Well, it is a tough message, but my personal answer to the question posed at the end of the post is: Then I guess their videos should not exist. Sorry, but I will not give an evil behemoth like...
Well, it is a tough message, but my personal answer to the question posed at the end of the post is:
All of this is to say: if you suggest that content creators should not use YouTube, you're effectively saying that their videos should not exist, because there is no YouTube competitor to switch to. It's a monopoly.
Then I guess their videos should not exist.
Sorry, but I will not give an evil behemoth like Youtube even one inch of room. I thoroughly despise everything that is infected with ads, opaque algorithms and now AI. I try to do my part, by paying for Nebula and sponsoring a couple of creators on Patreon, but I will not for one second turn off my ad blocker.
If that means that fewer videos will be made, then so be it. There already is far too much media to consume anyway. Subjecting yourself to Youtube's antics is not the solution.
This is also how I've felt about the youtube/twitch culture for the longest time. I was a dedicated streamer for 8 years, and while I would have loved to have made it a career in some capacity, I...
This is also how I've felt about the youtube/twitch culture for the longest time. I was a dedicated streamer for 8 years, and while I would have loved to have made it a career in some capacity, I was 100% aware that building up a career dependant on a platform can only last as long as the platform does. And the end of a platform shouldn't be the physical powerdown of the servers, but instead the acknowledgement that it's not doing right by the consumers or producers. Don't even get me started on Twitter's odd magnetic hold on people who know they should leave while Bluesky is standing right there.
Use that power and angst towards bettering another platform. I put up some content on Glomble a little while ago, and now that my computer/recording situation is back to normal I'll be posting there. Try bolstering a new platform with stuff to entice others and make it grow.
Ha, yeah it's a pretty goofy name that represents the community vibe well. I liken it a lot more to a 90's website, which typically had oddball names like that. Given every website is run by...
Ha, yeah it's a pretty goofy name that represents the community vibe well. I liken it a lot more to a 90's website, which typically had oddball names like that. Given every website is run by late-millenial soulless suits, a site mainly run and maintained by kids from the zoomer and alpha generations is refreshing. They're doing what they can to carve an alcove for themselves on the internet, and the community has built it in a very wholesome way.
Give it a look sometime if you're tired of the youtube creator-grind atmosphere. It's like walking out of a screamo concert and into a soundproof room in some ways. You can throw a low-res letsplay or vlog on in the background while working on something else, and then not worry about damaging their algorithm when you click out early.
Wow, we went straight from "millennials are bohemian hipsters killing {industry}" to "late-millennial soulless suits" in what, six years? I think most of the corporate web is still controlled by...
Wow, we went straight from "millennials are bohemian hipsters killing {industry}" to "late-millennial soulless suits" in what, six years?
I think most of the corporate web is still controlled by Gen X, anyway.
I personally killed off the diamond industry singlehandedly for not getting married (so I'm told, anyway ;D). For what it's worth, I was thinking of Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg in their early...
I personally killed off the diamond industry singlehandedly for not getting married (so I'm told, anyway ;D). For what it's worth, I was thinking of Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg in their early 40's falling within the millennial age group. Sundar Pichai (google ceo) is 53 and falls squarely in the middle of Gen X, and that would have been a better comparison with Youtube and all, but c'est la vie.
Yep, it fits firmly in the last category and if it were a ranked list, firmly at the bottom. It's a terrible name that entices me to.. stay away from it. Brand names don't have to mean something...
Yep, it fits firmly in the last category and if it were a ranked list, firmly at the bottom.
It's a terrible name that entices me to.. stay away from it.
Brand names don't have to mean something per se, but they at least shouldn't make me physically recoil.
My biggest problem with Bluesky is that it reeks heavily of the early Facebook interoperability with the Fediverse. As soon as they hit critical mass I'm fairly confident that particular link will...
My biggest problem with Bluesky is that it reeks heavily of the early Facebook interoperability with the Fediverse.
As soon as they hit critical mass I'm fairly confident that particular link will be severed quickly.
I think you're thinking of Threads there. Bluesky is only interoperable with the Fediverse via third-party bridges. Bluesky is built on a different protocol, but is very committed to the idea of a...
I think you're thinking of Threads there. Bluesky is only interoperable with the Fediverse via third-party bridges. Bluesky is built on a different protocol, but is very committed to the idea of a decentralised network, just in a different format and with different design parameters to the Fediverse.
Hell yeah :) hope you find some fun content there. If I had to put together a starter pack, fa1ry_du5t does a ton of experimental stuff (anything from music to vlogs you'd see from 2006 youtube),...
Hell yeah :) hope you find some fun content there. If I had to put together a starter pack, fa1ry_du5t does a ton of experimental stuff (anything from music to vlogs you'd see from 2006 youtube), AntiqueVenture hits the JonTron itch with reviews and commentary on retro games, hw0lf188 who does story time animations or commentates over their art process, johnsonusd pokes music and dev stuff, and Gallifrey103 who has some nice long-form content including discussing books or a review of a season of Doctor Who.
I don't want to dis-service any minecraft creators on glomble by only posting one of them, but given how prominent minecraft is on tildes, somebody will find a minecraft creator they'll enjoy on there.
Is there? The takeover of short form content does give me a bit of pause to the idea that "we'd be better of if Youtube disappeared tomorrow". I'd still make due and find the valuable content, but...
Is there? The takeover of short form content does give me a bit of pause to the idea that "we'd be better of if Youtube disappeared tomorrow".
I'd still make due and find the valuable content, but I don't have the same faith with most people.
I guess I'm not sure what valuable content their is. I'm not saying there's isn't, but more trying to catalogue YouTube's value to society is difficult for me. There are tutorial and learning...
I guess I'm not sure what valuable content their is. I'm not saying there's isn't, but more trying to catalogue YouTube's value to society is difficult for me.
There are tutorial and learning videos that I think are hugely valuable, maybe the most valuable thing on the Internet. It's not clear to me if those are valuable to YouTube, the business that needs to make money, or if they're just subsidized by content that is low value to society. Can YouTube exist in a form that serves valuable content without needing victims who fall for the slop to pay the bills?
This isn't directly responding to anything you said. I guess my opinion is that YouTube has value, but that it doesn't outweigh the damage.
There is a massive amount of content that is well worth the watch on youtube. It's by far one of the biggest and most amazing resources we have. https://tildes.net/?tag=long_watch - most of these...
There is a massive amount of content that is well worth the watch on youtube. It's by far one of the biggest and most amazing resources we have.
Once you have a good quality feed going, basically everything that shows on your homepage is worth watching. I know that my career would be entirely different if I didn't have access to the plethora of content youtube gives me.
This idea that we should get rid of youtube because you see a lot of trash content is like saying we should get rid of wikipedia because there's plenty of trash articles on it. Pure madness..
I didn't say anything about getting rid of YouTube. I did specifically say that the learning videos on YouTube are possibly the most valuable things on the internet, so it seems that we mostly...
I didn't say anything about getting rid of YouTube. I did specifically say that the learning videos on YouTube are possibly the most valuable things on the internet, so it seems that we mostly agree.
My concern is with it's impact to society, which I referenced a few times, and unfortunately has nothing to do with how I curate my personal feed.
I didn't get the impression that it's "evil" from what was listed in the article. Is this genuinely only about trump unbanning, Israel Gaza thing and AI? Because none of these things I would...
I didn't get the impression that it's "evil" from what was listed in the article. Is this genuinely only about trump unbanning, Israel Gaza thing and AI? Because none of these things I would classify as evil and even at worst it seems to be fairly benign compared to all the good the platform did for creativity. Once again I am puzzled by Tilde's reaction.
A while back I posted some thoughts tangential to this, and they didn't seem to be well-received, but I'll try again. My fundamental problem with YouTube is what the profit motive does to content....
A while back I posted some thoughts tangential to this, and they didn't seem to be well-received, but I'll try again.
My fundamental problem with YouTube is what the profit motive does to content. I don't believe you can prioritize profit and content at the same time. Once you've built your livelihood off of your content, it's now a matter of survival. When the YouTube algorithm fails to surface high quality content, and instead surfaces high engagement content, you're now faced with the dilemma: do you chase the algorithm so that you income stream continues, or change jobs?
In that way, the YouTube algorithm is basically your boss. If it says "stop making long form content, we want shorts now", then your choice is to do that or find a new job. Many people will do what the boss demands.
Anyhow, my proposal is the streaming platform equivalent of public access TV of yore. Every citizen gets X GB of streaming space that they can use however they like. More importantly, morning is monetized. No ads, no algorithms, just good old fashioned sorting and searching to find content.
The pushback I got is that nobody would use it, but I'm not sure. I think quality content exists on YouTube in spite of how it's run, not because of it, and every month brings new ways YouTube wants to dictate how content is allowed to survive in modern media.
I'd use it. I'd post boring informative shit and never look at viewership numbers. I wouldn't be competing with anyone because there's no profit incentive.
I can do this today on YouTube, but YouTube will constantly use suggestions and algorithms to try and pull my viewers away and into garbage. It's predatory and not a good place for learning. Imagine crack dealers at your library and having to teach your children to say no in between every book.
I'm exaggerating but... Am I? Just recently I showed my little one chef Amaury on YouTube. It's great content, and his channel is full of choices to watch. So why, then, does every single video end with a suggestion for three unrelated videos from three unrelated channels? Predatory, and the predator doesn't distinguish adults from children.
It's never been easier for anyone in the world to create content, but we don't have a single content platform that is devoid of profit incentive. That's a problem, because the profit incentive will always come first.
I like this suggestion, and I think it would pair well with another modification. Decouple the content hosting from the content delivery. I think the best example of this is the streaming music...
I like this suggestion, and I think it would pair well with another modification.
Decouple the content hosting from the content delivery.
I think the best example of this is the streaming music industry. For the most part, the music library isn’t different between Apple Music, Spotify, and YouTube music. This forces those platforms to actually compete. If you want lossless quality, freedom to use third party front ends, and ability to add your own music, you get Apple Music. If you want podcasts to infiltrate your music app (why would anyone want this?), you get Spotify. If you want the worst music app, you get YouTube music. (I may have some strong opinions about music services.)
Let’s say we had two separate services, YouTube backend and YouTube front end. YouTube backend would have to compete with services like Vimeo, nebula, floatplane, and others to be good content hosts for creators. From what I hear, YouTube studio is actually quite good, but I am sure some competition could improve it. Then we have YouTube frontend, which is the website and apps. Those could play content from any of the backend services, not just YouTube backend. If you want an ad infested nightmare (or to have useless services like YT music bundled with your premium), stick with YouTube. If you don’t want that, use a custom front end like greyjay or the many competitors that would certainly pop up. These competitors would still be able to access the content from YouTube backend, nebula, floatplane, etc. But now they have to actually compete for users.
This can be combined pretty easily with a government run video backend with limited options. For a prolific uploader, it makes sense for them to use the private backends. But for occasional uploaders, a simple and low usage government platform would be perfect.
That’s not really how music streaming works with respect to the hosting / delivery. Each service both hosts and delivers the content. It’s just that most people will have their content uploaded to...
That’s not really how music streaming works with respect to the hosting / delivery. Each service both hosts and delivers the content. It’s just that most people will have their content uploaded to each of those services because those services are already popular and it would be bad for the artist not to upload their music there. And to my knowledge, most artists aren’t uploading to streaming services for monetary reasons, rather for discovery and conversions to concerts and merchandise. To make it analogous to music streaming, you could (and some already) do this by just uploading all your same content across various video hosting platforms. The reason I don’t think a lot of people do this is because it’s largely pointless in that Vimeo, Floatplane, etc have so little of the video content market share. There’s also a large difference in audience interaction between these platforms as most video platforms are social in some way whereas most music platforms are not. You’ve also got the problem of video being exponentially more challenging to host and deliver as opposed to audio.
