HackerTube.dev

I was wrong (and so was everyone)

Tom Scott · 5M views · 2022-12-19 · 6:44

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

Tom Scott's correction video on his earlier claim that 18th-century insurance firefighters let uninsured buildings burn. After a historian looked into it, he concludes the story was wrong and explains how the error happened.

On Hacker News

HN mentions it as an example of a prominent creator publicly correcting a popular myth, and of the fire brigade myth itself.

Discussed on HN; no positive recommendation is recorded in this export · HN mentions 2022–2023

Topics

World historyScientific method & science communication
Search by tags
tom scottcorrectionsfire brigadesfiremarkshistory myths

What people said

simondotau · 2023-06 · Reference

> one major problem is VPNs are advertised or promoted as if they're synonymous with antivirus software. Famously described by Tom Scott — [How it started [LINK] [How it's going] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
Sayrus · 2023-02 · Reference

Tom Scott did a video[1] about this. For the UK at least, this may have been an urban myth rooted in the fact that only the fastest fire brigades were paid[2]. [1] [VIDEO] [2] [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗
lolinder · 2022-12 · Reference

> Usually commonly held widely believed oral histories emerge for a good reason. So if it was commonly believed that insurance companies let un-insured buildings burn, then it is likely to be true at least part of the time. Yes, oral histories emerge for a reason, but that reason doesn't have to be "because it was literally true". There are countless oral traditions that are complete nonsense! Urban legends existed 200 and 2000 years ago just as much as they do today, and no historian would ever claim that you should take every oral history at face value. > Also, lets look at the source -- he is an "archive and heritage consultant", i.e. someone that solicits money for his research. Is he getting paid for this article? Is he writing this in the hopes that he will advertise his services for insurance companies? He was paid by a prominent YouTuber to find out whether a video said YouTuber made several years ago was incorrect[0]. That doesn't scream "conflict of interest" to me. [0] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by Tom Scott, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources