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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody said “good”, but if it keeps existing, it works or at least isn’t harmful. Bit like evolution.
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.
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.
Are you serious? You literally answered your own question with the very next sentence.
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.
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.
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.
Me: “thing like wealth inequality”
You: “oh he must still be talking about YouTube!”
Please
Your original comment said nothing about wealth inequality.