I get what you’re saying in terms of your ideal situation for how video platforms should function, but music absolutely does not function like this already. And if it did, I still don’t think these platforms are nearly similar enough to compare them with respect to feasibility.
I think your idea is interesting, but I don’t see why anybody would develop for this platform. Unless you pay a subscription to attach Backend A, why would people produce content and post it...
I think your idea is interesting, but I don’t see why anybody would develop for this platform.
Unless you pay a subscription to attach Backend A, why would people produce content and post it there? There’s only so many people like the Article Author who will make high quality content for fun, and only so many groups who have the funding to produce content in the PBS model.
It’s one thing if this platform is the Original Video Platform, but I think it would be extremely difficult to get a critical mass of people to buy-in.
Those are all problems to solve, but I don’t think they are insurmountable. I want to reiterate that this setup already exists. This is exactly how music streaming works. It’s also how cable TV...
Those are all problems to solve, but I don’t think they are insurmountable.
I want to reiterate that this setup already exists. This is exactly how music streaming works. It’s also how cable TV works. As much as people hated how cable TV worked, this was a good aspect. The real problem with cable TV is that what I am calling front ends didn’t have competition. If you want HBO or STARZ, you don’t need to buy a specific cable TV subscription. You can buy any cable TV package and purchase HBO on top of that. (For now, I am ignoring the fact that most areas had a regional monopoly for a cable TV provider.)
There is also a great example of a market going from what we have now to something like what I envision: the Internet. AOL started as a walled garden. You accessed AOL built and partner websites only. But the Internet we have today is universal. When someone is making a website, they don’t have to decide to work with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others separately. They just put it on « the internet ».
I don’t see any way the market would move to this on it’s own. It requires regulations. I think it would work to compose a comprehensive set of regulations, similar in scope to the EU DMA. It would require backend services to have an API to develop against. Front end services can come and go, and I don’t think would need much regulation.
In the long term, I think we would see the vast majority of people keep using a service’s default front end, just because it’s the default. Alternative front ends would likely be paid for in some way, though open source ones that lack some polish would certainly exist. Just the fact that those alternate front ends exist would create market pressure to improve services built in front ends. You don’t have to take my word for it; that exact scenario has happened before. With cable TV, the US congress passed a law requiring a cable card, to allow people to use their own cable TV equipment. That allowed a company like TiVo to create a fantastic alternative to the default cable boxes. The vast majority of people didn’t get a TiVo, but TiVo existing forces the cable companies to make their default cable boxes significantly better.
I have multiple YouTube accounts and honestly I've found that the algorithm "feeds* me what I show I want. If I'm watching chess videos it sends them my way, same for tng videos, etc etc. despite...
I have multiple YouTube accounts and honestly I've found that the algorithm "feeds* me what I show I want. If I'm watching chess videos it sends them my way, same for tng videos, etc etc. despite all that I really only watch videos from my subscription feed though. I think people would get accustomed to whatever they get from social media, be it your idea or something different.
As a brief tangent, it's quite amusing how those rightwing tradwife channels create a paradox where their performance of 1940's housewife has made them the primary breadwinner.
Once you've built your livelihood off of your content, it's now a matter of survival.
As a brief tangent, it's quite amusing how those rightwing tradwife channels create a paradox where their performance of 1940's housewife has made them the primary breadwinner.
I actually really like this and agree with it in many ways and could see it working and people using it. People share tools and borrow things from their neighbors, or share information freely, and...
I actually really like this and agree with it in many ways and could see it working and people using it. People share tools and borrow things from their neighbors, or share information freely, and whatnot, and I could see this being an extension of that idea
I think unfortunately one of the underlying things here is the problem of some types of financial structures of societies (one might shorthand "capitalism" here, but I want it to sound broader than that) causing the incentive of the profit motive to always bloom out of anything, often even initially good things and ideas.
I do think in spite of this, neat things can exist that go a different direction (some open-source software, maybe libraries?, communal spaces, etc), but I feel like all of them will always have a pull on them, and some may fold or feel almost forced into some profit motive eventually. Anything that survives without giving in, does so with probably great difficulty
Maybe it's an ideal we never reach but I wish we could all be making and sharing things with one another all the time, without feeling like we need to commodify it or sell it or whatever. But when we need to constantly pay to survive another day on this earth, that poisons the well of so much of what we do
I'm not all economist, and probably naive, but my answer is usually socialism. Or socialization of things that are a benefit to most of society. I'd fund this service with taxes. Same.... Same......
I'm not all economist, and probably naive, but my answer is usually socialism. Or socialization of things that are a benefit to most of society. I'd fund this service with taxes.
I wish we could all be making and sharing things with one another all the time, without feeling like we need to commodify it or sell it or whatever
Same.... Same... I think a lot about how many people never get to explore their potential because the things they might be great at aren't marketable, or are too competitive as a career path.
I agree with a large portion of commenters here: YouTubers aren’t entitled to a source of income simply for making videos. They earn an income because Google pays them. Stop and ask yourself why....
I agree with a large portion of commenters here: YouTubers aren’t entitled to a source of income simply for making videos. They earn an income because Google pays them.
YouTube allows you to make a living by uploading videos (for free!), and no other platform has managed to achieve that.
Stop and ask yourself why. It’s because Google extracts people’s personal data from across the web and uses that data to make profitable deals with advertisers. Over time, Google has effectively become one of very few ways to advertise on the Internet, so businesses are almost required to pay a “Google tax” in order to do business.
YouTube is simply another tool for their data machine. If Google Ads didn’t exist, I guarantee YouTube wouldn’t either. Platforms with a paid subscription model would. I think the world would be a better place if the video platforming and advertising were separate, even if that does compromise a source of income for the creators.
idk what this website is trying to do, but when I get to the bottom and it loads the comments under the article, it tries to download a file. Not a fan of that...
idk what this website is trying to do, but when I get to the bottom and it loads the comments under the article, it tries to download a file. Not a fan of that...
Alright, I briefly looked into it. Didn't spend that much time digging around, but: The file it downloads is a 0 byte file, containing nothing The 0-byte file does not indicate any suspicious...
Exemplary
Alright, I briefly looked into it. Didn't spend that much time digging around, but:
The file it downloads is a 0 byte file, containing nothing
The 0-byte file does not indicate any suspicious patterns (name/suffix-wise)
The file is downloaded when it tries to query the URL <their website>/ghost/auth-frame
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm not going to blame anyone for trying to make a living. When people call for boycotts I'm often skeptical. Google is an enormous company that does...
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm not going to blame anyone for trying to make a living. When people call for boycotts I'm often skeptical. Google is an enormous company that does many good things and many bad things, but overall I think they do more good than bad. (But I'm biased. I still own a lot of Google stock, so I have a conflict of interest on that.)
On the other hand, I have personal reasons to limit how I use YouTube. I only watch music videos or the occasional movie. I've decided to never watch talking-head videos because already have an Internet addiction and I don't want to make it worse. When Sarah Taber complains that people comment on BlueSky without watching her videos, I'm like, sorry but I am never going to watch your videos.
So, this article comes across like a complaint from the owner of a BBQ restaurant that some people are vegetarians. Some people just aren't into what you sell, and that's okay. I don't blame you for trying, but there's no moral obligation to buy your product.
On the other hand, I think this guy is doing it right by having a blog as a way to communicate with people who don't watch videos. Since this article is a blog entry instead of a video, I can read it and comment on it. He also has a subscribe button for his blog, which seems like a good idea; people can pay him outside of YouTube. (Although, he missed a chance to get people interested in his videos by linking to a page that explains what they're about.)
YouTube is certainly well down the Enshittification road at this point. I still watch content on it, and I still add to my own channel which is my little creative area on Electronics, but I do...
YouTube is certainly well down the Enshittification road at this point. I still watch content on it, and I still add to my own channel which is my little creative area on Electronics, but I do note that I have had to go through progressively more effort to render the experience of using / watching YouTube to make it, well... usable and tolerable.
Ublock Origin, custom DNS with constantly updating adaptive IP filtering (basically the same concept as running a Pi Hole), etc...
Mirroring my YouTube channel to Odysee is on my to-do list, and maybe now that I finally got access to health insurance and through that ADHD meds I'll be able to actually... DO THINGS ON MY TO-DO LIST. I'm hoping that works out in general, I'm only on the second day but preliminary experience is positive.
A number of the creators I know and enjoy have already duplicated their channel to Odysee (Dave of EEVBlog and Louis Rossmann for example). That kind of progress is slow, but in my experience it's the kind of thing that builds momentum and at a certain point you tend to see a shift of rapidly spreading adoption.
YouTube making their experience ever more shit with you WILL have all these ads shoved down your throat is certainly helping the process along.
Interesting take; I find this write up (without having read the post either, though I will before hitting submit and then comment my thoughts at the end) a better insight as to why YT has become...
Interesting take; I find this write up (without having read the post either, though I will before hitting submit and then comment my thoughts at the end) a better insight as to why YT has become the monster it is.
[I feel the following ramble is going to really paint me in a bad light, but that's life.]
I use it for all the "wrong" reasons (from today's standpoint) - I generally want to listen to music without logging in, without recommendations, and rarely want to check out additional/related content. Thus, I use adblockers, since these are typically not content creators. Additionally (and key point here), I feel that influencers/content creators are akin to social media and have created a whole genre of "bad influence / online social stuff" vibes overall. There are exceptions, but that's my general feeling and experience.
Additionally, a lot of my YT intake is due to me trying to find an answer or explanation online, but I cannot find it in text which generally I prefer, though in some rarer cases it is better to see a model or demonstration.
But in saying I use it for the "wrong" reasons, I believe you have pointed out the reasons that I hadn't realized was my mental reasoning.
After having read the article: That was difficult to read, as I did not relate to the majority of it. I find there were two main points on which it doesn't really appeal or apply to me.
It addresses my personal reasoning for using YT as previously mentioned, and doesn't really touch on much that is applicable. I have been noticing issues with adblocking (mostly due to my VPN, not my Firefox usage). As I previously mentioned, the arguments for content creators is like water off a duck's back for me. The internet is so inundated with talented people that YT (and other platforms) are trying to eke their own profits out of and it's just a sad, disgusting setup. "I don't want to be rich and famous. I want to make a living out of this" comes across to me as a demand without considering the realistic facts. I likely am going to piss off a lot of people who make this type of living or are trying to, and I don't want to discourage or hate on them (and I'm not), but sorry that's how life is. And I'm going to keep using adblockers (as I do not typically care to view created content as the author is making, though I do occasionally kick some money at patreon when I do utilize someone's content), because I [still] have the power to prevent myself from being the commodity.
The quote, again to bring up my thoughts on people attempting to live off of this type of lifestyle: "PeerTube allows you to upload videos ... and share them. YouTube allows you to make a living by uploading videos" is going to push me, as a "consumer" to PeerTube (which I hadn't heard of, though I doubt it will typically have what I'm looking for). Not because I don't want people making money off their content, but because that isn't what I'm looking for in searching for videos.
So I guess in conclusion, sorry for rambling on, but your (@milkywayflyinginsect) post really helped shift my thought process on how people view creators like the author. Ironically, it has not really changed my thoughts on YT.
I thought this might’ve been a hot take but I’ve seen some people here with a similar sentiment. Maybe they should just… not use YT for profit? Youtube in general shouldn’t have went for profit....
I thought this might’ve been a hot take but I’ve seen some people here with a similar sentiment.
Maybe they should just… not use YT for profit? Youtube in general shouldn’t have went for profit.
How could they make money? They had YT music, YT Red exclusives, but instead they are barking about adblockers.
I’m using YT less and less, sucks that Odysee and Peertube aren’t as big, but YT got enshittified l over time from hobbyist/or weirdoes making videos to a place full of ads and commercials.
I agree... but begrudgingly. There's still 2 big points which makes me hesitatnt to fully support this mentality The economy sucks, and the gig economy seems to be the big reaction to this on a...
