YouTube is a great place to find all sorts of wildlife content. It is not, however, a good place to find viewers encouraging each other to preserve that wildlife, according to new research led by the University of Michigan. Out of nearly 25,000 comments posted to more than 1,750 wildlife YouTube videos, just 2% featured a call to action that would help conservation efforts, according to a new study published in the journal Communications Sustainability.

YouTube is a great place to find all sorts of wildlife content. It is not, however, a good place to find viewers encouraging each other to preserve that wildlife, according to new research led by the University of Michigan. Out of nearly 25,000 comments posted to more than 1,750 wildlife YouTube videos, just 2% featured a call to action that would help conservation efforts, according to a new study published in the journal Communications Sustainability.

From Biology News - Evolution, Cell theory, Gene theory, Microbiology, Biotechnology via This RSS Feed.

  • etherphon@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    5 hours ago

    The new zoo. Most people going to the zoo aren’t donating to conservation either, at least not directly.

      • CameronDev@programming.dev
        2·
        6 hours ago

        There is no improving YouTube comments. It’s all noise, no signal. We don’t even need a study to know that.

        And the only entity that can fix it are Google, and they’ve had 2 decades to do so, and clearly have no intentions of fixing it.

        This research is just pointless, there are better more tangible things to spend money on.

        • FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 hours ago

          The thing you’re missing is that your arguments are not of much use until they’re backed by quality evidence - not general consensus or vibes. If it’s good data, I’d argue that it’s worth having. Argue for our limitations and we risk achieving them.