The summary is:
The speaker defends his opinion that some opinion channels use appealing content to attract attention and monetize misfortunes. He gives examples of how some channels use titles and thumbnails that are exaggerated, misleading, or irresponsible, and how they create problems for the people they talk about. He also responds to some criticisms he received for his previous video on the same topic, where he was accused of being hypocritical or imposing rules on others. He argues that he has changed his approach over time and that he does not agree with the new normal of appealing content. He says he respects the freedom of other creators, but he finds it funny when they complain about appealing content from other channels. He ends by thanking his viewers and commenting on a comment he received a year ago.
Here are the key facts extracted from the text:
1. The text is a transcript of a video where the speaker talks about the appealing content around the opinion community on YouTube.
2. The speaker criticizes some opinion channels for using sensationalist titles, thumbnails and accusations to attract attention and views.
3. The speaker gives examples of how some opinion channels have changed their approach over time and become more incisive and abusive in their content.
4. The speaker defends his own work and effort and says he does not need to appeal to the absurd to grow his channel.
5. The speaker says he does not agree with the idea that appealing content is a different way of growing or that it is acceptable for opinion channels to do it.
6. The speaker says he finds it funny when opinion channels complain about other channels producing appealing content, but do not reflect on their own actions.