Maybe they should just… not use YT for profit?
I agree... but begrudgingly. There's still 2 big points which makes me hesitatnt to fully support this mentality
The economy sucks, and the gig economy seems to be the big reaction to this on a generational level. "Content Creator" as a job is quickly rising among the youth's dream job, something which simply didn't exist when I was a kid in the 90's. And as traditional employment gets murkier and murkier (with little recourse for labor reform), the U.S.'s hyper-individualist culture will react in a "I want to be my own boss" route rather than "I want to fix what's broken". If that closes off as an option... well, things won't end peacefully, that much is certain.
monetizing has definitely increased the variety of content creators out there. I've seen people rise from doing a silly little challenge run videos on a video game become a new sub-genre of community. I've seen what would have been small podcasters or news commentary become of large voices to push against and raise awareness against regimes that traditional media is paid to shut up about. I've seen some one off tutorials become a small, "free" course that can get other creators off the ground in a variety of careers.
The variety of downsides and utter greed that works against these creators makes me want to still prefer reform. But I understand that I gained a lot form how YT is right now. Feels like one of those issues that would be solved if my government gave any care for the arts.
I feel this whole monetizing via social media has kind of helped facilitate (and possibly accelerate) the current enshittification trends. I get people want to make money doing things like this,...
I feel this whole monetizing via social media has kind of helped facilitate (and possibly accelerate) the current enshittification trends.
I get people want to make money doing things like this, but in order to do so, they need a venue to host the media... which facilitates the companies that are not in it for the little guy.
The economy sucks and it will only get worse. Until it gets better. One day. I don't disagree that monetization did help, it's just that enshittification came alongside with it. I think the lack...
The economy sucks and it will only get worse.
Until it gets better.
One day.
I don't disagree that monetization did help, it's just that enshittification came alongside with it.
I think the lack of care about arts as your "job" is a ubiquitous or universal thing? Unless you are a known artist who works on a lot of commissions or a big name that sells paintings, you would be doing it more for the love of the art, but you still need to keep the lights on so I've always seen artists in that unenviable position where you either do something you like, or you get paid better by working a job you dislike.
It's more ubiquitous than just the US, or even just The West. So there's a point there. There will always been that human nature aspect of looking at a bard and saying "why are they making the...
I think the lack of care about arts as your "job" is a ubiquitous or universal thing?
It's more ubiquitous than just the US, or even just The West. So there's a point there. There will always been that human nature aspect of looking at a bard and saying "why are they making the same QoL as I who tends my fields all day"?
I was a bit more focused on policy centered around the arts, however. The EU and even parts of Asia tend to give benefits to promote the arts in various ways. Maybe it's easier to loan money, maybe there's plenty of grants, they subsidize businesses, create huge initiatives to stimulate the industry, etc. It's the circus part of the "Bread and circuses"
The US really hasn't had any of those for decades. Probably because Hollywood culture is a national and worldwide phenomenon that surges demand for actors so that there's no more need to stimulate. And that spreads to every other kind of art and media. thousands upon thousands of people willing to travel the country and "suffer for their art". Why bother investing when they are so self-invested?
I've always seen artists in that unenviable position where you either do something you like, or you get paid better by working a job you dislike.
People can't get jobs they hate but keeps the lights on, and others are trying to get into creation spaces just to make a cheap hustle. It's all backwards these last few years.
Found this post at a great time where I’m slowly having a falling out with youtube and trying to use less of it. Not necessarily because “youtube is evil” but I’m starting to appreciate the beauty...
Found this post at a great time where I’m slowly having a falling out with youtube and trying to use less of it. Not necessarily because “youtube is evil” but I’m starting to appreciate the beauty and minimalism of just written articles and blog posts. I enjoy going through them at my own pace and I don’t need to look at a guy for him to read what could have been a blog post to me or watch those stock clips while he reads it. This is especially true for code content. Obviously I’m talking about a small subset of all videos on youtube (tech/news content ish).
I was actually a long term subscriber to youtube premium but I cancelled maybe a month ago. I was hesitant for a long time because I thought the value I got from it was so great that it was worth paying, especially since youtube splits the premium revenue 40/60 or 50/50 with creators. On top of that I also had youtube music. It felt wrong to do all these mental gymnastics and go the adblock route because of the creators. The author in the post touches on this point.
But as I started getting into Lemmy and reading blog posts more and more (also started reading a book), I understood that a lot of that perceived value was because that’s the only thing I used and knew. There’s a whole world out there and since then I’ve slowly started minimizing my time on it. Again, not because it’s bad but just because I feel for a lot of content there are other things out there. It’s a choice. Learning to enjoy reading a light book vs watching Youtube before bed, for example.
I do think there’s some dishonesty and delusion going on in a lot of people’s minds when it comes to adblockers. They use adblock and think they’re somehow doing the right thing and they’re so righteous about it, yet they continue watching Youtube and never donate to any creators. I have a few friends like that.
Since I don’t spend that much time on it anymore, honestly I just watch the ads. Not as big of a deal as I once thought, and they make me want to spend even less time on the platform. I used to also use it for white noise or background music. Now I just use mynoise.net -great platform, would recommend.
Just a random stream of thoughts on my youtube experience.
I don't really think this is a fair assessment. In my opinion, the first incorrect assumption is that content creators are owed income because they have created and shared something. I don't...
I don't really think this is a fair assessment.
In my opinion, the first incorrect assumption is that content creators are owed income because they have created and shared something. I don't believe this is the case. Don't get me wrong, I think YouTube is work, and that many YouTubers work hard. But how hard they work realistically has nothing to do with how much money they make. A mass production slop channel (e.g. 5 minute crafts) can churn out absolute trash and generate buckets of income. I could spend 40 hours a week generating heartfelt content for a year and end up with less than minimum wage, if I received any money at all. YouTube, and any associated career is a Celebrity competition. How popular are you? How much do people like you? How lucky have you been?
Now here is the part you may disagree with me, but it is why I used adblock with no reservation. I firmly believe that Celebrity is a privilege and not a right. For many, YouTube is the vehicle that makes them Celebrities. But it is the people that are what make them 'valuable'. Not YouTube, not advertising, and not their income. This opposes other jobs, say for example, being a waiter, where your (economic) value is defined by the work that you do. On YouTube, your (economic) value is defined by how many people like you.
With this in mind, I do not believe YouTubers are 'owed' anything. This is an industry where the terms and conditions are clear: your labour does not define your income. People do.
Perhaps we can compare the job of a Youtuber to that of a busker. It's nice that a busker is playing music in a public space for me to hear. They are sharing their talent with the world. Perhaps I will stay a while and listen to them play. It would be nice, if I did so, to throw a few pennies into their guitar case, maybe even expected. But I don't have to. While their music is playing publicly and freely available, the terms and conditions of payment are on me. They could work their ass off, play 40 hours a week, and I still wouldn't be obligated to donate. Or maybe they're playing 80 hours a week in the middle of a desert, where nobody can hear them. You still owe them nothing. They are doing this because they want to do this.
This is the nature of a YouTubers job, and they know this. Because of this, many have found ways to secure additional income. Pateron, Nebula, merch, tours, etc.
In the same way, a busker might decide that in order to earn some guaranteed income, they might sell CDs of their musicor they might hire a venue for a show. And even if they have a concert show that evening, if they decide to busk that morning, I still don't owe them anything for listening in on them. This is the nature of the industry. Just as musicians are only valuable if people want to give to their art, YouTubers are only valuable if people want to watch them. To be a celebrity in this situation is a great privilege.
Some YouTubers, for example, Khadija Mbowe I believe, may decide to move off YouTube entirely and produce content to a paying audience only. This is entirely their prerogative. Most do not, and this is because content creators are aware that they need YouTube to build and grow their audience, to build and grow the share of fans who like their content enough to pay for it. Many people won't, and will stop consuming content if it is placed behind a paywall. But these non payers are still valuable to YouTube, and YouTube knows it. Last year, YouTube proved it had the capacity to ban users who were using adblock. Yet mysteriously, they still haven't done this. Alternatively, YouTube could paywall it's entirely service, as Netflix have done. But they haven't. Because non paying users are still valuable to them (likely though data harvesting). In this sense, all people watching YouTube, adblock or not, are paying customers.
I suppose the last point to address is this. While I earlier compared the job of a YouTuber to the job of a busker, I don't think this is an exact 1:1 comparison. While buskers play in public, YouTubers kinda don't. They play on YouTube, which might be considered YouTube's privately owned land.
But here is the important question. Are consumers obligated to view adverts? I firmly believe the answer is no, and to say yes is horrificly dystopian (for further reading see 10,000 Merits). Just as if I listen to a busker playing in Times Square I am not obligated to view the ads on the building around me, if I watch a YouTuber, I am not obligated to view the ads around them. Adverts are not valid currency. If I can close my eyes and plug my ears when an ad comes on my TV at home, I should also be able ask a machine to help me with this. When viewed in this context, almost all of us can agree that advertisements are not, and should not be required viewing. If YouTube wants to stop me viewing their content if I refuse to view their ads, this is their right. If YouTube wants to put a fence around the busker on their land, this is their right. But they haven't. And until they do, I will continue to proudly use adblock. If or when YouTube kick me off their platform for this, I will humbly bow out. But as discussed earlier, I think this is unlikely to happen, because if it was going to it would have happened already.
Edit: Just an addendum to say, if you want to support your favourite YouTubers, please do! Your support will allow them to create content. If you don't support them, they might not be able to create content. If you choose not to support them, that's fine. But be aware that they may no longer make the art that you love. If they go bust, you'll only have yourself to blame.
Ultimately I find that I value my time, attention, privacy, security, and so on more than I value any perceived social contract re: revenue between me and a platform or its creators, to watch...
Ultimately I find that I value my time, attention, privacy, security, and so on more than I value any perceived social contract re: revenue between me and a platform or its creators, to watch advertising in exchange for its content.
I am under no obligation to uphold this revenue model, just as any platform is under no obligation to provide its content to me free of charge or in a way that allows me to tailor it to myself (via a browser extension that prevents its advertising). If you don't want me to be able to view your content without advertising, don't provide it in a way that allows me to do so.
I find advertising, and the industry that upholds it, so ethically void itself that I find what some perceive as a "lack of ethics" in blocking ads to pale in comparison, and outweighed by the benefits every time. If one wishes to consider this a moral failure on my part, it is a moral failure of such little significance and such important benefit that I cannot be brought to care.
That said, I do what I can where I can afford it to act in a way that supports creators to some extent. When it is reasonable for me I'll do what I can to pay to avoid advertising completely on certain platforms. That said, for plenty of other times, I will consume content while blocking its ads- and not feel one bit bad about it.
It's the unfortunate reality of the internet- if tons of content can no longer survive due to ads being blocked and there has to be a reckoning about revenue models used online, then so be it.
I can think of ways that advertising can be done that largely mitigate many of its harms, but that kind of advertising paradigm is so restrictive that it's not something ad companies would ever do or be comfortable with anymore, and if they did, it would pay so little as to be useless. The ad industry made their bed and they can sleep in it for all I care
Edit to add a final note: If I were to go to the extreme, which I feel sometimes, some days I would say I feel like advertising as a whole I find unsavory and undesirable, even in its least harmful forms- I find it to be a unconsented-to attack on our time and attention, period, and we should rid ourselves of it and find alternatives for discovery (directories, catalogs, "designated spaces" for it to exist in an opt-in manner) and never look at it again as a revenue model for anything
Market success in capitalism generally doesn't correlate with effort, quality, or social value - it correlates with meeting market demand, timing, luck, and positioning. What you said about...
Market success in capitalism generally doesn't correlate with effort, quality, or social value - it correlates with meeting market demand, timing, luck, and positioning. What you said about youtubers can be applied to all businesses also. Do you also think businesses aren't "owed" payment for their products because success is based on popularity / demand, not effort?
