HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Veritasium's video in particular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI

It was critiqued by Tom Nicholas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc

Most notable was Snazzy Labs' own comment in the replies to Tom Nicholas' video which descriped their experience participating in the Waymo sponsored reviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc&lc=UgxJvOq1zHhID...

⬐ philipwhiuk

Huh I'm glad it wasn't just me - I was pretty negative at the time: https://twitter.com/philipwhiuk/status/1418582165718192131

⬐ grandmczeb

The sibling comment already mentioned that video has clear markings that it was sponsored.

⬐ ummonk

The issue is lack of transparency over the amount of editorial influence that Waymo exercised. This is why I linked to Snazzy Labs' comment about their experience making one of the other Waymo-sponsored videos.

⬐ grandmczeb

I genuinely don’t understand the issue. If you see the word “sponsored” you should assume editorial control unless there’s an explicit statement otherwise. That’s what it’s there for.

⬐ WastingMyTime89

Most YouTubers constantly play fast and loose with what is and isn’t sponsored content and what it means for their editorial integrity or full stop integrity for what it’s worth - a commodity in shockingly short supply amongst modern content providers but what my culture would consider okay is significantly at odd with American culture when it comes to commercial interests.

Some will gladly view themselves alternatively as maker of educational content or entertainer as it suits them.

⬐ dmix

Is there another example besides the Veritasium one (considering they both say it's sponsored in the video and in the description)?

> This reminds me of the scandal where Youtube science channels did glowing paid reviews of Waymo’s self driving cars

You mention channel(s)

> I don't know what to tell you if you believe Thunderf00t's "debunking" is more valuable than your own viewing of any given channel.

I wasn't very inclined to view Matt Ferrel's videos much in the first place. I was too leery of the way they were presented to consider it worth my time to investigate further. I was wondering if I was missing out, but never decided to really try to find out first-hand as it just wasn't worth it to me.

It was at that point that I saw Thunderf00t's video, and I decided to see what his take was. As you note, I'm a bit wary of Thunderf00t as well. I don't watch his videos often and when I do I ensure to remain a little more actively critical. Based on what I saw there, I didn't feel inclined to further wonder if I was missing anything by avoiding Ferel's videos.

I'm sure that video, and the follow up, were probably some of the weakest from Ferel. However, it was less the actual content and rather the approach that didn't fit what I'd want to watch. Uncritical readings of pie-in-the-sky press releases isn't my thing, and the follow-up in particular made it clear that that was not where Ferel thought the problem was.

> Regarding Veritasium, that is an even weaker argument IMO. If we're going to try to pillory everyone trying to make a living off communicating STEM topics I'm not sure who we'll have left in the space.

Making a living is one thing. But that isn't my problem. I wouldn't recommend avoiding his channel if it was just a matter of him running ads and/or doing some ad-reads.

> I'd love to see examples of him outright lying or misleading his audience if you have it, because that would certainly change my mind on recommending his channel to people.

The largest straw for me was probably the one on self-driving cars with Waymo. For an in-depth look, Tom Nicholas did a pretty good job[1] covering it from what I recall. In particular the comments on that video from Veritasium really shook my trust, IIRC.

Around the same time I also took issue with several of his other videos. The one that I recall now was about some kind of DNA testing company. It was another one where the company both sponsored the video and provided exclusive access. There my issue was largely with how he soft-balled the interviews and even outside of them didn't bring up what I felt were the most pertinent - and well-known - arguments against such companies in general, as well as (again, IIRC) that specific companies actions. These ones weren't, as far as I know, as extreme as the Waymo one. But they - and the lack of any sort of response from Veritasium when many people brought the issue up - were enough to already have me teetering on the edge when the Waymo one nailed the coffin shut.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc

⬐ BeefWellington

After watching the full video and reading the comments exchanged, I don't believe Veritasium there is guilty of anything more than believing studies with questionable funding sources and buying into autonomous cars too soon.

Tom Nicholas' set of arguments are in general good fodder for discussion but the premise is ultimately undermined by the video clickbait title and thumbnail calling several different creators' works abject propaganda. I get it, there's a counterculture cottage industry to be had going after larger creators.

To pick one example of problematic information: Tom presents his argument that the figure of 94% of accidents being caused by human error is a misleading statistic and argues an example scenario that would seem to assign blame to the driver unfairly (a hedge or tree branch obscures a stop sign, road markers have been worn away, etc.).

