One of the most annoying things YT does to me is recommend videos I’ve already watched. Like I get it, they are perfect for me, exactly the type of video I watch. That’s why I’ve already seen them. And because I don’t have the memory of a housefly, I actually remember what the video was about. If I wanted to watch it again, I would navigate to my history or the channel it’s from and rewatch it there.
It makes absolutely no sense to me, why recommend videos I’ve already seen?
I use a browser plugin to hide those videos, but it doesn’t fully work.
Every. Fucking. Year. I swear, google just runs a query to remove view history past a certain age. Every. Fucking. Year, there comes a time where my ENTIRE FUCKING HOME PAGE basically resets to a year ago, because it forgot I watched every fucking video already.
Fuck Google. They’re too lazy to do anything correct.
It seems like the current management is actively trying to find new ways to make the platform worse. It’s like a long train of bad decisions that most users somehow tolerate.
I agree. YouTube is only running by the fact, that the content creators are only there. If there was another platform with comparable content and creators, i.e. a real competitor, YT would disintegrate immediately.
If there was another platform with comparable content and creators, i.e. a real competitor, YT would disintegrate immediately.
And why are content creators on YouTube? Because it offers the option to monetize as good video creation requires time and effort that you could put into a job otherwise - not only a single person’s, mind you. The monetization however only works if money is to be made on users, this wasn’t a problem for years because of Google / Alphabet subsidizing YouTube, but in the end, a service should make money either directly or indirectly. And this is what the changes are about. This however is perceived as enshittification, probably even rightfully so - but you can’t have a platform paying out the creators without getting anything from the users, be it a subscription fee or delivering ads.
I feel the criticism about this is somewhat misguided here, compared to things like operating systems - Windows has no needed to get worse, it had a sustainable business model, but corporate greed dictated changes for increased monetization. For YouTube, it was clear from the very beginning - or latest when Google bought it - that the business in that form isn’t sustainable and that it only exists to accumulate users until they decide it’s time to get an RoI.
Google has invested a shocking amount of money into the platform, both to make it attractive to (professional) content creators, but also on a technical front - the amount of data they store, process and deliver is unimaginable.
I’d love it to be different, but I totally understand why this is happening, and see it rather as a turn towards an honest business; and if alternatives ever have a chance, it’s during times like these. Before, YouTube couldn’t be defeated because of virtually unlimitedly deep pockets of Alphabet.
I don’t think we’ll see commercial rivals to this as the investment is very high, but maybe a surge of Peertube or similar comparable to what Mastodon and Lemmy are to their respective services.
You made some good points and I agree, that YouTube has to make money. It is a business after all. Still some decisions make it shittier than it was before for consumers and creators (imo at least):
I am not a content creator myself, but the current algorithms and model seem to make it hard for new creators to get any attention and monetize their content.
On the other hand, I feel the UX for consumers gets worse, especially since it is harder to find new, widely unknown content. But I don’t know if it is better for subscribers, since I never subscribed.
Still I hope any competitor arises, may it be peer tube or some other platform. But you are probably right, without a big investment that is not going to happen soon.
The monetization however only works if money is to be made on users, this wasn’t a problem for years because of Google / Alphabet subsidizing YouTube, but in the end, a service should make money either directly or indirectly. And this is what the changes are about. This however is perceived as enshittification,
It’s true, but it’s still enshittification because they offered one quality of service and then downgraded it to another level entirely. Many companies have done this and I’d even say that it’s planned enshittification. You start out by providing something financially unsustainable, such as (relatively) ad-free high-quality video streaming. You do it so well that you drive everyone else out of business. THEN you either raise prices or force more ads and tracking.
Enshitification. Once they cornered the market and killed competition they tried to squeeze it. What you going to do, leave? Where?
Actually there’s an app that tries to turn this around and remove their monopoly by combining multiple streaming platforms into one: https://grayjay.app/ the more people would use it the less they would be able to do this without consequences
Hell no, I’m not spending money on “source-available” software made by a million dollar company. An application that doesn’t even manage to put an open-source license on its source code is not worth my money. I’m happily donating to actual FOSS projects, but this isn’t one. There are many free & open source alternatives like NewPipe (and forks like Tubular) and LibreTube, why use this source-available bullshit? It’s fucking ridiculous, Louis Rossmann has spent so much time talking about and advocating for open source software, and then he heavily promotes a source-available product.
Hey, he’s not a developer. He doesn’t know the nuances between ACTUAL FOSS and “source available”, nor the VAST GULF of differences.
His heart is in the right place. … but still, definitely go for real FOSS (not just OSS).
Hm? Feels like this forgot somet-[SPONSORED 1 OF 12]
I miss when people made stuff because they loved making stuff, not because they wanted to get rich.
Sort of like how girls used to post sexy photos of themselves because they wanted attention, now they do it to get rich.
I miss when people made stuff because they loved making stuff, not because they wanted to get rich.
They still do, but you’ll never find it in the existing layout. The only stuff that bubbles to the surface is so heavily SEO engineered and hyper-monetized that it’s got to be sixteen ads on the back of an infomercial in order to break even.
Very true. The old internet perfectly showed how people are happy to create and share content as enthusiasts, eg. wikipedia, reddit/forums, and lot of X rated amateur stuff.
Since then, capitalism has decided to leech on and ruin most of these. Now we have more content, but worse quality - because for the end user a genuine reddit review of a product was more useful than a targeted ad, and most ppl prefered to look at the videos of some random couple sharing it as a kink, rather than some endlessly polished fake amateur video.
Do I want to know what Elsagate is?
YT is filling up with the very heavily A/B tested content mills.
One thing that is assured to get a click from a small girl is Elsa. One thing that’s sure to get a click from a small boy is Spiderman. Consequently, you get enormous swaths of content that are just people in Spiderman and Elsa costumes doing weird or innocuous things on camera. As the format has evolved, more click-baity content gets folded in. Being pregnant, getting vaccine shots, and covering each other with peanut butter all grab kids interest, so the people in the Elsa and Spiderman costumes run around with fake pregnancy bellies and oversized syringe needles and giant tubs of peanut butter to rub each other with.
It’s perverse and it has no conceivable cinematic value, but it can be used to grab a small kid’s attention for hours on end. So its the perfect tool for monetizing latchkey kids.