A busker in Times Square isn't using infrastructure owned by the billboard companies. They are using Youtube's infrastructure. The relationship is a three-way commercial arrangement. Youtube provides infrastructure, creators provide content and viewer attention (to ads) or money (premium). By using adblock you only accept 2/3 of the arrangement.
You are speculating that youtube values data harvesting in the same way as ad revenue. But if that was true, they wouldn't have pushed so much against ad-blockers as they recently did. It wouldn't be too far fetched to assume if everyone used adblock the platform would not sustain itself just through the value of your data and would collapse. Furthermore ,perhaps they didn't go all the way because there are people that actually pay / don't use adblock and they are enough to offset your free-riding ?
To me a lot of these arguments that I just read (from you and others) still look like crazy mental gymnastics.
Ultimately there's a fundamental problem : You cannot simultaneously believe creators don't deserve payment AND that their content is worth your time to consume.
To me a big issue is how YouTube has evolved. Back when I first got into YouTube, people were mostly uploading for the passion of sharing, not to try and make money. It was the wild west of funny,...
To me a big issue is how YouTube has evolved. Back when I first got into YouTube, people were mostly uploading for the passion of sharing, not to try and make money. It was the wild west of funny, random, or interesting content, uploaded by people of the world because they wanted to share with the world. I participated in this myself, uploading videos not because I wanted to get famous or make money, but because I truly had a passion for it and wanted to share. YouTube still has people uploading things like this, but it has completely morphed into an entirely different beast of a platform overall.
Do the creators deserve to be paid? Maybe? Are we obligated to pay them? I feel like no, because YouTube changed the terms of the contract unilaterally. Ads are an invasive blight on modern society and I feel zero shame in blocking them. Yes Google has hosting costs and I realize that's going to need to be paid back in some form, but so long as the advertising continues to be hostile to consumers, I have zero shame in blocking them.
I do subscribe to Nebula because there's enough creators there that I feel are worth the subscription fee and it helps them. But going into Nebula I knew it was subscription based from the start. There wasn't a bait and switch.
They changed it because the site changed hands. But at the same time, if people valued simply "making videos for the pasison of sharing", it was not the only site in town to do that with. Clearly...
Do the creators deserve to be paid? Maybe? Are we obligated to pay them? I feel like no, because YouTube changed the terms of the contract unilaterally.
They changed it because the site changed hands.
But at the same time, if people valued simply "making videos for the pasison of sharing", it was not the only site in town to do that with. Clearly creators valued the monetization more, and the audience followed suit.
You're trying to moralize about a market, which is not how people truly value things. People would often like to have knitted things, but nobody is willing to pay the cost of the time and...
You cannot simultaneously believe creators don't deserve payment AND that their content is worth your time to consume.
You're trying to moralize about a market, which is not how people truly value things.
People would often like to have knitted things, but nobody is willing to pay the cost of the time and materials for the product (paying minimum wage for the hours to make a knitted scarf would be wildly expensive). But people knit, because they want to...and there is where the lack of value comes from. A great many people knit things, and we live in a world where such an item isn't an essential, so it's easy to pass on.
The value of a good ≠ the cost to produce the good or a reflection of how much effort went into it. It never has been and never will. The value is a function of the demand and the supply, and we live in a world with vast amounts of video content that would take many lifetimes to watch and countless people who want to make it. They're all fighting over your finite attention. Thus, the value of an extremely high supply and a very limited demand trends to zero.
Similarly, it takes a lot of effort to dig holes, but we're going to pay someone the absolute minimum to do it, because plenty of people can. But we pay people an exceptionally large amount of money to do heart surgery, because very few people have the knowledge, practice and physical ability.
The funny thing is...a large part of what we appreciate about art is the skill and effort that went into making it. But that doesn't mean we feel like handing money over for it. Plenty of now-famous painters died poor, but their works now have value because they're very finite in supply and comparatively more people with wealth would like to own one.
in a creator's market, the creators are the ones being moralized. Whether you disagree with that or not probably says a lot about where you stand on how you value talent. You must not be aware of...
You're trying to moralize about a market, which is not how people truly value things.
in a creator's market, the creators are the ones being moralized. Whether you disagree with that or not probably says a lot about where you stand on how you value talent.
People would often like to have knitted things, but nobody is willing to pay the cost of the time and materials for the product (paying minimum wage for the hours to make a knitted scarf would be wildly expensive). But people knit, because they want to...and there is where the lack of value comes from.
You must not be aware of the Etsy market if you think this. The hierarchy is the same
most people will do something once to try it and leave
others will stay and do it as a hobby, infrequent activity for one's own sake. Maybe they make a few things for family
others do it more, and try to sell a few things. Albeit infrequently, but they may be open to professional work when the moment arises. Alternative
you do it consistently and professionally, either as a side income or maybe later as a main income. You start to focus more around how to optimize monetization over personal desires. Alternatively, you're so skilled that you can do infrequent, specialized work to perform the same means
You work professionally under a company who does the monetization for you, and pays you for your labor.
Now, I'm not sure how much of #5 is alive and well in the knitting scene (at least in the West), but there's plenty of #4's through similar scenes to youtube (or even a few youtubers themselves). The volume will inevitably be lower, but it's a different pipeline; the content you make is a supplement to your real income of commissions or products you have on hand. A bit less reliant on tech, but still there.
Similarly, it takes a lot of effort to dig holes, but we're going to pay someone the absolute minimum to do it, because plenty of people can. But we pay people an exceptionally large amount of money to do heart surgery, because very few people have the knowledge, practice and physical ability.
This used to be conventional wisdom, but I'm less sure these days. At some point, the minimum isn't enough and now you don't get enough people digging holes, and not enough damns to raise pay rather than move out of the hole business (or wait for a bailout when the government needs holes dug. Totally not making a metaphor to this year in the US...)
On the other end, plenty of specialized work is suddenly plummeting demand, so even specialists are pushed out. Everything's topsy turvy these days.
I think we disagree on a simple and basic premise, and without agreement here, we won't agree on anything else in this conversation. So, I want to bring it back to one simple question. Is a...
I think we disagree on a simple and basic premise, and without agreement here, we won't agree on anything else in this conversation. So, I want to bring it back to one simple question. Is a consumer obligated to view ads?
I am certain that you will agree with me, in at least some of the below examples that consumers are not obligated to view ads. If you do agree, I think it is far more mental gymnastics to justify ads as a valid form of payment than not.
I'm watching cable/live TV with adverts. The adverts come on and I get up to make a cup of tea. By the time I come back the programme has resumed. Should I have not done this? Have I broken the terms of viewing the show? Have I stolen income from the show creators and the network?
I'm listening to the radio in a foreign country. An advert comes on in a language I don't understand. Am I still obligated to listen to the ads?
I'm blind person, who has asked my family member to read the newspaper to me. They read the text and skip over the advertisements. Should I ask the reader to go back and describe each advertisement as they show up lest I rob journalists of their income?
I'm on a website with banner ads. I minimise the page so that the banner ads are out of sight. Have I stolen from the website owner?
I'm playing a mobile game and click on a button to get a reward for watching an ad. As I do this, I turn my phone screen down for 30 seconds are turn the sound off. Was this wrong?
I'm watching TV and the adverts come on. I change channel.
I arrive early to a cinema screening. I wait outside, perhaps order popcorn, or use the bathroom until the adverts are over.Have I failed to “pay” for the film I’m about to watch?
8a. An advert comes on advertising a service I think is morally reprehensible. Am I still required to watch it?
8b. An ad comes on that I find distressing. Perhaps it is triggering to an eating disorder, or depicts violence, or maybe I'm a recovering alcoholic and an ad for beer comes on. Would it be wrong for me to choose to 'opt out' of this advert?
9a. I have no money. I cannot possibly pay for the service or good advertised. Should I still view the advert?
9b. I receive an advert for a good or service that I cannot possibly use. Perhaps I am a lifelong prisoner watching a McDonald's advert. Perhaps I am a child watching an advert for cigarettes.
10a. YouTube provided me with a skip button 5 seconds into the ad. Would it be wrong for me to skip this advert without viewing the full address, especially if the creator does not get paid unless I view the full address?
10b. If the creator is not getting paid unless I click the advert, am I obligated to click on it? Buy the item/service??
The point of these examples isn’t to claim that ads are useless, or that creators shouldn’t be paid. It’s to show that we already accept, almost universally, that ad viewing is voluntary and non-obligatory.
If avoiding ads through perfectly ordinary behaviour isn’t immoral in these cases, then arguing that using software to do the same thing suddenly is immoral is, in my opinion, mental gymnastics.
Ads are an optional monetisation strategy, not a debt incurred by consumption. If this is the case; if viewing and engaging with adverts is not an obligation, then YouTubers are essentially placing their content in public, in a free to view location, and are not in my opinion, owed anything by my viewership. They are welcome, as YouTube is, to paywall their content. But most do not fully do so as this is less profitable, even with adblock.
Declining to watch ads is not a contradiction, not theft, and not a denial of creators’ worth. Rather, it is a refusal to accept an obligation that consumers are not, and never have been, required to accept.
Edit: just a final note to say, it's Christmas here, and having a debate about adverts online is not how I'm choosing to spend my Christmas! I'll happily read any response(s) to this, but probably won't be replying! Hope you have an absolutely wonderful Christmas, if you celebrate - and if not, I hope you have a wonderful day nonetheless!
I think the conversation will talk past each other because this is orthogonal to what the other side is asking: "how much do you value content?". On the logistical side, the question of "are you...
I think we disagree on a simple and basic premise, and without agreement here, we won't agree on anything else in this conversation. So, I want to bring it back to one simple question. Is a consumer obligated to view ads?
I think the conversation will talk past each other because this is orthogonal to what the other side is asking: "how much do you value content?". On the logistical side, the question of "are you obligated to watch ads" is silly, because yes. These trillion dollar companies do take into account that some people have adblock and other people will simply walk away or mute the feed or any other manual asking past the website's control. So it's a moot point at the end of the day.
It's like suggesting that "Is stealing groceries hurting the company"? Kinda... but not really. The pricing takes into account that X% of goods are stolen, defective, or spoiled. A huge change to this would impact it, but huge societal changes don't come out of the ether.
Now, "how much you value content" gives a spectrum and bigger idea on how and if artists can survive on their talents. And it sadly isn't a meriocracy; I'm sure I don't need to name the ways in which influencers succeed in ways that do not reflect how well they can serve their community past "look pretty and sell a dream, no matter how viable".
That's definitely the side of inflencing that make it muddy compared to the craftmen, the animators, and the mission-focused ones who genuinely want to make a better world. But they all live on the same platform and to be frank; we're in a very vapid world. I wish more were educated enough to avoid obvious clickbait and grifts, but I'd also not blame any "good" content that uses the same techniques to "trick" someone into building more awareness or empathy of the world.
I believe creators deserve payment, and am usually happy to watch their sponsorships. I don't believe that creators are entitled to pass their business expenses on to me in the form of ads from...
I believe creators deserve payment, and am usually happy to watch their sponsorships. I don't believe that creators are entitled to pass their business expenses on to me in the form of ads from their platform of choice. If Youtube operated like any other infrastructure, it would be the creators paying to host their content, possibly with tiers based on audience size etc. Complaining that I'm not "paying for their infrastructure" (watching Youtube ads) as well as "paying their revenue" (watching sponsorships and/or paying a subscription) is a bit much.
I suppose by that definition, the entire industry of the arts is "Celebrity chasing", no? heck, maybe any B2C business period. Your pay is based on how many people value your services. The only...
but it is why I used adblock with no reservation. I firmly believe that Celebrity is a privilege and not a right. For many, YouTube is the vehicle that makes them Celebrities. But it is the people that are what make them 'valuable'. Not YouTube, not advertising, and not their income.