The issue with this presentation is that as a counterargument to the roughly 2.1 million accidents being compared to, it utterly fails on its face. There's no possible way that represents a substantial enough portion of the accidents to be more than a rounding error. I haven't poured over the NHTSA/CDC data around that, obviously but this just doesn't pass the smell test of "how likely is the described counter-scenario?" However, the overwhelming majority of accidents have been shown to occur close to home during a daily commute, in areas you are likely familiar with.[1] Additionally, it also doesn't square with the evidence that shows the majority (~55%) of fatal car accidents are single vehicle accidents.[2] It's an example of a contrived example that is so contrived so as to be meaningless. In a section of the video with the title "Lying with Statistics" it's an interesting choice to Lie without Statistics instead.

If you don't believe the researchers of the Waymo-funded study were ethical based wholly on where their money comes from and its lack of peer review, that's very reasonable. However, the funding source is less problematic to me than the lack of peer review because the system of scientific study is broken throughout the world, and we often see companies commissioning studies for whatever their particular area of operation is because they're the only ones with a vested interest in examining it. I'd love to see a separate solution for that.

Another example: In his text responses to Veritasium, Tom responds with:

    It is, again, completely disingenuous to refuse to mention the maps which Waymo vehicles rely on when it suits your argument during your initial video but to now hold them up as a vital part of the technology. You spoke as though those maps didn’t exist in the video and so it was only fair, in critiquing your video, to respond in kind.

    A further point for consideration here is the extent to which creating maps/scans for the entirety of even the United States (let alone other countries too) is practical. That seems like a highly intensive task which would be very costly, possibly to the point it’s unworkable.

I would hope the flaw in this concept is obvious to anyone here but there are OPEN SOURCE high-quality sources of mapping information, let alone maps that could be built by someone with funding.

Secondly, the idea of crying foul that because Veritasium didn't mention the maps "enough" in their video when they they responded to him about it is a further example of goalpost shifting. Furthermore, if you're trying to get to the source of truth, don't you think it's wise in terms of critique to you know, BE ACCURATE about what you're saying? This kind of thing should be unacceptable for someone proclaiming to be exposing "the extent to which a creator signing up to one of these sponsorship deals results in them compromising the editorial content of their videos to the point where education becomes misinformation."

I'm not going to rehash the entire argument between them. I think the primary thing Veritasium is guilty of here is of overstating and over-believing how ready for use autonomous cars are. I get it, Derick's ridden in one, so that likely leaves an impression (the psychology of "I wouldn't have done this if it was unsafe" at play). I disagree though, as I've said in other threads on HN, I'm staunchly against putting these things on the road until they're better than humans. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of propaganda in my opinion, even though I disagree with Veritasium on how ready the things are.

This is a good example of why I'd recommend the channel though. Veritasium actually responded to the criticism video with their own points and responded to Tom Nicholas when he sent them requests for comment. If nothing else this at least demonstrates a willingness to engage.

[1]: https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2108966/survey-finds-vehicle-... (I can only find contemporary articles, not the survey itself, though this particular fact is repeated here in Australia/New Zealand with an actual study: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/yes,-car-crashes-are-more-li...)

[2]: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...

⬐ foerbert

> After watching the full video and reading the comments exchanged, I don't believe Veritasium there is guilty of anything more than believing studies with questionable funding sources and buying into autonomous cars too soon.

Perhaps. But even if that was the case, the circumstances around it was enough to destroy my trust for Veritasium.

The way in which Waymo was interacting with him and other YouTubers should have set off all kinds of alarm bells. I couldn't come up with a more perfect hypothetical situation in which I'd expect him to be fully engaged in skepticism and critical analysis.

I normally wouldn't blame people too much for any specific instance of getting caught up in something cool. But if there was ever a time to do so, it was this.

A big company in the most recent field joining the list of perpetually-just-around-the-corner technology, and one aimed directly at consumers at that, grabs a bunch of YouTubers together to make a bunch of videos for simultaneous(-ish?) release and gives them some group presentations and special access to the company. If you aren't going to be maximally critical of the companies claims in this circumstance, when are you?

So even if he just got caught up in the coolness despite the best intentions, I don't think he deserves a pass. I can't just go back to assuming he's actually properly evaluating his sources in all his other videos.

And it wasn't even like we just got a video devoid of heavy review. We got a video with outright non-cited nor disclaimed statements straight off the presser being presented as if they were his own original thoughts/analysis.

The real problem for me here was mostly one of ethics and trust. I didn't feel like the way he went about making the video was particularly ethical - especially without a much stronger level of disclaimer. And I lost my trust in his ability to actually critically review the information he presented.

