YouTube's Top Creators Are Burning Out and Breaking Down En Masse (polygon.com) 308
Polygon reports of several prominent YouTube creators who are struggling with burnout. The cause can be attributed to "constant changes to the platform's algorithm, unhealthy obsessions with remaining relevant in a rapidly growing field and social media pressures [that] are making it almost impossible for top creators to continue creating at the pace both the platform and audience want," reports Polygon. From the report: Three weeks ago, Bobby Burns, a YouTuber with just under one million subscribers, sat down on a rock in Central Park to talk about a recent mental health episode. One week ago, Elle Mills, a creator with more than 1.2 million subscribers, uploaded a video that included vulnerable footage during a breakdown. Six days ago, Ruben "El Rubius" Gundersen, the third most popular YouTuber in the world with just under 30 million subscribers, turned on his camera to talk to his viewers about the fear of an impending breakdown and his decision to take a break from YouTube. Burns, Mills and Gundersen aren't alone. Erik "M3RKMUS1C" Phillips (four million subscribers), Benjamin "Crainer" Vestergaard (2.7 million subscribers) and other top YouTubers have either announced brief hiatuses from the platform, or discussed their own struggles with burnout, in the past month. Everyone from PewDiePie (62 million subscribers) to Jake Paul (15.2 million subscribers) have dealt with burnout. Lately, however, it seems like more of YouTube's top creators are coming forward with their mental health problems. In closing, Polygon's Julia Alexander writes: "YouTube offers no clear support system for creators, nor is it clear if the company has offered professional help to some of its top creators who've made their burnout public. Instead, YouTube's only direct reaction is a playlist dedicated to burnout and mental health. The creators are essentially working until they no longer physically can, and apologizing to their fans after believing they've failed. Polygon has reached out to YouTube for more information about services that are provided to creators. The only way to beat burnout is to take breaks. Unfortunately, for many YouTubers, those breaks are rarely planned."
Constant change and an unsure future are stress in (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Constant change and an unsure future are stress (Score:4, Interesting)
For professionals, the solution is obvious - find another job.
For YouTubers... not so much. There's few viable alternatives, all look like very transient phenomena.
Dunno what those dudes making a living there think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It comes down to this simple timeless fact: you can't build your own business on platform owned by a single third-party.
You can't be a "YouTuber" for a career. You can, however, be a content creator who happens to be using YouTube as an incredible free resource (have you looked at just how much video storage YouTube allows?), but this means YouTube video monetization (i.e. ads) can't be your sole source of revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you're saying - sort of use it as publicity for something else. But on the other hand, it's not far off this [theoatmeal.com], which seems like a way for cheapskates to get stuff for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It comes down to this simple timeless fact: you can't build your own business on platform owned by a single third-party.
And yet, how many production companies make a nice healthy living selling content to NBC/CBS/TBS/etc? Youtube is not much different from the television industry's setup except they don't make you do a pilot and don't make arbitrary decisions about what people want to see.
Re: (Score:3)
While I despise the whole lot of these vloggers and youtubers, now you're just being an asshat.
Says the typical jerk who thinks creativity can be summoned on command... For once, the ACs hot the nail on the head.
These 'top creators' have no contract, therefore, they're not beholden to create for the masses on schedule. If they're trying to make a living at something that's not guaranteed (contracted, as most professional creatives are) and trying to out-think advertising algorithms, well, good luck!
It's like the time when your friend is singing to the radio and it's off-key... "Don't quit your day j
Re: Constant change and an unsure future are stres (Score:5, Insightful)
Creatives don't have a right to making a living from their creativity. Only the best of the best of the best creative output is worth money. The rest is dreck. YouTube's value proposition was not originally supposed to be everyone turning themselves into ad revenue streams. It was originally a way for people to get their ideas out there. YouTube is already giving you a free platform to spread all the dumb shit that pops into your head. They don't owe you shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't actors fit the above definition?
They work on temporary contracts and sell services.
Re: Constant change and an unsure future are stres (Score:2)
It's a market. Sane rational actors would bow out and get a fucking job. Then YouTube would have less content. And if that content is worth a damn, YouTube would start paying a bigger share. My suspicion is this content is worthless, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I forgot, they'd have to actually do real work.
Words spoken by everyone who's jealous of someone else's job/money.
Re:Constant change and an unsure future are stress (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone working for a company
Which these people aren't doing.
Re:Constant change and an unsure future are stress (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone working for a company
Which these people aren't doing.