I suppose by that definition, the entire industry of the arts is "Celebrity chasing", no? heck, maybe any B2C business period. Your pay is based on how many people value your services.
The only difference here seems to be the topic matter. People won't give as much friction over a farmer selling food, but someone trying to express their content is seen as "disposable".
And even if they have a concert show that evening, if they decide to busk that morning, I still don't owe them anything for listening in on them. This is the nature of the industry
I feel like this "it is what it is" culture is exactly why we've had decades of decline in the arts in the US. It is what it is, until the juice ain't worth the squeeze and being in a band is no longer an aspiration for the next generation. Easier to just look pretty and sell yourself on being a face for whatever brands want to shove into people's faces. Maybe not culturally valuable, but you "being pretty" has bonus perks in wider society in ways an artist doesn't.
I had Youtube premium through a subscription to Google Play Music, back when they still called it Youtube Red. Still miss GPM. Since I was grandfathered that way I paid $10/month throughout the...
I was actually a long term subscriber to youtube premium but I cancelled maybe a month ago. I was hesitant for a long time because I thought the value I got from it was so great that it was worth paying, especially since youtube splits the premium revenue 40/60 or 50/50 with creators. On top of that I also had youtube music. It felt wrong to do all these mental gymnastics and go the adblock route because of the creators. The author in the post touches on this point.
I had Youtube premium through a subscription to Google Play Music, back when they still called it Youtube Red. Still miss GPM.
Since I was grandfathered that way I paid $10/month throughout the years until the end of 2023 (or 24?) where they finally increased my sub to $15 a month. I think it's still worth it, even in lieu of me cancelling almost every other sub I had as harder times fell upon me (including all my streaming services and all my patreon-style support), which narrowed me down to this and Discord.
But I long recognize the myriad of issues Youtube has had. I'm slowly leaning into my own kinds of content creation myself, so I can definitely resonate with some of the hypocrisy at play with people being indignant towards the only way a creator will get monetized from providing dozens of hours of content to them. But at the same time, I really can't blame people given Google's behavior, especially this decade when they abandoned their "don't be evil clause" and full on embraced pretty much ever Big Tech anti-pattern out there in the open.
Creators will be hurt, but there's no way to stick it to YT that also doesn't hurt creators in the process. ultimately, we need some sort of force to slowly erode this monopolistic force, because monopolies don't break down by continuing to support a company that clearly doesn't value you. I wish the creators the best of luck in this journey, though.
I haven't read the article. I'm reacting purely on my own experience and on the headline. I will not use Youtube. Not for uploading vudeos (I don't do that anyway), nor watching them there. I use...
I haven't read the article. I'm reacting purely on my own experience and on the headline.
I will not use Youtube. Not for uploading vudeos (I don't do that anyway), nor watching them there. I use Grayjay to watch Youtube videos without ads.
I still like video over text, especially if some of my favorite creators does it - Steve Mould, Veritasium, SmarterEveryDay, Technology Connections, JerryRigEverything, Louis Rossmann, you name them...
My friend rides a motorbike on longer journeys and shotots, cuts and uploads videos of it. His videos got taken down because of him using songs in them here and there (which is bad, he knows it). He moved to other platform since then - Vimeo at first and Odysse right now. The latter seems to be the most open platform that is somehow known at least a bit today. It doesn't make money for creators (from ads), but at the very least it is usable from the other point - you can watch videos uninterrupted by ads. And support the creators in another way, ie. Patreon, buy merch or donate.
Youtube is the biggest but it's becoming evil rather fast.
I wish someone turned this sentence into an entire article. People are consistently surprised by widely-reported facts. It's kind of a problem that all companies need to do is stall on a subject...
And, err, we already knew that large language models are trained on YouTube videos, years ago. I wish we could stop looking so surprised when we "rediscover" widely known facts!
I wish someone turned this sentence into an entire article. People are consistently surprised by widely-reported facts. It's kind of a problem that all companies need to do is stall on a subject and do their best to avoid follow-up reports, and they can get through the scandal with their ill-gotten gains intact. I remember back when it turned out EA had a scandal and they had a policy of "don't reply to journalists whatsoever on the scandal", because they knew that if journalists had a reply from EA then they would turn it into an article, and would ask for a reply-to-a-reply from the aggrieved and so on.
In other words, it's better to keep your mouth shut and remove all doubt that you're guilty, then to open your mouth and make people think you're maybe guilty.
Well, yes. Youtube is the definition of why a monopoly is bad. It makes bad move after bad move for the better part of a decade. But you can't leave. No one else is even trying to compete, and...
Well, yes. Youtube is the definition of why a monopoly is bad. It makes bad move after bad move for the better part of a decade. But you can't leave. No one else is even trying to compete, and there isn't any other platform paying for long form content creation like it. Nebula is the closest competitor, but it's tailoring towards a specific kind of content.
So, creators are locked in, as are their fans, and most people in general who watch videos on the internet. Leaving room to do all the stuff in this article that would burn a more competitive medium.
And, err, we already knew that large language models are trained on YouTube videos, years ago. I wish we could stop looking so surprised when we "rediscover" widely known facts! But of course, his point still stands.
It not being a surprise doesn't mean we shouldn't repeat it. This is classic desensitization. Yes, it IS still bad that Youtube is taking your content and doing stuff with it with little recourse. Don't accept that.
There's a misconception that we only get a small portion of that ad money, but we get half; so, by using an ad blocker, you are damaging us creators, as much as you are damaging YouTube.
I'd like more data on this point. I've heard rates and seen other's rates, and it doesn't seem close to "half of that ad money". I imagine it varies immensely from topic, to time of year, to subscriber count. Maybe the nature of his channel being relatively small (33k subs as of this writing) and a very engaging fanbase (focuses on linux and FOSS... so a very sticky fanbase) means that his videos do pay out more than your typical channel.
Even worse, since I make videos about Open Source, and Open Source fans are more likely to use ad blockers, it means that making videos about Open Source is inherently less profitable.
Or more profitable per user. They may be more likely per user, but I also wager that (like me) more than your usual audience uses Premium. And a premium view is much more valuable than an ad view. That could explain the monetization. I wish he explained more about that aspect. But I'm not sure that vibes well with this thesis of "Youtube sucks, but I still want to make a living out of it".
There's no good answer to this that doesn't also hurt the creators in the process, because while money rarely trickles down, failures do. And while I'm of the lens of "Google needs to be taken down a peg", I recognize my bias in that my career isn't dependent on Google. We never made progression in society without some people hurt in the process, so I don't think "minimizing harm" is the right attitude towards this.
Well, it is a tough message, but my personal answer to the question posed at the end of the post is:
Then I guess their videos should not exist.
Sorry, but I will not give an evil behemoth like Youtube even one inch of room. I thoroughly despise everything that is infected with ads, opaque algorithms and now AI. I try to do my part, by paying for Nebula and sponsoring a couple of creators on Patreon, but I will not for one second turn off my ad blocker.
If that means that fewer videos will be made, then so be it. There already is far too much media to consume anyway. Subjecting yourself to Youtube's antics is not the solution.
This is also how I've felt about the youtube/twitch culture for the longest time. I was a dedicated streamer for 8 years, and while I would have loved to have made it a career in some capacity, I was 100% aware that building up a career dependant on a platform can only last as long as the platform does. And the end of a platform shouldn't be the physical powerdown of the servers, but instead the acknowledgement that it's not doing right by the consumers or producers. Don't even get me started on Twitter's odd magnetic hold on people who know they should leave while Bluesky is standing right there.
Use that power and angst towards bettering another platform. I put up some content on Glomble a little while ago, and now that my computer/recording situation is back to normal I'll be posting there. Try bolstering a new platform with stuff to entice others and make it grow.
edit: I just thought this was funny and on topic to pin on the end here.
Glomble? GLOMBLE???
Seriously sounds like a joke name. All I can think of.
Ha, yeah it's a pretty goofy name that represents the community vibe well. I liken it a lot more to a 90's website, which typically had oddball names like that. Given every website is run by late-millenial soulless suits, a site mainly run and maintained by kids from the zoomer and alpha generations is refreshing. They're doing what they can to carve an alcove for themselves on the internet, and the community has built it in a very wholesome way.
Give it a look sometime if you're tired of the youtube creator-grind atmosphere. It's like walking out of a screamo concert and into a soundproof room in some ways. You can throw a low-res letsplay or vlog on in the background while working on something else, and then not worry about damaging their algorithm when you click out early.
Wow, we went straight from "millennials are bohemian hipsters killing {industry}" to "late-millennial soulless suits" in what, six years?
I think most of the corporate web is still controlled by Gen X, anyway.
I personally killed off the diamond industry singlehandedly for not getting married (so I'm told, anyway ;D). For what it's worth, I was thinking of Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg in their early 40's falling within the millennial age group. Sundar Pichai (google ceo) is 53 and falls squarely in the middle of Gen X, and that would have been a better comparison with Youtube and all, but c'est la vie.
Yep, it fits firmly in the last category and if it were a ranked list, firmly at the bottom.
It's a terrible name that entices me to.. stay away from it.
Brand names don't have to mean something per se, but they at least shouldn't make me physically recoil.
My biggest problem with Bluesky is that it reeks heavily of the early Facebook interoperability with the Fediverse.
As soon as they hit critical mass I'm fairly confident that particular link will be severed quickly.
I think you're thinking of Threads there. Bluesky is only interoperable with the Fediverse via third-party bridges. Bluesky is built on a different protocol, but is very committed to the idea of a decentralised network, just in a different format and with different design parameters to the Fediverse.
Thanks for the link, because Glomble is the exact kind of indie shit I like to see. Definitely going to be checking that out for a while.
Hell yeah :) hope you find some fun content there. If I had to put together a starter pack, fa1ry_du5t does a ton of experimental stuff (anything from music to vlogs you'd see from 2006 youtube), AntiqueVenture hits the JonTron itch with reviews and commentary on retro games, hw0lf188 who does story time animations or commentates over their art process, johnsonusd pokes music and dev stuff, and Gallifrey103 who has some nice long-form content including discussing books or a review of a season of Doctor Who.
I don't want to dis-service any minecraft creators on glomble by only posting one of them, but given how prominent minecraft is on tildes, somebody will find a minecraft creator they'll enjoy on there.
I don’t think it’s ever been put so succinctly, there is plenty out there without YouTube existing.
Is there? The takeover of short form content does give me a bit of pause to the idea that "we'd be better of if Youtube disappeared tomorrow".
I'd still make due and find the valuable content, but I don't have the same faith with most people.
I guess I'm not sure what valuable content their is. I'm not saying there's isn't, but more trying to catalogue YouTube's value to society is difficult for me.
There are tutorial and learning videos that I think are hugely valuable, maybe the most valuable thing on the Internet. It's not clear to me if those are valuable to YouTube, the business that needs to make money, or if they're just subsidized by content that is low value to society. Can YouTube exist in a form that serves valuable content without needing victims who fall for the slop to pay the bills?
This isn't directly responding to anything you said. I guess my opinion is that YouTube has value, but that it doesn't outweigh the damage.
There is a massive amount of content that is well worth the watch on youtube. It's by far one of the biggest and most amazing resources we have.
https://tildes.net/?tag=long_watch - most of these are likely worth a watch if they ended up on tildes.
Once you have a good quality feed going, basically everything that shows on your homepage is worth watching. I know that my career would be entirely different if I didn't have access to the plethora of content youtube gives me.
This idea that we should get rid of youtube because you see a lot of trash content is like saying we should get rid of wikipedia because there's plenty of trash articles on it. Pure madness..
I didn't say anything about getting rid of YouTube. I did specifically say that the learning videos on YouTube are possibly the most valuable things on the internet, so it seems that we mostly agree.
My concern is with it's impact to society, which I referenced a few times, and unfortunately has nothing to do with how I curate my personal feed.
