A massive expansion into new markets, an entire generation of new users, and lack of any meaningful competition due to the size of library and sheer cost to run such business profitably.
In the last 10 years, YouTube has expanded their partner program across the globe and reduced the requirements to become eligible to make money. They struck profit sharing deals with many traditional media companies many countries too that drove more people from those countries to the platform, which then drove views for organic users, which made being a "YouTuber" a viable career option in many new markets, which drove engagement, etc.
There is also no surprise that during the last 10 years there was an absolute explosion in the number of 1-14 year olds getting hooked on the platform. That cohort has almost infinite free time. Videos targeting 1-5 year olds literally have hundreds of millions of views. There are channels that regularly do 200M views per video just in tantalizing colors, music and shapes for that cohort alone. Then there is the 8-12 cohort, and the 13-17 cohort. YouTube only reports some of the 13+ numbers because of laws probably, but it's an everyday sight for me to see very young kids in trance staring at "YouTube Kids" videos while their parents do grocery or deal with guests, etc.
And finally, there is no YouTube competition. Facebook tried for a while, but they didn't make a dent. Twitch is for streaming, not video content. TikTok is the only competition YouTube sort of has, and it's still a different format/appeal. YouTube killed short content format a long time ago because they thought people leave YouTube too quickly if they load a page to play 20 second video. TikTok showed them that there is at least 1 billion people who are into that if the UX is right. But other than that, there is no YouTube alternative/competition because it's almost impossible to operate such thing profitably. In the last 10 years more and more people have come online. Video is a very important format, and YouTube has an absolute monopoly on it. Google can turn profit on YouTube now, while also controlling the entire online video market. No one else finds the ROI equation worth it because there is a very little chance they would dethrone YouTube, and it's very expensive and not at all profitable being a very distant #2.
This made me chuckle, because I remember a few months ago when a fellow did an investigation into the mysterious erstwhile-country trio @taylorred. https://youtu.be/JAALDob9Ev0
Taylor Red is a country and western band consisting of identical redhead triplets, who haven't played a concert in years. They apparently run a content farm and a bizarre one at that. Every single one of their videos is a Short with the same title, "wait for it... :scared emoji: #shorts" and they do crazy nonverbal stunts on every one.
As near as this investigator guy could figure, this content farm is designed to have an international reach (therefore, no dialogue in English) and also to appeal to children (even the youngest nonverbal ones) with bright colors and amazing optical illusions.
Yet Taylor Red continues to hold themselves out as a country band. Who knows how this works? Gaming the algorithm FTW!
Your timeline is off. The time period where people here are claiming YT has gotten worse is after all of those things happened, and even if it were right, why would YT even care to stay relevant for the niche needs of some individuals, when it has a massive incentive to provide the world with a better way to watch videos?
I mentioned those as the cause of YouTube’s explosive _user_ growth. Most people like me so claim YouTube experience worsened usually mention 2018/2019-present. Youtube is continuing its momentum in user growth, though obviously slowing down as they were at 2b users in 2019, and are at 2.5 in 2023. They have had an explosive _revenue_ growth however between 2019-2023, but it’s also no secret that they have been pushing 3 or 4 times the amount of ads they used to push. Google search does the same. When you have established a monopoly, it’s not like people can go search or get their videos elsewhere. Quadrupling ad watch time will give you explosive revenue growth even with the same user base.
> why would YT even care to stay relevant for the niche needs of some individuals, when it has a massive incentive to provide the world with a better way to watch videos?
Why would YouTube has massive incentive to provide the world with a better way to watch videos? YouTube’s incentive is to increase ad watch time. That’s all. Whatever shape that takes. If it means pushing videos targeted at getting kids to click on them, they’ll do that. If it meant improving relevancy for niche needs of some individuals, they’ll do that too. When you’re only chasing metrics like that, things usually go in cycles.
The numbers tell you longer videos == more watch time == more ads == more ad watch time. Your goal becomes clear, push more longer video content. Force people to record 10 minute video to show you how to remove a laptop screws, 9 minute talking about the laptop and what screws are, and 1 minute showing what stickers or labels you need to remove to get the screws out.
Have TikTok come and eat a significant market share of “video watch time” on the internet, which causes advertisements dollars to now split their budget between the 2 of you, so you correct by introducing or pushing short format again.
Assume that fun, simple, entertaining videos have a bigger market == more views == more ad watch time, so push those more and push more in-depth “niche needs of some individuals” aside. Few years down the line, discover that some content is “ever green” and some isn’t, and “ever green” content has a significant market so autocorrect to push that.
