YouTube has ostensibly strong policies around disclosing commercial activity, but Reddit does not. This "you can trust Reddit for reviews" narrative is nonsense. It costs basically nothing to subtly shill a product on Reddit, and more sophisticated operations will manipulate upvotes as well. On most niche subreddits, you only need a dozen upvotes to bubble to the top. Impossible to track abuse on that scale.

Not to mention the transparency nightmare of subreddit moderation.

Now, you're talking about essentially manual curation of trusted reviewers though. At that point, you're getting close to essentially resurrecting a Yahoo-style directory of good content. I don't really use Reddit but I have sites and people I go to for reviews of certain types of gear. But I don't know how scalable that is.

A big part of Googs secret sauce is ranking relevancy in part by reputation. They totally could index text-to-speech of youtube videos and rank channels by popularity in their content niches, then supply those when searches overlap their the content terms. Clearly they do _something_ like this, and probably could do more. Wirecutter and reddit should show up higher than random SEO fake-review sites, not because of manual ranking, but because NYT and reddit get higher traffic, and have higher reputation from other sites. They should able to derive signals that them so.