Not like for like but there are more great books than you can ever read in a lifetime
I didn't get the impression that it's "evil" from what was listed in the article. Is this genuinely only about trump unbanning, Israel Gaza thing and AI? Because none of these things I would classify as evil and even at worst it seems to be fairly benign compared to all the good the platform did for creativity. Once again I am puzzled by Tilde's reaction.
A while back I posted some thoughts tangential to this, and they didn't seem to be well-received, but I'll try again.
My fundamental problem with YouTube is what the profit motive does to content. I don't believe you can prioritize profit and content at the same time. Once you've built your livelihood off of your content, it's now a matter of survival. When the YouTube algorithm fails to surface high quality content, and instead surfaces high engagement content, you're now faced with the dilemma: do you chase the algorithm so that you income stream continues, or change jobs?
In that way, the YouTube algorithm is basically your boss. If it says "stop making long form content, we want shorts now", then your choice is to do that or find a new job. Many people will do what the boss demands.
Anyhow, my proposal is the streaming platform equivalent of public access TV of yore. Every citizen gets X GB of streaming space that they can use however they like. More importantly, morning is monetized. No ads, no algorithms, just good old fashioned sorting and searching to find content.
The pushback I got is that nobody would use it, but I'm not sure. I think quality content exists on YouTube in spite of how it's run, not because of it, and every month brings new ways YouTube wants to dictate how content is allowed to survive in modern media.
I'd use it. I'd post boring informative shit and never look at viewership numbers. I wouldn't be competing with anyone because there's no profit incentive.
I can do this today on YouTube, but YouTube will constantly use suggestions and algorithms to try and pull my viewers away and into garbage. It's predatory and not a good place for learning. Imagine crack dealers at your library and having to teach your children to say no in between every book.
I'm exaggerating but... Am I? Just recently I showed my little one chef Amaury on YouTube. It's great content, and his channel is full of choices to watch. So why, then, does every single video end with a suggestion for three unrelated videos from three unrelated channels? Predatory, and the predator doesn't distinguish adults from children.
It's never been easier for anyone in the world to create content, but we don't have a single content platform that is devoid of profit incentive. That's a problem, because the profit incentive will always come first.
I like this suggestion, and I think it would pair well with another modification.
Decouple the content hosting from the content delivery.
I think the best example of this is the streaming music industry. For the most part, the music library isn’t different between Apple Music, Spotify, and YouTube music. This forces those platforms to actually compete. If you want lossless quality, freedom to use third party front ends, and ability to add your own music, you get Apple Music. If you want podcasts to infiltrate your music app (why would anyone want this?), you get Spotify. If you want the worst music app, you get YouTube music. (I may have some strong opinions about music services.)
Let’s say we had two separate services, YouTube backend and YouTube front end. YouTube backend would have to compete with services like Vimeo, nebula, floatplane, and others to be good content hosts for creators. From what I hear, YouTube studio is actually quite good, but I am sure some competition could improve it. Then we have YouTube frontend, which is the website and apps. Those could play content from any of the backend services, not just YouTube backend. If you want an ad infested nightmare (or to have useless services like YT music bundled with your premium), stick with YouTube. If you don’t want that, use a custom front end like greyjay or the many competitors that would certainly pop up. These competitors would still be able to access the content from YouTube backend, nebula, floatplane, etc. But now they have to actually compete for users.
This can be combined pretty easily with a government run video backend with limited options. For a prolific uploader, it makes sense for them to use the private backends. But for occasional uploaders, a simple and low usage government platform would be perfect.
Heard!
I think splitting the backend from how it's delivered is a really good idea and would go a long way towards improving competition.
That’s not really how music streaming works with respect to the hosting / delivery. Each service both hosts and delivers the content. It’s just that most people will have their content uploaded to each of those services because those services are already popular and it would be bad for the artist not to upload their music there. And to my knowledge, most artists aren’t uploading to streaming services for monetary reasons, rather for discovery and conversions to concerts and merchandise. To make it analogous to music streaming, you could (and some already) do this by just uploading all your same content across various video hosting platforms. The reason I don’t think a lot of people do this is because it’s largely pointless in that Vimeo, Floatplane, etc have so little of the video content market share. There’s also a large difference in audience interaction between these platforms as most video platforms are social in some way whereas most music platforms are not. You’ve also got the problem of video being exponentially more challenging to host and deliver as opposed to audio.
I get what you’re saying in terms of your ideal situation for how video platforms should function, but music absolutely does not function like this already. And if it did, I still don’t think these platforms are nearly similar enough to compare them with respect to feasibility.
I think your idea is interesting, but I don’t see why anybody would develop for this platform.
Unless you pay a subscription to attach Backend A, why would people produce content and post it there? There’s only so many people like the Article Author who will make high quality content for fun, and only so many groups who have the funding to produce content in the PBS model.
It’s one thing if this platform is the Original Video Platform, but I think it would be extremely difficult to get a critical mass of people to buy-in.
Those are all problems to solve, but I don’t think they are insurmountable.
I want to reiterate that this setup already exists. This is exactly how music streaming works. It’s also how cable TV works. As much as people hated how cable TV worked, this was a good aspect. The real problem with cable TV is that what I am calling front ends didn’t have competition. If you want HBO or STARZ, you don’t need to buy a specific cable TV subscription. You can buy any cable TV package and purchase HBO on top of that. (For now, I am ignoring the fact that most areas had a regional monopoly for a cable TV provider.)
There is also a great example of a market going from what we have now to something like what I envision: the Internet. AOL started as a walled garden. You accessed AOL built and partner websites only. But the Internet we have today is universal. When someone is making a website, they don’t have to decide to work with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others separately. They just put it on « the internet ».
I don’t see any way the market would move to this on it’s own. It requires regulations. I think it would work to compose a comprehensive set of regulations, similar in scope to the EU DMA. It would require backend services to have an API to develop against. Front end services can come and go, and I don’t think would need much regulation.
In the long term, I think we would see the vast majority of people keep using a service’s default front end, just because it’s the default. Alternative front ends would likely be paid for in some way, though open source ones that lack some polish would certainly exist. Just the fact that those alternate front ends exist would create market pressure to improve services built in front ends. You don’t have to take my word for it; that exact scenario has happened before. With cable TV, the US congress passed a law requiring a cable card, to allow people to use their own cable TV equipment. That allowed a company like TiVo to create a fantastic alternative to the default cable boxes. The vast majority of people didn’t get a TiVo, but TiVo existing forces the cable companies to make their default cable boxes significantly better.
I have multiple YouTube accounts and honestly I've found that the algorithm "feeds* me what I show I want. If I'm watching chess videos it sends them my way, same for tng videos, etc etc. despite all that I really only watch videos from my subscription feed though. I think people would get accustomed to whatever they get from social media, be it your idea or something different.
As a brief tangent, it's quite amusing how those rightwing tradwife channels create a paradox where their performance of 1940's housewife has made them the primary breadwinner.
I actually really like this and agree with it in many ways and could see it working and people using it. People share tools and borrow things from their neighbors, or share information freely, and whatnot, and I could see this being an extension of that idea
I think unfortunately one of the underlying things here is the problem of some types of financial structures of societies (one might shorthand "capitalism" here, but I want it to sound broader than that) causing the incentive of the profit motive to always bloom out of anything, often even initially good things and ideas.
I do think in spite of this, neat things can exist that go a different direction (some open-source software, maybe libraries?, communal spaces, etc), but I feel like all of them will always have a pull on them, and some may fold or feel almost forced into some profit motive eventually. Anything that survives without giving in, does so with probably great difficulty
Maybe it's an ideal we never reach but I wish we could all be making and sharing things with one another all the time, without feeling like we need to commodify it or sell it or whatever. But when we need to constantly pay to survive another day on this earth, that poisons the well of so much of what we do
I'm not all economist, and probably naive, but my answer is usually socialism. Or socialization of things that are a benefit to most of society. I'd fund this service with taxes.
Same.... Same... I think a lot about how many people never get to explore their potential because the things they might be great at aren't marketable, or are too competitive as a career path.
I agree with a large portion of commenters here: YouTubers aren’t entitled to a source of income simply for making videos. They earn an income because Google pays them.
Stop and ask yourself why. It’s because Google extracts people’s personal data from across the web and uses that data to make profitable deals with advertisers. Over time, Google has effectively become one of very few ways to advertise on the Internet, so businesses are almost required to pay a “Google tax” in order to do business.
YouTube is simply another tool for their data machine. If Google Ads didn’t exist, I guarantee YouTube wouldn’t either. Platforms with a paid subscription model would. I think the world would be a better place if the video platforming and advertising were separate, even if that does compromise a source of income for the creators.
idk what this website is trying to do, but when I get to the bottom and it loads the comments under the article, it tries to download a file. Not a fan of that...
You're right, it does do that, that's strange. Perhaps some sort of bug ? I doubt this site in particular would do anything shady.
Gonna analyse that in a virtual machine. Give me a moment.
Alright, I briefly looked into it. Didn't spend that much time digging around, but:
Seems more like a bug/misconfiguration
Reading this reminded me of the saying,
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm not going to blame anyone for trying to make a living. When people call for boycotts I'm often skeptical. Google is an enormous company that does many good things and many bad things, but overall I think they do more good than bad. (But I'm biased. I still own a lot of Google stock, so I have a conflict of interest on that.)
On the other hand, I have personal reasons to limit how I use YouTube. I only watch music videos or the occasional movie. I've decided to never watch talking-head videos because already have an Internet addiction and I don't want to make it worse. When Sarah Taber complains that people comment on BlueSky without watching her videos, I'm like, sorry but I am never going to watch your videos.
So, this article comes across like a complaint from the owner of a BBQ restaurant that some people are vegetarians. Some people just aren't into what you sell, and that's okay. I don't blame you for trying, but there's no moral obligation to buy your product.
On the other hand, I think this guy is doing it right by having a blog as a way to communicate with people who don't watch videos. Since this article is a blog entry instead of a video, I can read it and comment on it. He also has a subscribe button for his blog, which seems like a good idea; people can pay him outside of YouTube. (Although, he missed a chance to get people interested in his videos by linking to a page that explains what they're about.)
YouTube is certainly well down the Enshittification road at this point. I still watch content on it, and I still add to my own channel which is my little creative area on Electronics, but I do note that I have had to go through progressively more effort to render the experience of using / watching YouTube to make it, well... usable and tolerable.
Ublock Origin, custom DNS with constantly updating adaptive IP filtering (basically the same concept as running a Pi Hole), etc...
Mirroring my YouTube channel to Odysee is on my to-do list, and maybe now that I finally got access to health insurance and through that ADHD meds I'll be able to actually... DO THINGS ON MY TO-DO LIST. I'm hoping that works out in general, I'm only on the second day but preliminary experience is positive.
A number of the creators I know and enjoy have already duplicated their channel to Odysee (Dave of EEVBlog and Louis Rossmann for example). That kind of progress is slow, but in my experience it's the kind of thing that builds momentum and at a certain point you tend to see a shift of rapidly spreading adoption.
YouTube making their experience ever more shit with you WILL have all these ads shoved down your throat is certainly helping the process along.
Interesting take; I find this write up (without having read the post either, though I will before hitting submit and then comment my thoughts at the end) a better insight as to why YT has become the monster it is.
[I feel the following ramble is going to really paint me in a bad light, but that's life.]
I use it for all the "wrong" reasons (from today's standpoint) - I generally want to listen to music without logging in, without recommendations, and rarely want to check out additional/related content. Thus, I use adblockers, since these are typically not content creators. Additionally (and key point here), I feel that influencers/content creators are akin to social media and have created a whole genre of "bad influence / online social stuff" vibes overall. There are exceptions, but that's my general feeling and experience.
Additionally, a lot of my YT intake is due to me trying to find an answer or explanation online, but I cannot find it in text which generally I prefer, though in some rarer cases it is better to see a model or demonstration.
But in saying I use it for the "wrong" reasons, I believe you have pointed out the reasons that I hadn't realized was my mental reasoning.