YouTube, and most companies, have given up on trying to have consistent logic or statement or vision or mission or plan or any of that nonsense stuff. Just have a model for things, we want to maximize X, what do we need to do to Y. With X being profit only constrained by legal requirements.
YouTube will come around again. It has before, and it will again. It’s just at the moment it’s focusing on short term viral entertainment videos, and trying to figure out the right recommendation algorithm for that.
>Most people like me so claim YouTube experience worsened usually mention 2018/2019-present.
I'd argue Youtube got bad when they transitioned from a reverse chronological subscription feed to a primarily algorithm driven front page, which is at least a decade ago.
Even if it didn't immediately turn bad at that point, that's when they committed to the enshittification (though I'm sure one could make a case for an even earlier point).
Er, I guess you've never heard of YouTube shorts firstly, and secondly I haven't watched a single ad on YouTube in literally 5 years, as I have YT Premium for free through some promotion I got from another subscription I have (maybe T-Mobile).
So my experience is not ad related whatsoever.
Also I'm not reading most of what you're writing here, a Gish gallop is probably not your wisest move on HN.
Calling something a term used for a specious debate tactic when it is not degrades the ability for others to accurately make that accusation.
Your one or two sentence insinuations instead of statements which can be argued against lay ground for long responses because you, sir or ma'am, are using a dishonest tactic (two actually, add ad-hominem for the new account jab) and I feel that your 'others in HN' would agree with me.
Continually asking easy, loaded questions then disregarding the responses and attacking anyway is a low form of rhetoric.
Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief.
Nor did I, "disregard the responses." I pointed out missed concepts, which to me were gaping and exposed a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem (how do you not know about YT Shorts when talking about TikTok eating YT's lunch?).
Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were. I never actually said anyone was "wrong" per se; my disagreements with the arguments have been on substance (I mention YT Premium as a counterpoint, for example). I also made observations related to things other than the user's argument, but I never claimed they were wrong as a result of those observations, only that their credibility was injured.
> Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief.
Sorry but if I call a fish a cigarette it is not a disagreement over belief. In this case 'gish gallop' has a definition:
The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. -wikipedia
Please tell me how this applies to the response you admit to not reading.
> Nor did I, "disregard the responses."
You specifically said you didn't read at least one of them.
> Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were.
You wrote that you would take them seriously if they weren't a new account. If that isn't 'wrong as a result of who they were' then what would you call it?
Funny you mention fish; there’s no such thing! So is a cigarette a fish? Might as well be. [0]
You have quoted the fact, which is the definition of the Gish gallop. Your opinion is that it does not apply here, and I disagree. You do not hold authority over how to interpret English, so you cannot therefore declare factually that I am wrong, only that you disagree.
As for taking something seriously or not, that’s got nothing to do with right or wrong; you need credibility to be considered, and without credibility the “rightness” of your argument never makes it to evaluation. Happens all the time in the legal world [1], and certainly not at all related to the innate properties of the person who makes the argument.
I know you won't get this so long as you're frustrated, but there's some real irony in this comment. Maybe in a few weeks come back and reread this to find it.
In the last 10 years, YouTube has expanded their partner program across the globe and reduced the requirements to become eligible to make money. They struck profit sharing deals with many traditional media companies many countries too that drove more people from those countries to the platform, which then drove views for organic users, which made being a "YouTuber" a viable career option in many new markets, which drove engagement, etc.
There is also no surprise that during the last 10 years there was an absolute explosion in the number of 1-14 year olds getting hooked on the platform. That cohort has almost infinite free time. Videos targeting 1-5 year olds literally have hundreds of millions of views. There are channels that regularly do 200M views per video just in tantalizing colors, music and shapes for that cohort alone. Then there is the 8-12 cohort, and the 13-17 cohort. YouTube only reports some of the 13+ numbers because of laws probably, but it's an everyday sight for me to see very young kids in trance staring at "YouTube Kids" videos while their parents do grocery or deal with guests, etc.
And finally, there is no YouTube competition. Facebook tried for a while, but they didn't make a dent. Twitch is for streaming, not video content. TikTok is the only competition YouTube sort of has, and it's still a different format/appeal. YouTube killed short content format a long time ago because they thought people leave YouTube too quickly if they load a page to play 20 second video. TikTok showed them that there is at least 1 billion people who are into that if the UX is right. But other than that, there is no YouTube alternative/competition because it's almost impossible to operate such thing profitably. In the last 10 years more and more people have come online. Video is a very important format, and YouTube has an absolute monopoly on it. Google can turn profit on YouTube now, while also controlling the entire online video market. No one else finds the ROI equation worth it because there is a very little chance they would dethrone YouTube, and it's very expensive and not at all profitable being a very distant #2.