I tried DeArrow for a bit but I found that for some channels it actually made things worse - I mean it removed the clickbait, but some clickbait gave me a better idea of what the video was actually about than DeArrow's boring titles.

Overall it didn't improve the experience really.

DeArrow lets me make an informed decision on whether to watch a video or not. It's true that sometimes the clickbait will extend into the first few seconds of the video, but you can still stop watching then if you think it's not for you. Myself, I enjoy knowing what it's really going to be about.

Then you'd be in luck as it makes me less likely to click on those videos. I only watch them if I'm truly interested in the topic as shown by the revised thumbnail and title, which makes my viewing quality much higher on average.

If you avoid watching clickbait thumbnailed videos then you will miss out on a lot of good content. Perhaps you are fine with this but if the implication is that a clickbait thumbnail implies the video is not good, this is an indicator that, at this point has almost no correlation with the video quality. This is because content creators, pretty much have to use clickbait thumbnails to get views or traction, largely because of the way YouTube's "algorithm" works.

I love the DeArrow experience. The problem with clickbait on YouTube is that even good creators are compelled to use it because it works. Whether it's due to the algorithm or just human behaviour I don't know.

There's a little blue button next to the video titles to toggle it on and off and it's very interesting to compare the community title and thumbnail with the original. Good original titles are often left largely intact, maybe with some extra context. Betteridge law is no longer relevant. It's nice.

Just looking at their own marketing material, in some cases it's just making the titles longer and more boring without actually making them more descriptive.