After having read the article: That was difficult to read, as I did not relate to the majority of it. I find there were two main points on which it doesn't really appeal or apply to me.
So I guess in conclusion, sorry for rambling on, but your (@milkywayflyinginsect) post really helped shift my thought process on how people view creators like the author. Ironically, it has not really changed my thoughts on YT.
I thought this might’ve been a hot take but I’ve seen some people here with a similar sentiment.
Maybe they should just… not use YT for profit? Youtube in general shouldn’t have went for profit.
How could they make money? They had YT music, YT Red exclusives, but instead they are barking about adblockers.
I’m using YT less and less, sucks that Odysee and Peertube aren’t as big, but YT got enshittified l over time from hobbyist/or weirdoes making videos to a place full of ads and commercials.
I agree... but begrudgingly. There's still 2 big points which makes me hesitatnt to fully support this mentality
The economy sucks, and the gig economy seems to be the big reaction to this on a generational level. "Content Creator" as a job is quickly rising among the youth's dream job, something which simply didn't exist when I was a kid in the 90's. And as traditional employment gets murkier and murkier (with little recourse for labor reform), the U.S.'s hyper-individualist culture will react in a "I want to be my own boss" route rather than "I want to fix what's broken". If that closes off as an option... well, things won't end peacefully, that much is certain.
monetizing has definitely increased the variety of content creators out there. I've seen people rise from doing a silly little challenge run videos on a video game become a new sub-genre of community. I've seen what would have been small podcasters or news commentary become of large voices to push against and raise awareness against regimes that traditional media is paid to shut up about. I've seen some one off tutorials become a small, "free" course that can get other creators off the ground in a variety of careers.
The variety of downsides and utter greed that works against these creators makes me want to still prefer reform. But I understand that I gained a lot form how YT is right now. Feels like one of those issues that would be solved if my government gave any care for the arts.
I feel this whole monetizing via social media has kind of helped facilitate (and possibly accelerate) the current enshittification trends.
I get people want to make money doing things like this, but in order to do so, they need a venue to host the media... which facilitates the companies that are not in it for the little guy.
The economy sucks and it will only get worse.
Until it gets better.
One day.
I don't disagree that monetization did help, it's just that enshittification came alongside with it.
I think the lack of care about arts as your "job" is a ubiquitous or universal thing? Unless you are a known artist who works on a lot of commissions or a big name that sells paintings, you would be doing it more for the love of the art, but you still need to keep the lights on so I've always seen artists in that unenviable position where you either do something you like, or you get paid better by working a job you dislike.
It's more ubiquitous than just the US, or even just The West. So there's a point there. There will always been that human nature aspect of looking at a bard and saying "why are they making the same QoL as I who tends my fields all day"?
I was a bit more focused on policy centered around the arts, however. The EU and even parts of Asia tend to give benefits to promote the arts in various ways. Maybe it's easier to loan money, maybe there's plenty of grants, they subsidize businesses, create huge initiatives to stimulate the industry, etc. It's the circus part of the "Bread and circuses"
The US really hasn't had any of those for decades. Probably because Hollywood culture is a national and worldwide phenomenon that surges demand for actors so that there's no more need to stimulate. And that spreads to every other kind of art and media. thousands upon thousands of people willing to travel the country and "suffer for their art". Why bother investing when they are so self-invested?
People can't get jobs they hate but keeps the lights on, and others are trying to get into creation spaces just to make a cheap hustle. It's all backwards these last few years.
So, progress I guess?
Found this post at a great time where I’m slowly having a falling out with youtube and trying to use less of it. Not necessarily because “youtube is evil” but I’m starting to appreciate the beauty and minimalism of just written articles and blog posts. I enjoy going through them at my own pace and I don’t need to look at a guy for him to read what could have been a blog post to me or watch those stock clips while he reads it. This is especially true for code content. Obviously I’m talking about a small subset of all videos on youtube (tech/news content ish).
I was actually a long term subscriber to youtube premium but I cancelled maybe a month ago. I was hesitant for a long time because I thought the value I got from it was so great that it was worth paying, especially since youtube splits the premium revenue 40/60 or 50/50 with creators. On top of that I also had youtube music. It felt wrong to do all these mental gymnastics and go the adblock route because of the creators. The author in the post touches on this point.
But as I started getting into Lemmy and reading blog posts more and more (also started reading a book), I understood that a lot of that perceived value was because that’s the only thing I used and knew. There’s a whole world out there and since then I’ve slowly started minimizing my time on it. Again, not because it’s bad but just because I feel for a lot of content there are other things out there. It’s a choice. Learning to enjoy reading a light book vs watching Youtube before bed, for example.
I do think there’s some dishonesty and delusion going on in a lot of people’s minds when it comes to adblockers. They use adblock and think they’re somehow doing the right thing and they’re so righteous about it, yet they continue watching Youtube and never donate to any creators. I have a few friends like that.
Since I don’t spend that much time on it anymore, honestly I just watch the ads. Not as big of a deal as I once thought, and they make me want to spend even less time on the platform. I used to also use it for white noise or background music. Now I just use mynoise.net -great platform, would recommend.
Just a random stream of thoughts on my youtube experience.
I don't really think this is a fair assessment.
In my opinion, the first incorrect assumption is that content creators are owed income because they have created and shared something. I don't believe this is the case. Don't get me wrong, I think YouTube is work, and that many YouTubers work hard. But how hard they work realistically has nothing to do with how much money they make. A mass production slop channel (e.g. 5 minute crafts) can churn out absolute trash and generate buckets of income. I could spend 40 hours a week generating heartfelt content for a year and end up with less than minimum wage, if I received any money at all. YouTube, and any associated career is a Celebrity competition. How popular are you? How much do people like you? How lucky have you been?
Now here is the part you may disagree with me, but it is why I used adblock with no reservation. I firmly believe that Celebrity is a privilege and not a right. For many, YouTube is the vehicle that makes them Celebrities. But it is the people that are what make them 'valuable'. Not YouTube, not advertising, and not their income. This opposes other jobs, say for example, being a waiter, where your (economic) value is defined by the work that you do. On YouTube, your (economic) value is defined by how many people like you.
With this in mind, I do not believe YouTubers are 'owed' anything. This is an industry where the terms and conditions are clear: your labour does not define your income. People do.
Perhaps we can compare the job of a Youtuber to that of a busker. It's nice that a busker is playing music in a public space for me to hear. They are sharing their talent with the world. Perhaps I will stay a while and listen to them play. It would be nice, if I did so, to throw a few pennies into their guitar case, maybe even expected. But I don't have to. While their music is playing publicly and freely available, the terms and conditions of payment are on me. They could work their ass off, play 40 hours a week, and I still wouldn't be obligated to donate. Or maybe they're playing 80 hours a week in the middle of a desert, where nobody can hear them. You still owe them nothing. They are doing this because they want to do this.
This is the nature of a YouTubers job, and they know this. Because of this, many have found ways to secure additional income. Pateron, Nebula, merch, tours, etc.
In the same way, a busker might decide that in order to earn some guaranteed income, they might sell CDs of their musicor they might hire a venue for a show. And even if they have a concert show that evening, if they decide to busk that morning, I still don't owe them anything for listening in on them. This is the nature of the industry. Just as musicians are only valuable if people want to give to their art, YouTubers are only valuable if people want to watch them. To be a celebrity in this situation is a great privilege.
Some YouTubers, for example, Khadija Mbowe I believe, may decide to move off YouTube entirely and produce content to a paying audience only. This is entirely their prerogative. Most do not, and this is because content creators are aware that they need YouTube to build and grow their audience, to build and grow the share of fans who like their content enough to pay for it. Many people won't, and will stop consuming content if it is placed behind a paywall. But these non payers are still valuable to YouTube, and YouTube knows it. Last year, YouTube proved it had the capacity to ban users who were using adblock. Yet mysteriously, they still haven't done this. Alternatively, YouTube could paywall it's entirely service, as Netflix have done. But they haven't. Because non paying users are still valuable to them (likely though data harvesting). In this sense, all people watching YouTube, adblock or not, are paying customers.
I suppose the last point to address is this. While I earlier compared the job of a YouTuber to the job of a busker, I don't think this is an exact 1:1 comparison. While buskers play in public, YouTubers kinda don't. They play on YouTube, which might be considered YouTube's privately owned land.
But here is the important question. Are consumers obligated to view adverts? I firmly believe the answer is no, and to say yes is horrificly dystopian (for further reading see 10,000 Merits). Just as if I listen to a busker playing in Times Square I am not obligated to view the ads on the building around me, if I watch a YouTuber, I am not obligated to view the ads around them. Adverts are not valid currency. If I can close my eyes and plug my ears when an ad comes on my TV at home, I should also be able ask a machine to help me with this. When viewed in this context, almost all of us can agree that advertisements are not, and should not be required viewing. If YouTube wants to stop me viewing their content if I refuse to view their ads, this is their right. If YouTube wants to put a fence around the busker on their land, this is their right. But they haven't. And until they do, I will continue to proudly use adblock. If or when YouTube kick me off their platform for this, I will humbly bow out. But as discussed earlier, I think this is unlikely to happen, because if it was going to it would have happened already.
Edit: Just an addendum to say, if you want to support your favourite YouTubers, please do! Your support will allow them to create content. If you don't support them, they might not be able to create content. If you choose not to support them, that's fine. But be aware that they may no longer make the art that you love. If they go bust, you'll only have yourself to blame.
Ultimately I find that I value my time, attention, privacy, security, and so on more than I value any perceived social contract re: revenue between me and a platform or its creators, to watch advertising in exchange for its content.
I am under no obligation to uphold this revenue model, just as any platform is under no obligation to provide its content to me free of charge or in a way that allows me to tailor it to myself (via a browser extension that prevents its advertising). If you don't want me to be able to view your content without advertising, don't provide it in a way that allows me to do so.
I find advertising, and the industry that upholds it, so ethically void itself that I find what some perceive as a "lack of ethics" in blocking ads to pale in comparison, and outweighed by the benefits every time. If one wishes to consider this a moral failure on my part, it is a moral failure of such little significance and such important benefit that I cannot be brought to care.
That said, I do what I can where I can afford it to act in a way that supports creators to some extent. When it is reasonable for me I'll do what I can to pay to avoid advertising completely on certain platforms. That said, for plenty of other times, I will consume content while blocking its ads- and not feel one bit bad about it.
It's the unfortunate reality of the internet- if tons of content can no longer survive due to ads being blocked and there has to be a reckoning about revenue models used online, then so be it.
I can think of ways that advertising can be done that largely mitigate many of its harms, but that kind of advertising paradigm is so restrictive that it's not something ad companies would ever do or be comfortable with anymore, and if they did, it would pay so little as to be useless. The ad industry made their bed and they can sleep in it for all I care
Edit to add a final note: If I were to go to the extreme, which I feel sometimes, some days I would say I feel like advertising as a whole I find unsavory and undesirable, even in its least harmful forms- I find it to be a unconsented-to attack on our time and attention, period, and we should rid ourselves of it and find alternatives for discovery (directories, catalogs, "designated spaces" for it to exist in an opt-in manner) and never look at it again as a revenue model for anything
To me a lot of these arguments that I just read (from you and others) still look like crazy mental gymnastics.
Ultimately there's a fundamental problem : You cannot simultaneously believe creators don't deserve payment AND that their content is worth your time to consume.
To me a big issue is how YouTube has evolved. Back when I first got into YouTube, people were mostly uploading for the passion of sharing, not to try and make money. It was the wild west of funny, random, or interesting content, uploaded by people of the world because they wanted to share with the world. I participated in this myself, uploading videos not because I wanted to get famous or make money, but because I truly had a passion for it and wanted to share. YouTube still has people uploading things like this, but it has completely morphed into an entirely different beast of a platform overall.
