Comparing an artist’s current work to their previous is a bit tricky. Work is not just a product of that person in the abstract- it comes from who they were at the time, the social/cultural environment they were in, etc. Also, just because something is distributed on the same platform, doesn’t mean it was created with the same intentionality or exists within the same tier/cannon of the previous work being referenced. If it sounds like I’m trying to hedge a critique of my favorite creator, that’s…kind of true. But I more so want to point out how blurred the line has become between informational sources and click bait garbage.
I noticed it first with my dad, who loves watching PBS documentaries, The History Guy, Dr. Becky the astronomer – edutainment for adults, basically. I cannot get him to recognize AI slop on youtube for the life of me, and it makes me so sad. He might realize ¾ through that the narration was bland and repetitive, and saying a lot without saying anything of substance, but he wouldn’t know it was an AI voice. He wouldn’t see it was created 100% cynically, as passive income.
I had a similar frustration with Danny’s latest video. He took these IG reels and articles too much at face value. I’m very sure he can recognize AI voices and probably assumes like most of us that any random article online will be AI written. Of course he is aware these are very casual sources, However. He’s engaging with these things more like they are an article from Scientific American from 20 years ago, rather than those goofy “science fact” ig accounts he would make fun of in 2018. The weird sensationalized way it’s being presented is part of what Danny is picking apart, but he’s not attributing it to the correct source a lot of the time.
One of the things that really gave me hope with Danny’s media critique in the past (though I fear he would find that label pretentious) is his ability to point out how absurd and flat informational content becomes when it is hyper optimized for social media. I’ve seen the average age floor of his audience steadily lower, and I always thought it would be so helpful for these kids to see how to critically analyze not just what, but HOW they are getting information. The facades have become so much more complex, but that hollow, nasty feeling is still there if you know where to look. It comes back to intent – who is writing this, who is making this, and why? Is it to get as many clicks as possible? If so, how are they diluting or exaggerating or spinning what’s being said? It’s critical to keep in mind how algorithms affect not just what is on a fyp, but also our search results – escaping your curated bubble to find new information is harder than ever before.
Yet, it feels misguided of me to critique Danny at this point. All I see him asking for is watch time, and he’s doing that more ethically than 99% of people on the platform. “I know you can do better” is toxic, it’s possessive. He doesn’t need to live up to anyone else’s conception of his potential, he will make what he wants to make and you can take it or leave it.
I was watching Hank Green the other day and in passing he brought up the metaphor of the elephant rider, which tries to represent the difficult relationship between agency and our animal nature. I’m still in the process of turning my elephant around when it comes to my emotional over-investment, he’s very stubborn on this topic. And to be fair, wouldn’t it be hypocritical to think a commentator shouldn’t himself be open to critique? I think I am just trying to be aware of my own intent. I fear being one of those angry football fans yelling at the star quarterback on the TV, armchair coaching. I wouldn’t even call what Danny is doing on his second channel comedy, or analysis, or anything that warrants real critique. And yet, my Hermione voice needs to scream into this paper bag with 2 little foam stars none the less.
>>robyns_ramblings 