This... YouTube creators are not YouTube's customers, they are the product. The customers are the advertisers, and thus the only ones YouTube cares about.
Re:Constant change and an unsure future are stress (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's more nuanced than that. Viewers are product, for sure.
Creators... they're livestock.
Re: (Score:3)
This... YouTube creators are not YouTube's customers, they are the product. The customers are the advertisers, and thus the only ones YouTube cares about.
No, this is a stupid and annoying simplification.
The advertisers are only customers in as much as there are people to advertise to. You can't sell to advertisers if there are no people watching the adverts. Youtube needs to keep the people watching happy which means keeping the people who make stuff to watch happy because without people watching, the adver
Re:Constant change and an unsure future are stress (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really no wonder these people are stressed, they've been watching the demonetization line creep up and up over the past couple of years and know that it's only a matter of time until theyr'e effectively out of a job. They've been working themselves to death to try to keep the subscriber and hour counts up but it's literally killing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these people are contracted to produce shows for Youtube Red. Wait, didn't they change the name/functionality of that recently? I can't keep it straight.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the balance is against that of the creator, because for every tier of creator, there's probably 10~100 more of similar quality who are ready to take the place of who ever bows out.
The limited resource in the YouTube creator-view-advertiser balance is viewer eyeball-hours.
eBay is much the same; sellers can be culled in droves and there's always more to replace them, but buyers are the ones you need to stick around.
Re:Constant change and an unsure future are stress (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone working
Cutting it down to that. The top producers are people at the top of their game. That's really bloody hard work and the result of really hard work is often burnout. As someone who suffered severe burnout I can really sympathise.
It's got little to do with youtube though and more to do with people who are driven to work.
What?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah this was kind of my thought. They're collaborating with youtube, youtube brings the audience(s), they bring the content, both parties prosper.
This concept that youtube is a socialist country that must provide for it's slaves is a strange one. There's no moral or ethical obligation for youtube to provide mental health services. If they are producing too much content and getting burnt out, maybe roll back to a weekly or monthly format? Lots of sailing vlogs use the weekly format, but they're actually traveling to new places and have a ready source of new content.
Worst case scenario, they quit and go work at mcdonalds, play grand theft auto and smoke weed for a couple of months to go unwind. Running your own business/media company is not for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Worst case scenario, they quit and go work at mcdonalds, play grand theft auto and smoke weed for a couple of months to go unwind.
Isn't that what they've been doing anyway, with the additional steps of recording themselves doing it and uploading it to yoo choob?
Re:What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're collaborating with youtube, youtube brings the audience(s), they bring the content, both parties prosper.
The Youtuber brings both the content and the audience. YouTube brings the advertisers. The problem is, Google constantly and arbitrarily changes the rules for compensation. That's just dickish.
Of course, the smart guys on YouTube figured this out long ago and get their funding through Patreon etc, not YouTube.
If they are producing too much content and getting burnt out, maybe roll back to a weekly or monthly format?
YouTube's algorithms will drop you through the floor. With the latest changes, you might not even show up in subscription feeds. YouTube wants many small updates. No idea why - seems silly to me. Most the channels I watch do one real update a week, and then some shallow junk every couple of days to keep the algorithms happy.
Because Facebook (Score:3)
YouTube is currently (and apparently successfully), trying to compete with FaceBook (among teens). Just like FB, that means YouTube needs to provide a constant stream of content, more often is better than longer. How else are people going to comment on something that just happened now?
Re: (Score:2)
That'd explain why they're so salty.
Re: (Score:2)
If you truly believe this (and never for a second considered that YouTube is forcing a leonine situation on some of these people), you have not kept up with all the YouTube monetization shenanigans [wired.com]. I mean, yes, it's their platform, but they're acting like a capricious business partner.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The critical thinking question here is, are these creators employee's of youtube or independant contractors?
If I pull up on a bunch of men on the roadside looking for work, hand them camera's to take home, then have them dance like monkies and make noises infront of the camera, then put their dancing and noises infront of an audience and pay them a pure comission based on some algorithm that I won't tell them how it works, am I an employer? Am I in violation of labor laws?
Just because this is done with com
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not employees or independent contractors. Youtube provides a platform that people can share content on. The better analogy would be a farmer's market. Someone provides a space and vendors fill it. There's some revenue sharing to the owner of the space.
Re:What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Youtube doesn't need to provide professional help for these attention seeking assholes.
