The problem HN has with YT content creators being motivated by certain factors is not that they're less trustworthy but that they're tacky. Like Reddit (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community) which is nothing like HN (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community).
You can search HN and find plenty of arguments that scientific reporting by all major journals are biased and no longer factual and are just clickbait.
Researchers have 'clickbait' studies because they are "financially incentivized" to get funding.
You are drawing the line at YouTube, others draw the line at CNN, others draw the line at freaking 'Nature'.
Now AI is generating scientific papers, I think we should be worried about how we determine 'factual' sources across the board.
We no longer have trusted sources for 'facts'.
Lots of science is reported on YT and it is fine. You can't take a study in 'Nature' and say it is fine, but then if that study is reported in a video on YT, now it is in question. The video on the flood above was fine, there was nothing incorrect in it, why is it 'wrong' by being on YT?
Maybe a % of garbage rating? But who does the judging?
YT content creators are financially incentivized to exaggerate things to generate user engagement. This is a conflict of interests.
A good source would be something that has its own sources cited or directly comes with evidence.