If I'm going to have to watch his videos with full alertness and skepticism, his videos aren't useful to me. I don't watch Veritasium or other such channels for information that is all that important to me, but rather as a mildly intellectual way to pass time and be exposed to new ideas - often while eating, doing something menial, or winding down for the day. It's still important to me that that information is reasonably accurate, as it still tends to join the hoard of random things in my head that 'I've heard somewhere...'.

If I don't trust the presenter to both have a good head on their shoulders, and to have actually used it in good faith when creating the video, their videos are useless to me.

> I would hope the flaw in this concept is obvious to anyone here but there are OPEN SOURCE high-quality sources of mapping information, let alone maps that could be built by someone with funding.

I honestly don't remember much about this specific point by now, but the use of the word 'scans' in the quote makes me suspect we're talking not about just about something like OSM but rather something more like a curated and processed point-cloud.

If so, that does seem like something beyond the capabilities of the open-source mapping movement without crazy amounts of funding just to generate the raw point clouds. And even then, how many volunteers do you need to validate a map/scan as correct and accurate enough for a self-driving car to use it as a primary data source?

But maybe I'm just getting thrown off by the word 'scan' and this is a non-issue.

As for the rest... honestly I'd have to dive in to even begin to address any of it. I don't doubt Tom Nicholas made some errors, at least. But as I said earlier, this stuff wasn't really my main concern to begin with.

> This is a good example of why I'd recommend the channel though. Veritasium actually responded to the criticism video with their own points

Conversely, this was one of the major strikes for me. Of course responding is good in general, but I found his response extremely poor. Based on memory, I felt like he avoided the larger issues and instead quibbled about specific details that weren't even related to the major issues I had. I was left thinking that he was clearly more interested in PR than in a good-faith discussion about the various issues.

To be fair, at the point I read the response, I was already disinclined to cut Veritasium a whole lot of slack. But his response was about as bad as it got for me, and cut off any desire I had to continue giving him some slack.

> Tom Nicholas' set of arguments are in general good fodder for discussion but the premise is ultimately undermined by the video clickbait title and thumbnail calling several different creators' works abject propaganda.

I won't disagree with you there. I'd honestly forgotten about that aspect of his video by now. Though if you're willing to cut Veritasium some slack on his titles and thumbnails, I'd say Tom Nicholas deserves some too. But really I'd prefer nobody did it in the first place.

I'm guessing his presentation has similar issues even though you didn't mention it. And I agree with you again. I've actually just stopped watching some otherwise interesting videos partway through recently because that sort of thing started bugging me so much. I can't fault you there.

⬐ BeefWellington

> The largest straw for me was probably the one on self-driving cars with Waymo. For an in-depth look, Tom Nicholas did a pretty good job[1] covering it from what I recall. In particular the comments on that video from Veritasium really shook my trust, IIRC.

Thanks for the follow-up, I'll give it a watch (and a read, as I see there was some back and forth in the comments).

> I'm hardly an expert on this subject

What are your opinions based on? I've seen some some "propaganda science" videos, which were essentially Tesla fanboys defending Tesla's choice for some reason.

IMHO, nothing ever is that one dimensional. Obviously those who invested in PHEV or something else will defend that point and I can't see how one can be correct and the other can be the wrong choice when all come with pros and cons.

Did Intel made the wrong choice x86? Did Apple made the correct choice with ARM? Isn't it possible that at different stages of maturity of the tech and the market the "correct choice" can be different?

Lately I'm very annoyed of the science and tech propaganda on Youtube. One of my favourite YouTubers, Derek Muller of Veritasium, was criticised for filming a propaganda video for Google[0] and I'm afraid that the critics have a point. Company positions in the skin of scientific discussion are not new but with YouTube is seems like we are having hard time to identify them.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc

⬐ r00fus

Your focus on Tesla ignores that EVs are simply better than PHEVs. Look, it's a Toyota rep talking about PHEVs when they missed the boat on EVs. So its just like your YouTuber.

⬐ mrtksn

> EVs are simply better than PHEVs.

Really? hard to argue about that because it's a statement without any backing. "Simply better" , a magical "argument".

My focus on Tesla? My Youtuber? I'm not sure if I should honor this strangely aggressive comment.

I'm not advocate of any of those, my personal position is that public transportation is both the present and the future of transportation. Cars are great recreational machines and EVs, petrol cars or other types have different characteristics with different kind of fun(EVs acceleration is amazing but petrol is lightweight and agile, their engines sound is amazing). No, from recreational perspective EVs are not simply better.

