cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51669542

I viewed this.

This is about 93 min long. Couldn't finish. I read an ai summary.

Then @peterkuchynskyi (Peter) replied. I watched.

Then I viewed 11:16 ➡️ 37:24 of this.

But no need to view the 4 vids. Just wanna share my opinion.

I've liked @dave2d, @gsmarenaofficial and @themrmobile for so long sans 🤔 re the conflicts of interest from early access and affiliate links. Peter opened my 👀. I 🤔 a review shouldn't have early access from the firm, affiliate links and promo codes. Links and promo codes for items unrelated to the reviewed item are OK. The Youtuber shouldn't get free accessories to or peripherals for the judged item. The native or integrated ad should be unrelated to the judged item. A very high bar, maybe. But we can't read the Youtuber's 🧠. We don't know if he's honest and not softening the item's cons. We need the review to stress the pros and the cons. Not inflating the pros; not deflating the cons. So he needs to have near 0 conflict of interest. 0 is impossible. Example, more Pixel 📱 sales mean richer Alphabet. The Youtubers are on Youtube – under Alphabet.

I must stress that a lying Youtuber with near 0 conflict of interest is possible. We need honest and independent reviewers.

Per Peter (in his 2nd vid), he was OK with an ad of a seemingly 👎 item if the ad was unrelated to the judged item. No. A reviewer should tout 👍 items and services that he himself tried or uses. A sign of high integrity.

Peter disliked ads re online betting. Yes! It has ruined so many lives.

I 🤔 the top reason Peter cited @mkbhd was views.