As someone who is not a mental health professional, I feel free to speculate that the need these people have to obsessively pursue YouTube stardom just might be correlated with their apparent emotional and psychological fragility.
But it’s also true that these mega-stars of the platform deserve at least some of the credit for its popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one problem - the content creators get so little for the videos they make that it's not really making much profit unless you put out viral videos on a regular basis. Many can just buy a cup of coffee for their effort.
If you make a living of making videos - then you have a problem of a different kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube doesn't need to provide professional help for these attention seeking assholes.
Actually it's quite the opposite. Youtube is a platform that thrives on content to produce advertising dollars. The best advertising dollars come from the most consistent viewership (which is why something like Superbowl leads to very expensive advertisement contracts).
Destroy your top content producers and people will make a move, if you're lucky they stay on the platform and another top content producer takes their place. If you're unlucky they discover the great outdoors.
Yes the world doesn't own these g
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same argument that Uber uses to avoid providing any employee benefits or rights. Like Uber, these people are an essential part of the business model and YouTube has things like premium accounts that they are key to selling.
At least in Europe courts have made it clear that they are entitled to some benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't make your favorite dinner? They didn't tuck you in at night?
All I wanted was a Pepsi, and they wouldn't give it to me! [youtube.com]
Re:What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't want their gig, but also, I don't want to hear them whine about it. They're free to do it. But it isn't content I want. I wouldn't expect any of the interesting channels to be thinking of it as a "career," but as a way to publish something interesting. If they're not also selling books or products or something else, then they're just volunteer teachers, and they should keep doing it as long as they are happy doing it, and then stop doing it when it starts feeling like a burden. If it pays then obviously it makes sense they would do it more than if it didn't pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Some youtubers are assholes. So are some actors. And some police officers. And some professions are worse than others. That doesn't mean everyone in those jobs is undeserving of empathy, and those industries undeserving of scrutiny.
These "fuck them they don't have to do it" comments being marke
Re: (Score:2)
You're referring to the content creators as "youtubes"? So are we internets?
In any case, yourubes [wikipedia.org] might be more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people try, most fail.
PewDiePie got in on the ground floor, so he gets way with relatively little effort. Anyone starting now needs some really special hook/personality, or a ton of work ethic though. Ye average nerdy gaming channel from people who didn't get their popularity right at the start has 1 guy pushing out multiple 30-60 minute vids a day while also twitch streaming multiple hours a day, 7 days a week.
Name for this (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a name for this. It's called work. Welcome to the club.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
These 'youtubers' are basically self employed, if they look at it like an actual job they would realize their employer is overworking them. Just take a vacation to avoid burn-out, it's not like they even have to ask anyone for permission. Or is greed getting in the way of what used to be fun?
The problem is that they are the boss, so as the boss hey force their employees (themselves) to release new content every week on schedule, or else!
Re: (Score:2)
If being #1 all the time is so important, feel free to race to the bottom and self-destruct.
This kind of situation is not exclusive to Youtubers.
The caste of coffee-achievers didn't perform like they planned [genius.com]
The morning rush-hour traffic is our play of false elan
So run around your frantic track and lay you down to sleep
Tomorrow's the redemption
We strive for that exception
Re: Name for this (Score:5, Funny)
It's called time to seize the means of production
Go back to bed, Bernie.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's just reality - it's leading to mental breakdowns because what once took a few hours a week now requires you to work on it full time. So what was once "i'll work 2 hours this week and slap together a video and make my $10,000" is now "I have to work 40 hours a
Re: (Score:3)
Let me guess you are young and naive? Call me again after having worked at least 20 years in the business. Companies don't care about you as an employee. Companies only care about making a profit. That's just the way it is. You may think your company cares about you, but they really don't because everything comes down to making money, and if you are somehow in the way you are not important.
Why would they provide it? (Score:5, Interesting)
In contrast, Youtube doesn't hire people to create content. They sign up and get no money until they hit XXXX views or followers. Even then it's not them responding to a hail, but rather it's them trying to attract people to their channel.
Google providing some options would be great and get themselves some much needed positive PR. Not sure if Youtube was ever designed/bought to let external users generate money off of it. I definitely wouldn't plan my income around something where the compensation was 100% at the whim of someone else without an employment agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that there needs to be an employer/employee relationship for one group of people to have a moral obligation to treat another group of people well?
