• @eskimofry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -51 year ago

    You must think marketing is made of infallible geniuses. Just because it exists doesn’t make it good.

    • scytale
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      They didn’t say it was good, just that it’s what works; that’s why it’s everywhere.

    • @Lumidaub@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 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
        -61 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
          61 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
            -71 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
                -51 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
                  51 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