This video may be worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc

Side note: I don't really agree with a lot of his other videos. Yet I am sharing this one, because I believe it's worthwhile and am not taking his other videos into account for a context that doesn't matter :)

For me Veritasium lost all his credibility capital by the way he responded to Tom Nicholas’ video about YouTube sponsorships using Veritasium as a case study[1]. In stead of approaching the debate calmly (or better yet, simply ignoring it) he came to the comment section way too defensive, like a lot, basically calling Tom a lair and a bad actor.

Actually that is not quite true, Veritasium lost a bunch of his credibility capital when he made the sponsored content for the self driving cars. I never watched that video as I spotted it was basically and ad and was reluctant to watch his new stuff after that (though I did).

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc

> Where I get uneasy is how quickly SmarterEveryDay seems to have

> switched from a YouTube channel about explaining things into a

> YouTube channel about stoking "Big Tech" fears as a way to sell

> apps. The latest video is title "Is Your Privacy An Illusion?

> (Taking on Big Tech) - Smarter Every Day 263".

This has been a trend with YouTube science communicators and educators for a while now. They're getting hired by companies to basically produce an ad in the style of their regular videos.

Physics Girl did a video in cooperation with Toyota praising Toyota's hydrogen powered test car, telling her audience that hydrogen as a passenger car fuel has a future while ignoring the fact that every car manufacturer including Toyota has given up on it and favoring Lithium battery packs instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hghIckc7nrY It was an odd move from her to hype Hydrpgen cars but her audience caught on to it quickly in the comments. Which prompted her to make a follow up video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWAO3vUn7nw where she's trying to save what's left to save for the hydrogen cause.

Veritasium did it too. In which Derek Muller created nothing short of a propaganda piece for driverless cars and not even just an ad for the Waymo service in particular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI This gives me the same vibe as those doctors promoting cigarettes smoking against coughs in the 1950s and 1960s: Here's a professional often someone who is highly regarded as being objective and impartial who is basically leaving out crucial information to push something either a product or an idea onto their audience that is either outright harmful or not holding up to its promises.

In both these cases it was promoting a technology that isn't working out quite as intended. Green hydrogen in commuter cars is way too expensive and impractical to be able to compete with Lithium-Ion battery powered cars that can simply be plugged in at home, where you charge it with your own solar power or energy you get from a renewable energy company. Green hydrogen fuel which is impossible to come by right now would be way more expensive than green electricity you can currently get at home. Self-driving taxis hardly work at all in most commute situations and if they do, it's only in very restricted ways. Within confined neighborhoods and they are prone to fail due to unexpected situations and practical jokes by pedestrians. So much so that Google and other companies have all given up on these kind of services for the time being. These are two examples of products that either do not exist (and never will in the form they are being promoted) or are a horrible choice for most of their viewers. So why promote them? Answer is the companies pay them to promote them. That's the real reason these influencers lie about why this stuff is cool and why it's the future.

But they're simply bullshitting us by leaving out the issues and shortcomings and by not talking about the bigger picture of the market situation for these 2nd or 3rd tier technologies. They are trying to help them survive against the more established and more promising competitors. The key issue is promoting products that are not wise for YOU to buy or vote for right now. They say it's about choice, but they try to trick their viewers to choose or vote for something that when considering all facts you'd not want to choose. ("Why You Should Want Driverless Cars On Roads Now" - Wait, really? Is my neighborhood and commuting route suited for driverless cars right now??) If the companies do it that's fair, they struggle for their survival, but these are content creators who base their brand on being scientific and trustworthy. So that's an issue, they gamble their credibility and millions of their followers trust them to say the right thing, even though their viewers might be more vigilant and educated to call bullshit as well, so there's hope this will not become a regular thing.

Tom Nicholas did a video about this trend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc

⬐ PragmaticPulp

> This has been a trend with YouTube science communicators and educators for a while now. They're getting hired by companies to basically produce an ad in the style of their regular videos.

In this case, the SmarterEveryDay personality is the cofounder of the 4Privacy app.

⬐ gopiandcode

I think the worst example of this that comes to mind was the video by Veritasium on genome sequencing, which was just a glorified ad for those companies, and completely glossed over the privacy concerns (I mean, literally every interview that he had about the topic was with a person who had a monetary incentive to downplay the consequences).