Do the creators deserve to be paid? Maybe? Are we obligated to pay them? I feel like no, because YouTube changed the terms of the contract unilaterally. Ads are an invasive blight on modern society and I feel zero shame in blocking them. Yes Google has hosting costs and I realize that's going to need to be paid back in some form, but so long as the advertising continues to be hostile to consumers, I have zero shame in blocking them.
I do subscribe to Nebula because there's enough creators there that I feel are worth the subscription fee and it helps them. But going into Nebula I knew it was subscription based from the start. There wasn't a bait and switch.
They changed it because the site changed hands.
But at the same time, if people valued simply "making videos for the pasison of sharing", it was not the only site in town to do that with. Clearly creators valued the monetization more, and the audience followed suit.
You're trying to moralize about a market, which is not how people truly value things.
People would often like to have knitted things, but nobody is willing to pay the cost of the time and materials for the product (paying minimum wage for the hours to make a knitted scarf would be wildly expensive). But people knit, because they want to...and there is where the lack of value comes from. A great many people knit things, and we live in a world where such an item isn't an essential, so it's easy to pass on.
The value of a good ≠ the cost to produce the good or a reflection of how much effort went into it. It never has been and never will. The value is a function of the demand and the supply, and we live in a world with vast amounts of video content that would take many lifetimes to watch and countless people who want to make it. They're all fighting over your finite attention. Thus, the value of an extremely high supply and a very limited demand trends to zero.
Similarly, it takes a lot of effort to dig holes, but we're going to pay someone the absolute minimum to do it, because plenty of people can. But we pay people an exceptionally large amount of money to do heart surgery, because very few people have the knowledge, practice and physical ability.
The funny thing is...a large part of what we appreciate about art is the skill and effort that went into making it. But that doesn't mean we feel like handing money over for it. Plenty of now-famous painters died poor, but their works now have value because they're very finite in supply and comparatively more people with wealth would like to own one.
in a creator's market, the creators are the ones being moralized. Whether you disagree with that or not probably says a lot about where you stand on how you value talent.
You must not be aware of the Etsy market if you think this. The hierarchy is the same
Now, I'm not sure how much of #5 is alive and well in the knitting scene (at least in the West), but there's plenty of #4's through similar scenes to youtube (or even a few youtubers themselves). The volume will inevitably be lower, but it's a different pipeline; the content you make is a supplement to your real income of commissions or products you have on hand. A bit less reliant on tech, but still there.
This used to be conventional wisdom, but I'm less sure these days. At some point, the minimum isn't enough and now you don't get enough people digging holes, and not enough damns to raise pay rather than move out of the hole business (or wait for a bailout when the government needs holes dug. Totally not making a metaphor to this year in the US...)
On the other end, plenty of specialized work is suddenly plummeting demand, so even specialists are pushed out. Everything's topsy turvy these days.
I think we disagree on a simple and basic premise, and without agreement here, we won't agree on anything else in this conversation. So, I want to bring it back to one simple question. Is a consumer obligated to view ads?
I am certain that you will agree with me, in at least some of the below examples that consumers are not obligated to view ads. If you do agree, I think it is far more mental gymnastics to justify ads as a valid form of payment than not.
8a. An advert comes on advertising a service I think is morally reprehensible. Am I still required to watch it?
8b. An ad comes on that I find distressing. Perhaps it is triggering to an eating disorder, or depicts violence, or maybe I'm a recovering alcoholic and an ad for beer comes on. Would it be wrong for me to choose to 'opt out' of this advert?
9a. I have no money. I cannot possibly pay for the service or good advertised. Should I still view the advert?
9b. I receive an advert for a good or service that I cannot possibly use. Perhaps I am a lifelong prisoner watching a McDonald's advert. Perhaps I am a child watching an advert for cigarettes.
10a. YouTube provided me with a skip button 5 seconds into the ad. Would it be wrong for me to skip this advert without viewing the full address, especially if the creator does not get paid unless I view the full address?
10b. If the creator is not getting paid unless I click the advert, am I obligated to click on it? Buy the item/service??
The point of these examples isn’t to claim that ads are useless, or that creators shouldn’t be paid. It’s to show that we already accept, almost universally, that ad viewing is voluntary and non-obligatory.
If avoiding ads through perfectly ordinary behaviour isn’t immoral in these cases, then arguing that using software to do the same thing suddenly is immoral is, in my opinion, mental gymnastics.
Ads are an optional monetisation strategy, not a debt incurred by consumption. If this is the case; if viewing and engaging with adverts is not an obligation, then YouTubers are essentially placing their content in public, in a free to view location, and are not in my opinion, owed anything by my viewership. They are welcome, as YouTube is, to paywall their content. But most do not fully do so as this is less profitable, even with adblock.
Declining to watch ads is not a contradiction, not theft, and not a denial of creators’ worth. Rather, it is a refusal to accept an obligation that consumers are not, and never have been, required to accept.
Edit: just a final note to say, it's Christmas here, and having a debate about adverts online is not how I'm choosing to spend my Christmas! I'll happily read any response(s) to this, but probably won't be replying! Hope you have an absolutely wonderful Christmas, if you celebrate - and if not, I hope you have a wonderful day nonetheless!
I think the conversation will talk past each other because this is orthogonal to what the other side is asking: "how much do you value content?". On the logistical side, the question of "are you obligated to watch ads" is silly, because yes. These trillion dollar companies do take into account that some people have adblock and other people will simply walk away or mute the feed or any other manual asking past the website's control. So it's a moot point at the end of the day.
It's like suggesting that "Is stealing groceries hurting the company"? Kinda... but not really. The pricing takes into account that X% of goods are stolen, defective, or spoiled. A huge change to this would impact it, but huge societal changes don't come out of the ether.
Now, "how much you value content" gives a spectrum and bigger idea on how and if artists can survive on their talents. And it sadly isn't a meriocracy; I'm sure I don't need to name the ways in which influencers succeed in ways that do not reflect how well they can serve their community past "look pretty and sell a dream, no matter how viable".
That's definitely the side of inflencing that make it muddy compared to the craftmen, the animators, and the mission-focused ones who genuinely want to make a better world. But they all live on the same platform and to be frank; we're in a very vapid world. I wish more were educated enough to avoid obvious clickbait and grifts, but I'd also not blame any "good" content that uses the same techniques to "trick" someone into building more awareness or empathy of the world.
I believe creators deserve payment, and am usually happy to watch their sponsorships. I don't believe that creators are entitled to pass their business expenses on to me in the form of ads from their platform of choice. If Youtube operated like any other infrastructure, it would be the creators paying to host their content, possibly with tiers based on audience size etc. Complaining that I'm not "paying for their infrastructure" (watching Youtube ads) as well as "paying their revenue" (watching sponsorships and/or paying a subscription) is a bit much.
I suppose by that definition, the entire industry of the arts is "Celebrity chasing", no? heck, maybe any B2C business period. Your pay is based on how many people value your services.
The only difference here seems to be the topic matter. People won't give as much friction over a farmer selling food, but someone trying to express their content is seen as "disposable".
I feel like this "it is what it is" culture is exactly why we've had decades of decline in the arts in the US. It is what it is, until the juice ain't worth the squeeze and being in a band is no longer an aspiration for the next generation. Easier to just look pretty and sell yourself on being a face for whatever brands want to shove into people's faces. Maybe not culturally valuable, but you "being pretty" has bonus perks in wider society in ways an artist doesn't.
I had Youtube premium through a subscription to Google Play Music, back when they still called it Youtube Red. Still miss GPM.
Since I was grandfathered that way I paid $10/month throughout the years until the end of 2023 (or 24?) where they finally increased my sub to $15 a month. I think it's still worth it, even in lieu of me cancelling almost every other sub I had as harder times fell upon me (including all my streaming services and all my patreon-style support), which narrowed me down to this and Discord.
But I long recognize the myriad of issues Youtube has had. I'm slowly leaning into my own kinds of content creation myself, so I can definitely resonate with some of the hypocrisy at play with people being indignant towards the only way a creator will get monetized from providing dozens of hours of content to them. But at the same time, I really can't blame people given Google's behavior, especially this decade when they abandoned their "don't be evil clause" and full on embraced pretty much ever Big Tech anti-pattern out there in the open.
Creators will be hurt, but there's no way to stick it to YT that also doesn't hurt creators in the process. ultimately, we need some sort of force to slowly erode this monopolistic force, because monopolies don't break down by continuing to support a company that clearly doesn't value you. I wish the creators the best of luck in this journey, though.
I haven't read the article. I'm reacting purely on my own experience and on the headline.
I will not use Youtube. Not for uploading vudeos (I don't do that anyway), nor watching them there. I use Grayjay to watch Youtube videos without ads.
I still like video over text, especially if some of my favorite creators does it - Steve Mould, Veritasium, SmarterEveryDay, Technology Connections, JerryRigEverything, Louis Rossmann, you name them...
My friend rides a motorbike on longer journeys and shotots, cuts and uploads videos of it. His videos got taken down because of him using songs in them here and there (which is bad, he knows it). He moved to other platform since then - Vimeo at first and Odysse right now. The latter seems to be the most open platform that is somehow known at least a bit today. It doesn't make money for creators (from ads), but at the very least it is usable from the other point - you can watch videos uninterrupted by ads. And support the creators in another way, ie. Patreon, buy merch or donate.
Youtube is the biggest but it's becoming evil rather fast.
Huh somehow never came across Odyssee. I know Vimeo is used more as a video hosting service for businesses rather than a "youtube alternative".
I wish someone turned this sentence into an entire article. People are consistently surprised by widely-reported facts. It's kind of a problem that all companies need to do is stall on a subject and do their best to avoid follow-up reports, and they can get through the scandal with their ill-gotten gains intact. I remember back when it turned out EA had a scandal and they had a policy of "don't reply to journalists whatsoever on the scandal", because they knew that if journalists had a reply from EA then they would turn it into an article, and would ask for a reply-to-a-reply from the aggrieved and so on.
In other words, it's better to keep your mouth shut and remove all doubt that you're guilty, then to open your mouth and make people think you're maybe guilty.
Tesla went a step further and dissolved their public relations team altogether. That should be a clear red flag to all consumers
Well, yes. Youtube is the definition of why a monopoly is bad. It makes bad move after bad move for the better part of a decade. But you can't leave. No one else is even trying to compete, and there isn't any other platform paying for long form content creation like it. Nebula is the closest competitor, but it's tailoring towards a specific kind of content.
So, creators are locked in, as are their fans, and most people in general who watch videos on the internet. Leaving room to do all the stuff in this article that would burn a more competitive medium.
It not being a surprise doesn't mean we shouldn't repeat it. This is classic desensitization. Yes, it IS still bad that Youtube is taking your content and doing stuff with it with little recourse. Don't accept that.
I'd like more data on this point. I've heard rates and seen other's rates, and it doesn't seem close to "half of that ad money". I imagine it varies immensely from topic, to time of year, to subscriber count. Maybe the nature of his channel being relatively small (33k subs as of this writing) and a very engaging fanbase (focuses on linux and FOSS... so a very sticky fanbase) means that his videos do pay out more than your typical channel.
Or more profitable per user. They may be more likely per user, but I also wager that (like me) more than your usual audience uses Premium. And a premium view is much more valuable than an ad view. That could explain the monetization. I wish he explained more about that aspect. But I'm not sure that vibes well with this thesis of "Youtube sucks, but I still want to make a living out of it".
There's no good answer to this that doesn't also hurt the creators in the process, because while money rarely trickles down, failures do. And while I'm of the lens of "Google needs to be taken down a peg", I recognize my bias in that my career isn't dependent on Google. We never made progression in society without some people hurt in the process, so I don't think "minimizing harm" is the right attitude towards this.
Their site seems to be down at the moment (or maybe it is/was just me) so here's an archive link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251224104725/https://thelibre.news/youtube-is-awful-please-use-youtube-though/