Re: (Score:2)
Is YouTube obligated to also help them maintain their mental health? It's certainly great if they could, but hiring psychologists can be easily done by the creators themselves by using money Y
Re:Why would they provide it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I own a large (abandoned) warehouse, and I set it up to be used every other weekend for hosting a massive flea market or similar concept where private people can peddle their wares, old stuff someone else might want etc., am I then obligated to provide healthcare for the people that show up to sell their stuff?
That's about the closest real-world analogy I can come up with over lunch.
Hard to feel sympathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to love it or start building guillotines.
I just figured out how to restore our manufacturing base! Demand will never be met!
Re: (Score:2)
When we all have jobs that are as bad or worse.
Do you? Does your company burn you out? Are you battling mental health problems as a result of your work? Something tells me you don't have it as bad, and definitely not worse.
Well you might, but certainly "all" people do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Guillotines are easy to build, it's revolutions that are difficult. You don't need the former until you have the latter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because a job that drives someone to poor mental health is a great job and just needs constant psychiatric drugs and psychologist visits.
Your first world countries that support such a system are retarded and suck.
Or perhaps (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Mental health issues are not like a broken leg. There are very big differences between experiencing burnout, depression, withdrawal vs traits precursor to mental health issues that come with seeking stardom.
What you said is the equivalent of: Those who will suffer medical problems at some point in their life are drawn to work. Well. Yes, in a general sense. But you weren't trying to be general.
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is YouTube forcing these people to put up content? Do they enforce deadlines when something needs to be posted? In what way is YouTube anything but a way for these people to post something?
It's difficult to have any sympathy for these folks when they're the ones who made the decision to "create" and post it. They're the ones who think they have to get more and more viewers. They're the ones who are driving themselves down the rabbit hole.
If this is too stressful for them, perhaps they should find a job at McDonald's.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm right there with you, it even struck me that people are in any way surprised that attention-seeking youtube celebrities have mental health issues... I mean, that's kind of a prerequisite, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Is YouTube forcing these people to put up content?
Are you forced to go to work?
It's interesting how we're all happy to shit on companies that treat their employees like crap, but suddenly we talk about people making a living off youtube videos and the company gets a pass.
The "you can always find another job" argument is as lame here as it is in any other situation.
Re: (Score:2)
A movie review, politics, music, art, history, cartoons, blasphemy.
Freedom of speech, freedom after speech just like the rest of the US internet.
Smart, creative people with talent and skills invested their time and ability into the big social media brand.
Then the big social media brands walked back from US freedom of speech. Only approved topics could stay. Bans, reporting, shadow bans followed.
People could have
Re: (Score:3)
Is YouTube forcing these people to put up content?
Not "literal gun to the head" forcing them to post content, but YouTube's algorithms mean that if a channel isn't frequently and regularly uploading it's less likely to be pushed in front of users. That means less engagement (LIKE COMMENT AND SUBSCRIBE) and less money. So YouTube gently encourages it, you could say.
In what way is YouTube anything but a way for these people to post something?
YouTube pays them.
If this is too stressful for them, perhaps they should find a job at McDonald's.
It's incredibly hard to constantly be interesting, avoid repetition, and connect with people. All on a regular schedule, typically with more behind-the-scenes production than
It's probably going to get worse (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't find an article about this and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Polygon article, but the Content ID system that Youtube uses to flag copyright violations is apparently going to have significant changes this month. This is per Matthew Patrick (MatPat/The Game Theory)--who is basically as close to the company as someone can be without working there--in a recent livestream [youtu.be] of theirs.
Other long-running issues he address in that same 15-ish minutes are Youtube tools being confusing, a severe lack of response from Youtube support (and conflicting responses, even when that person has better access than xXxStoneddGamer567xXx), and he's talked in the past about how Youtube extremely over-reacts [youtube.com] to controversies. Their "solutions" rarely take care of the original issue and instead punish a significant number of other creators.
Youtube has been relying on critical mass for years now.
In the last few years Youtube has increasingly been courting "mainstream" outlets, including launching their Youtube TV service, and these outlets have pushed original creators more to the sidelines. While MatPat doesn't explain what these Content ID changes will be, my expectation is that the system will become far, far less lenient toward infringements real, imagined, or claimed (thanks, DMCA!). If so, there will likely be a "purge" of creators.