I thought it was particularly funny that he chose the running case study for the video as the use of genomic data to catch a serial killer (a real won't someone think about the children moment), but somehow "forgot" to mention that the killer was a police officer, and thus would have also had access to any genomic data available to the police, and potentially have abused it to avoid detection, find more victims etc.

⬐ sidcool

Tom's criticism was technically correct, but too nitpicky. I m on Veritasium's side on this.

⬐ peanut_worm

YouTube drama doesn’t belong here.

⬐ threatripper

Drama creates views.

⬐ Ecstatify

Veritasium reply on YouTube:

Tom, I’m happy to receive your constructive criticism, but I’m disappointed you didn’t fix any of the factual errors we alerted you to via email before you launched this video. Examples:

23:42 You cherry-picked this quote to make it seem like the NTSB blamed automation for the crash, when the report focuses squarely on human error: “The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew’s mismanagement of the airplane’s descent during the visual approach, the Pilot Flying’s unintended deactivation of automatic airspeed control, the flight crew’s inadequate monitoring of airspeed, and the flight crew’s delayed execution of a go-around after they became aware that the airplane was below acceptable glidepath and airspeed tolerances.”

32:37 Self-driving cars have maps including traffic control so they would know where stop signs are meant to be even if road markings aren’t there or stop signs are obscured. Plus they have better obstacle detection and avoidance than human drivers.

39:16 I’m not saying rare accidents don’t happen, I’m saying they happen less often than common accidents, many of which could be prevented by self-driving cars. I sent you an academic paper that recreated in simulation 72 real-world fatal accidents that occurred in the area where Waymo operates. In almost all cases the accident was avoided or mitigated by the Waymo driver. Why did you omit this study?

47:03 It’s well understood that autonomous cars properly coordinated could reduce traffic because they don’t have the same reaction time delays as humans. For example all cars at an intersection could start moving together instead of one at a time as we currently do.

47:10 We don’t have to increase the car utilization rate to 100% to reclaim significant value. If cars were parked 90% of the time instead of 95%+ we would only need half as many vehicles.

Isn’t it ironic that a video purporting to call out misinformation itself contains so many distortions and factual errors? (Which we pointed out in advance but you didn’t feel compelled to fix)

On the issues themselves, I like public transport. I also ride a bike, and enjoy walking to get around when it’s practical. But cars will be a part of the transport mix for the foreseeable future. And it’s my opinion, based on the evidence, that roads will be safer the more cars are driven by computers than humans. No one has to pay me to tell you that.

⬐ gooseus

When the Veritasium video originally released I was similarly disappointed by the presentation of the video which used his very relatable Veritasium communication style to present some strongly facts while ignoring or dismissing others.

I think these are great responses to many of the points and simply shows that Tom is also a hypocrite. But being a hypocrite really only hurts his overall high-road image of wanting truth more than money/attention. It doesn't null out all of his argument and if you concede all of these points from Veritasium I think Tom is still making a lot of good points about self-driving capabilities and about Veritasium presenting information disingenuously.

Something not addressed by Veritasium's counters is how all 5 of the YT videos used the 94% human driver statistic without following the source or thinking it through. I found this use of statistics especially egregious because Veritasium is one of the people who helped me understand Bayesian statistics and how easily they can fool people!

I'm a believer in the Uncle Ben principle whereby the more power you accrue, the more responsibility you also take on. I am genuinely upset by the main point about how educational Youtubers are being incentivized to sell their authoritative power to corporations who have a vested interest in promoting their products as social good. I've spent quite a bit of air lauding educational Youtube as one of the best places on the Internet.

Imagine Bill Nye being sponsored by Facebook in 2011 to talk about all the benefits of social networks to mental health by showing how Grandma is never more than a click away from pictures of her Grandkids and Facebook Groups connect like-minded individuals allowing them to collaborate to create good in the world and everyone is connected to all the news across the world, making them far more informed and better able to engage civically...

Today we would view that as a betrayal knowing that even in 2011 there were indicators that social networks and social media may not be the great good in the world that Facebook was claiming.

Disrupting complex systems has unforeseen consequences, I think we would all benefit from some some humility when assuming that planned positive benefits of a major disruption will outweigh any unforeseen negative consequences, especially considering the scales we're working with.

⬐ gooseus

PS - One point that I made privately that I didn't hear Tom make was how Veritasium spends a lot of time describing the plane crash involving human error that could have been avoided with automation. What isn't mentioned is the more-recent Boeing 737Max disasters where an automation system caused the deaths of over 300 people _despite_ attempted intervention by humans.