Technology

can’t agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse

I never said so much. I said he has a problem with speaking confidently without double checking himself because of the typical attitude that is socially taught to white cishet men. Which the whole AI thing has clearly highlighted. Again, I don't dislike him as a person, I don't think he is bad, I don't think anyone is purely good or bad. But I think that, though commendable to use his privilege and status to platform diversity, also requires a modicum of caution before speaking. Science communications is one of, if not the hardest, topics of communication because of the great potential for harm if misinformation is given authority. Apologizing and changing to do better is fine, but when it happens over and over, it starts to highlight a pattern of carelessness and lack of impulse control. Science communication requires due diligence and deep nuance. On the contrary, he seems to have been aiming for a neck breaking pace of content creation, accelerating more and more as of late. When you rush, you make more mistakes, you risk doing harm.

If you want to know more, here's a video from someone from the knitting community that articulates my gripes with the Green's brand of slop better than I can in the limited space of a Lemmy comment.

Here there's a commentary about the whole HRT misinformation problem. I had also forgotten the whole «it's misogynistic for trans women to claim they experience mood swings», it's so erasing of personal experiences of all trans persons in general. Anyways, my point is that the Green's are lousy science communicators, and I do think that race, gender and sexual orientation play at least a small part in that. They're far from the first science channel to fall for that trap.