What are the ethics (for clinical psychiatrists) of posting videos on Youtube with poorly-worded guidance about disorders? I've watched a few Youtube videos about dealing with narcissists and I noticed a few patterns.  

Videos.

The videos appear to be genuine attempts to provide some help to people who are dealing with narcissistic abuse.  The people publishing them are either practitioners or coaches.  Usually they post contact information in the video descriptions to promote their practices.  This seems par for the course.  Some videos provide examples of narcissistic behavior by showing recorded episodes of interactions with extreme narcissists.  They claim to have been recorded legally, which is fine.

Comments.

I also noticed that many of the comments to the videos seem to express a great deal of hostility towards current of former narcissists in their lives.  Frankly, I am having trouble telling the difference between the narcissists, as they are described in the videos, and those who claim to be their victims in the comments.  

It's not that there is just a rage directed towards those whom they perceive as having taken away their control over their lives.  It's that these supposed narcissists do not acquiesce to the victims' various demands.  Which shows both a feeling of entitlement and a lack of self-awareness.  And it is, in fact, expressed with a great deal of rage.

Contradiction.

I am having a difficult time making sense of it because, on the one hand, the "victims" do describe some patterns of behavior which the videos attribute to narcissists.  On the other hand, the "victims" themselves seem to exhibit behavior symptomatic of narcissists.

The recorded audios of narcissists abusing their victims demonstrate clearly abusive behavior.  But the definitions of narcissistic abuse, given in the videos, seem to "cast too wide a net".  They provide good guidance for what makes a narcissist, but do not provide any real tests to exclude the possibility of someone being a narcissist.   They can probably provide a justification for actual narcissists to justify their abuse of their victims, as they appear to do in the comments.

The fact that all these practitioners can correctly identify narcissists as such, but give poor definitions, as guidance for other on how to identify potential narcissists, makes me think that the practice of making such videos should be unethical.

Question.

Is it unethical though?  Is the idea of avoiding the risks of casting aspersions (through definition which are overly pathologizing of normal behaviors) a part of ethics of clinical psychiatry?
The enforceable ethical guidelines a given practitioner must adhere to are defined by several codes or areas of law: state licensure, (usually national) board certification, and employment contracts. On top of that, there are typically non-enforceable ethics codes on the profession level. 

I’m not sure what the ethical concern would be in the videos you’re talking about, as long as the stated information is accurate and the limited scope (“this is not a training on how to diagnose”) is clear. There is no duty to only ever provide absolutely comprehensive information. 

The only possibly applicable thing I can come up with is the Goldwater Rule against armchair diagnosing: 


  "The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement," said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. 


https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry