Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is the Golden Age of YouTube Over? (theverge.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the video-killed-the-video-star dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Verge: As YouTube battles misinformation catastrophes and discovers new ways people are abusing its system, the company is shifting toward more commercial, advertiser-friendly content at a speed its creator community hasn't seen before. The golden age of YouTube -- the YouTube of a million different creators all making enough money to support themselves by creating videos about doing what they love -- is over... By the end of 2016, when algorithm changes were creating headaches for some of the platform's biggest creators, people started announcing they had to take a break from the site they called home. YouTube wasn't what it was between 2011 and 2016... YouTube was exerting more control over what users saw and what videos would make money...

YouTube faced an escalating crisis of radicalization and sweeping conspiracy theories that had been ignored by executives for years. The company's first small efforts to address these serious issues -- promoting content from musicians, late-night shows, and recommending fewer independent creators -- would have huge secondary effects on the middle-tier creators who had once been the heart of the platform during its golden period. It pushed YouTube toward the exact same Hollywood content to which it had once been an alternative.... Even people outside of YouTube saw what was happening. "YouTube is inevitably heading towards being like television, but they never told their creators this," Jamie Cohen, a professor of new media at Molloy College, told USA Today in 2018....

Individual YouTube creators couldn't keep up with the pace YouTube's algorithm set. But traditional, mainstream outlets could: late-night shows began to dominate YouTube, along with music videos from major labels. The platform now looked the way it had when it started, but with the stamp of Hollywood approval.
It's a contrast from the earliest days of YouTube, the article argues. Rather than user-generated content, "it was something else that helped the site explode in popularity: piracy." But their pivot to user-generated content apparently slowed with what YouTube creators call the "adpocalypse" -- YouTube's aggressive demonetization of "problematic" videos. (A handful of creators had been making more than a million dollars a month, and some even quit their jobs to focus on making videos full-time.)

To be fair, by 2017 YouTube had a problem. Every minute users uploaded 27,000 minutes of new footage, making it difficult to pre-screen. But after adjusting their algorithm, "perceived, secretive changes instilled creators with a distrust of the platform."

The old YouTube "seemed to welcome the wonderfully weird, innovative, and earnest, instead of turning them away in favor of late-night show clips and music videos," writes the Verge. But the new YouTube is different, say two brothers who used CGI to re-create Mortal Kombat's most gruesome kills on their RackaRacka channel. They say the new YouTube now buries their videos for "excessive violence."

14 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. It's BEEN over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Double ads to watch anything and a "recommended" section full of crypto-fascist garbage, yeah, it's fucking over!

    1. Re:It's BEEN over... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "Golden Age of YouTube" died when people discovered that they could make money posting videos.

      Once people started making money on their videos instead of doing it as a hobby (read: income vs expense) it became dominated by entitled shits who felt that they were owed something. Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response... advertisers reacted to protect their image, and the heavy hand of control slammed down -and the entitled shits whined about how they were owed a living for their efforts.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    2. Re:It's BEEN over... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That wasn't even the problem. People have created great content and continued to do so well into the time when they could actually make money from it. What killed it was that people with high production values can't continue due to the risk of demonetization while those without (i.e. the "10 things that will blow your mind" bull and the assholes that get most of their money from the companies whose products they hawk anyway) can.

      So what's left on Youtube is videos from large studios that have a relevant deal with YouTube, videos without production values whose makers don't give a shit that they get demonetized because they can crank out more and if only one of them makes money they're in the black and videos that are more advertisment than the crap YouTube cuts into them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:It's BEEN over... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response

      Kind of exactly what happened to the History channel and similar channels, that moved from documentaries and educational content to Pawn Stars and Storage Wars. And just like on TV, there is plenty of good stuff on YT as well, sensationalist rubbish notwithstanding, and it isn't always the rubbish that is most popular either

      Why would you use ugly word like word "entitled"? It seems only fair that popular content creators get paid part of the advertising dollars they helped generate. If a TV network decided not to pay the creators of a TV show for a certain "controversial" episode after airing it, and as a result the writers, actors, sound guys, stage hands and everyone else on that show would go unpaid for their work as a result, would you call them "entitled whiners" as well? Especially if the network continues to air that episode in reruns?

