CODE IN TOKYO

Do Not Take YouTube Information at Face Value. I Fell for It Too.

Recently, there was an incident in which a child went missing from a hot spring facility.

There was a river behind the facility, so a large-scale search was carried out based on the possibility that the child may have fallen into the river.

Whenever this kind of incident happens, the internet quickly fills with theories.

It was not an accident.

The parents are suspicious.

Maybe the child was abducted.

And on YouTube, a large number of videos appear that explain those theories in a way that sounds convincing.

I watched one of them.

To put the conclusion first, I was taken in by it.

”There Is No Way a Child Could Climb Down a Cliff Like That”

The video argued quite strongly for the abduction theory.

One of the reasons was this:

“There is no way a child could climb down a cliff like that alone.”

Looking at the photo used in the video, the location did indeed look very steep.

I thought the same thing.

That would be impossible for a child.

The thumbnail was well made. The speaker sounded confident. When video and photos are shown together with a firm tone, the story becomes surprisingly persuasive.

But when I checked other information, the picture changed.

It was not actually a sheer cliff.

From the hot spring facility to the river, the ground was sloped. There were some drops and uneven areas, but it was not especially strange to imagine a child walking there alone.

The image used in the video seemed to be a cropped photo of the opposite bank taken during the search.

In other words, the video built its story from a single photo taken from one angle:

This is a cliff.

A child could not go down there.

Therefore, it must be an abduction.

That is far too careless.

”Kotatsu Videos”

In Japan, there is a term called “kotatsu article.”

A kotatsu is a Japanese home heating setup: a low table with a heater underneath and a blanket over it, used to stay warm in winter. The expression is a small joke: it describes an article written while staying comfortably indoors, gathering information from the internet without going to the scene or doing real reporting.

The same thing now exists on YouTube.

Kotatsu videos: videos made from a desk, based on online scraps rather than firsthand verification.

Someone collects photos, builds a plausible story, adds a provocative thumbnail, and speaks in a decisive tone.

If the goal is to get views, perhaps that approach makes sense.

“We do not know yet.”

“It may have been an accident.”

“We cannot judge from photos alone.”

Videos like that do not get many clicks.

“Decisive proof of abduction!”

That is much stronger.

Given how YouTube works, this is not surprising.

The problem is that I watched it too, and I almost accepted it.

I Also Use YouTube as Blog Material

If I only criticize others here, I become suspicious as well.

I also watch YouTube and sometimes use it as material for blog posts.

Recently, I have been doing that quite often.

That means I could easily make the same mistake.

Someone says something on YouTube.

I treat it as fact.

I write a blog post based on that assumption.

Then someone else reads my blog.

In this way, careless information keeps multiplying.

Online misinformation is not created only by the first person who lies.

People who accept something without checking it properly and then pass it on are also part of the process.

This time, I almost became one of them.

The More Sensational a Story Sounds, the More You Should Check It

In the end, the countermeasure is not complicated.

When a story feels too perfectly dramatic, check it once.

This is especially important for incidents, politics, and international affairs. Do not judge based on a single video.

I often write about AI, and the same rule applies there.

“This AI will make all engineers unemployed.”

“Google is finished.”

“OpenAI is collapsing.”

Every week, someone is supposedly finished.

Of course, I also make my blog titles somewhat provocative.

If nobody reads an article, there is no point in writing it. I will not pretend otherwise.

But there is a difference between making a title attention-grabbing and fabricating facts.

Watching this video reminded me of that.

And the scariest part is that I did not think of myself as someone who was especially easy to fool.

I have used the internet for a long time. I have worked as an IT engineer for nearly 30 years. I use AI every day.

Even so, a good thumbnail and a confident tone were enough to pull me in.

People who think, “I would never be fooled,” may actually be the most vulnerable.

This incident taught me one thing.

Before focusing on the content of a YouTube video, it is better to ask:

What does this person gain from getting more views?

Contact

I provide system development and technical consulting using AI, AWS, and Claude Code.

Contact form: https://holly-money-e94.notion.site/390ff30cf18c8086a676fe630d171873