What, in your opinion, should the rules be for YouTube Reviews?
Recently, the OCD Hifi channel posted a David vs. Goliath takedown of Constellation. He does not own the unit, has none to handle personally, and bases his critique upon his examination of publicly available photos and their website patter. His video reads Constellation the riot act for their paltry construction and then questions their chutzpah for putting lipstick on a pig and suckering people in. He then contrasts the Constellation by comparing it to Jeff Rowland’s stuff, which his dealership carries.
Personally, I don’t own Constellation nor would I pay $55k for an amp. But I’m wondering what folks here — with intimate knowledge of the differences between seeing photos and handling gear -- think about this kind of takedown.
I’m imagining a spectrum of argument, pro and con this video.
On one end of the spectrum, one might argue for the OCD guy — "Look," one might say, "this is just such an easy target that all he’s doing is calling out a scam based on evidence that is so obvious that anyone could see it. OCD has Constellation dead to rights and he just bothered to make it interesting with a video. He doesn’t need better evidence to do such an obvious takedown. This is called "market correction"." Or words to that effect.
On the other end, one might say, "A channel with 11k subscribers had some duty of due diligence. A take-no-prisoners critique of a product requires that he at least have one to listen to, open up, etc. His willingness to draw a contrast with his own line of products is more than a convenient point of comparison of his video — it’s the main point, however disguised. What this amounts to is an unfair takedown of a product and company to help boost his own sales."
Or maybe there are takes in between?
In short, here I’m wondering about these questions:
"What kind of evidence is necessary for a public-facing critique?"
"What are the responsibilities of a public-facing review?"
"What kinds of reviews are appropriate for dealers to do?"
Be interested to hear from those in the industry, consumers, or reviewers on this question.
@larsman , great minds do think alike! I always get a kick out of those that dismiss it all with one broad stroke. All the best, |
@nonoise, Mike Lindell seems to be doing very well, thank you. Of course there’s still that small matter with Dominion and Smartatic to deal with.
YouTube reviews can hardly be any different to any other reviews, can they? Bridled with both cognitive and marketing bias, censorship and political leaning. And why not, when you look at who its owners are?
Yet the hypocrisy of YouTube is indeed something to behold. So many review sites are unable to play even samples of commercial music for comparison purposes on their channels and yet a seemingly unlimited number of tracks are available for download elsewhere on YT!
As they say, buyer beware! |
There is important news sometimes ONLY on youtube... do you want an example?
Karl Friston probably one of the greatest scientist on earth, is on youtube ... No news outlet will let him speak... It is not conspiracy but it takes a brain just to ask a single question to him... It is the same thing even about any other matters.... Without youtube i will die without news... Yesterday i listen some interesting mathematical news: 10 hours conference in mathematical logic.... On YOUTUBE.... I could give many other examples about something else than mathematic but i dont want to create useless debates here... One thing i know..... For many years i read no more useful and breaking news and reflections on OFFICIAL news channel .... We live a time where , thanks to information control, there is no news save on parallell network....Even YOUTUBE censor now some "news"....But thanks God there is other chanels...
Anyway what is a news? A news is a perceived information for one and a disinformation for others...For me ALMOST all official information chanels are filled by ALMOST only pure propaganda...
For audio matters YOUTUBE is very extraordinary....
|
