmful ENOUGH to change evolutionarily.

        • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Are you serious? You literally answered your own question with the very next sentence.

          • @Lumidaub@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year ago

            What? The original argument was “Just because it exists doesn’t make it good.”, implying that it (click-bait thumbnails) doesn’t necessarily work. To which I said that the fact that it exists means it works. To which you seemed to object by saying that there may be people who have an interest in it existing - like they want it to exist despite it actually not working. I’m confused about what it is you’re saying.

            • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              You can go and read my comment again if you’re confused. It’s pretty clear that I was saying your original argument might apply to YouTube titles, but doesn’t apply in many other parts of life.

              • @Lumidaub@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                61 year ago

                Since Youtube is what we were talking about, I see no reason to assume that wasn’t what you were talking about. Also, I do think that the principle can be applied in most situations, some more easily, some less.

                • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Me: “thing like wealth inequality”

                  You: “oh he must still be talking about YouTube!”

                  Please