      Advertisers are always moaning about their precious image, and are always pushing to exert control over the content shown around their ads. Google could have just told them to advertise on YT on Google's terms, or kindly leave. And while they might have lost a few advertisers who are genuinely concerned about portraying a "family friendly" image, the bulk of them would think twice before abandoning such a rich treasure trove of eyeballs. Unless there's a good alternative, which there isn't; YT is the undisputed king in this space. Instead, Google decided to open this particular can of worms, and they will now have to deal with ever stricter norms from advertisers to clean up the channels. And the more YT turns into a regular TV channel, the more viewers and content creators alike will turn away. Maybe we'll soon see some competition in this space...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:It's BEEN over... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? Youtube has ads?

  2. Dilemma by Jarwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Youtube, and all the social media/market place tech companies are caught between those who want more freedom and less censorship and for them to behave as a passive neutral channel of goods and information and those who want more 'safety' and control and proactive regulation of content. Sometimes you have the exact same people demanding both. But you can't have it both ways, control of fake news inevitably will spill over to shutting down alternative news outlets, hysteria about pedos means no comments at all on any video with a kid walking into frame. Censorship of offensive content inevitably morphs into censorship of unpopular opinions. Forget net neutrality. This is what will determine what our future internet will look like. We as a society will have to choose, we can either have a bland 'safe' corporatized internet that is essentially an al la carte TV channel or we can have the wild west Internet and whatever it will grow into in the future it all its terrible glory and freedom. Google, governments, and the other companies favor the former option, are we going to stop them?

    1. Re:Dilemma by Jarwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I never said the company itself wanted to be a neutral carrier, I said a large group of people prefer a wild west internet over a controlled limited corporatized internet. That was the prevailing model before companies like Google formed an oligopoly and switched from taking advantage of the free internet, to clamping down on it for ideological and financial reasons. Google/Facebook/Amazon etc want the internet to be like a tv channel, thats why they characteristically overreact to every new internet 'safety' or 'fake news' scandal, knowing it empowers the mob. The only roadblock as far as tech companies are concerned is characteristic corporate laziness and inertia.

  3. Not just YouTube by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 'golden age' of the Internet in general is long since over. Everything is tracked, monitored, monitized, and charged subscription fees for. Wouldn't at all be surprised if 10 years from now you're not only paying for basic access to the Internet, but every last thing you access on it charges a subscription fee one way or another.

  4. Re:Impossible to monetise by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, they keep moving the goalposts just when I get to the 5-yard line. I had just gotten monetized a couple of years ago, and had racked up a whole 43 cents in revenue, when they changed the rules so you needed 10k views. Some time later, just as I was getting close to 10k views, they changed it again, so now you need 1000 subscribers (I currently have 76). Meanwhile, my analytics page still shows that 43 cents of revenue... along with 28k views and 5k hours of view time.

    I'll keep working on it for now, but if they screw me over again I might have to bail out.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  5. It ded by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Youtube started heading downhill when they started freaking about ads on monetized pages. Advertisers started demanding that their ads only show up on videos that the advertiser agreed with the content in the video.

    Next thing you know, they remove monetization from channels that didn't have acertain number of followers.

    Next they demonetized channels when people complained about the content. A lot of Men's rights and MGTOW challis were hit because of women who didn't want their content on Youtube. Firearms channels were hit people people demanding that sort of thing not be shown on Youtube.

    Figuring that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, the recently demonetized or disgruntled started complaining about the likely people complaining about their favorite channels. Chaos ensues.

    Google has some real problems these days. At the same time they are administratively full blown Social Justice Warriors, they have sexual discrimination Lawsuits against them, and have revolting employees because they apparently aren't Socially and politically pure enough.

    Protip: Social Justice Warriors are never placated, they just find something new to be outraged at.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  6. Re:Impossible to monetise by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 4, Funny

    and had racked up a whole 43 cents in revenue,

    You're doing it completely wrong. I comment on Google Maps (I'm a level-7 something) and they actually sent me a FREE pair of physical socks!

    Sorry dude, I'm WAY ahead of you.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  7. NEVER FORGET that the MSM did this intentionally by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember that this did not just randomly or organically happen. This was openly orchestrated. And everyone let it happen because they were too busy tweeting about Trump's moronic sound byte of the day to care.

    Never forget how the Wall Street Journal freely admitted that they hired three people to spend weeks mining and deceptively editing PewDiePie's content, then sent it directly to Disney for the express purpose of starting a controversy where none existed. Never forget that mainstream media organizations like Wired and The Independent (along with a few "new media" news organizations, such as The Young Turks) parroted this story uncritically and did not truthfully describe the video in question (which showed a closeup of PewDiePie's face looking shocked and then saddened after the words "Death to Jews" actually appeared on the screen). Never forget that none of them followed up to tell their readers that the Wall Street Journal not only edited his videos to remove all of the context indicating that it was comedic satire but even edited a shot of him pointing at something off-screen and implied that it was a Nazi salute.

    None of this is conspiracy theory. The Wall Street Journal was frank and open about their motives in helping to instigate this "adpocalypse". Just days later, they penned a story that basically explained how their intention was to not merely embarrass PewDiePie specifically, but to also start a moral panic amongst advertisers so as to compel Youtube and other new media giants to reel in ALL of this independent nonsense, ALL of this un-sanitized family-unfriendly content, all of this "let the viewers decide what they want to see" nonsense, all of this free speech nonsense.. They were so cheerfully open about this that they didn't even bother pay-walling that article.

    Like I said time and time again when this happened two years ago, this is not about "forcing" Youtube or other corporations to host content, though partisans will always still seek to end the conversation by saying "free market at work; nothing to see here." Corporations like the Wall Street Journal were able to do this by leveraging the fears of advertisers, fears that are ultimately rooted in the desires and actions of consumers like you and me. We aren't just a part of this ecosystem; we are its keystone species.

    So please never forget that this was not a natural or organic or grassroots thing that happened. Never forget that controversy was artificial, was intentionally created and cultivated by large corporations for cynical purposes. Never the day the tail wagged the dog and then bragged about doing it. Understand that this is NOT a shining example of free market supply and demand harmony. Understand how viewers and content producers were ignored in favor of what old media wanted to see happen.

    This is not a fluid or free market sort of thing. This is monolithic and dictatorial. There is no fine-grained option (from my understanding) that allows individual advertisers to opt-in to specific videos that Youtube has deemed not politically correct enough, not vapid and conventional enough. And nobody (be they advertiser or producer or viewer) has the clout to roll their own competitor to Youtube. Anyone who doubts this doesn't understand how the Millennials, how these "Digital Natives" have grown up to think about technology. For them, Youtube IS online video (other than porn) and there is very little incentive for them to poke their heads outside of that walled garden.

    Once again, there will be replies accusing me of being not just Trump apologist but a paid troll. I wish I didn't have to say thi

  8. Re:Impossible to monetise by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Funny

    they actually sent me a FREE pair of physical socks!

    They gave you clothing. You are now a free elf.

  9. Re:NEVER FORGET that the MSM did this intentionall by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ha. If you felt like checking, you might notice that I'm the submitter of that the story from two years ago with 920 comments. No worries; I know reading is hard. Like I told the other guy, I guess we've gone from RTFA to RTFS to RTFP now. I even commented in the post that shorter would've been better but I just don't know how to make it short any more, not when the ignorance is so deep and the nonsensical propaganda replies are so well-rehearsed.

    It's been well over a year since I read that stuff but read it I did. (I didn't include *all* of the relevant links because I figured the post would probably be little-noticed. I didn't expect to get mistaken for a spam bot, though, I must admit.) The Wall Street Journal was all very open about this, the reporters all bragging about what they'd done. Youtube's crackdown happened immediately afterwards and was also very public and open about it. For those who were paying attention, it was and is common knowledge that this event was one of the major catalysts for Youtube's policy shifts. But you can go on and believe it's a conspiracy theory if you must. I did use a lot of words after all. All the conspiracy nuts like words, therefore, etc.