If that is the case, I'm hoping that some company can step up to with a video-focused service that caters to smaller creators (or creator groups.) Vimeo might be able to branch into this, but their current (apparent) focus on completely-original content (and content not too far removed from television or film festivals) makes me think this is unlikely. Twitch's focus on live-streaming really limits content, and the platform serves gaming and some creative setups only which will make it a non-starter for people looking to move. Vine could make a comeback, striking while the iron is hot. Outside of those two I simply don't know of any other alternatives, either established or up-and-coming. Most of my video consumption these days comes from small creators, and I would really hate to lose this kind of access to what they create.
Maybe PornHub could take a stab at it, they've taken many interesting actions already. (Snowplowing, alerting users about tracking by their country, etc.)
BitChute (Score:3, Interesting)
I've copied two thirds of my YouTube videos to BitChute (going to copy the rest during the weekend). I like it because it's the 2nd home of many controversial/non-SJW channels that are feeling the squeeze on YT, so I am hopeful that they are OK with such content. I also really like the BitChute player.
It's not perfect: it relies on Torrent to alleviate the burden of the servers, but it's growing rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't heard of BitChute before, thanks!. I'll keep an eye on it, though as someone who is nonplussed by the "SJW" I'm not sure how much content I like would move there (though it's mostly gaming channels, so maybe.)
Re: (Score:2)
My channel is exclusively dedicated to experimental science (materials science), but I have seen what happened to Cody's Lab and decided that I don't want to risk my channel being deleted by a company run by people with thin skin and capricious bots.
I am not the only one like this on BitChute, but I appreciate that the ones most worried of deletion on YouTube have flocked there. They're the canaries in the coal mine.
Re: (Score:2)
I just went to BitChute but most of the stuff seemed like news as opposed to original.
For some people news might be good or for BitChute to break into mainstream but I don't like it as much.
How do I see original stuff?
I personally like stuff like math and science.
Do I have to make an account?
"Platform"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find an article about this and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Polygon article, but the Content ID system that Youtube uses to flag copyright violations is apparently going to have significant changes this month. This is per Matthew Patrick (MatPat/The Game Theory)--who is basically as close to the company as someone can be without working there--in a recent livestream [youtu.be] of theirs.
Other long-running issues he address in that same 15-ish minutes are Youtube tools being confusing, a severe lack of response from Youtube support (and conflicting responses, even when that person has better access than xXxStoneddGamer567xXx), and he's talked in the past about how Youtube extremely over-reacts [youtube.com] to controversies. Their "solutions" rarely take care of the original issue and instead punish a significant number of other creators.
Youtube has been relying on critical mass for years now.
In the last few years Youtube has increasingly been courting "mainstream" outlets, including launching their Youtube TV service, and these outlets have pushed original creators more to the sidelines. While MatPat doesn't explain what these Content ID changes will be, my expectation is that the system will become far, far less lenient toward infringements real, imagined, or claimed (thanks, DMCA!). If so, there will likely be a "purge" of creators.
If that is the case, I'm hoping that some company can step up to with a video-focused service that caters to smaller creators (or creator groups.) Vimeo might be able to branch into this, but their current (apparent) focus on completely-original content (and content not too far removed from television or film festivals) makes me think this is unlikely.
That's all... not what the article is about. No matter what platform, this is essentially about young workaholics who don't know how to recognize they are overworking themselves. No platform switch will fix this. They'll burn out and others will take their places... then burn out, etc.
Due to Polygon's bizarre politics, they do imply this is a problem Youtube needs to solve, but that's just silly.
Consider for a moment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe practically everyone living in the 21st century is stressed, insecure about their livelihood, and feels like they're pushing the proverbial boulder up a hill every day? Maybe the major difference here is a Youtuber has a soapbox to complain about it, whereas most other people don't even have a therapist?
Now, consider that "Youtube Content Creator" is one of the few jobs you can decide to stop working at will, and still expect to have a job waiting for you when you decide to come back. It's also one of the few where your customers are inherently sympathetic to the condition of your mental health.
If anyone could just stand up in their cubicle, announce to the office that they weren't feeling enthusiastic about the work, and take a few "mental health" weeks, the world would burn. I question if any of these Youtube burnouts are self-aware enough to realize any of this.
Re: (Score:2)
not to worry, not everyone makes it, you'll have lots of company to whine with
The money is phenomenal (Score:3)
If you get to 200K subscribers you are making an INCREDIBLE amount of money. A million is so far out there to make the 1% seem like the minimum wage. If you are burning out, you are just getting greedy. YouTube does not owe you anything.
Re:The money is phenomenal (Score:5, Informative)
If you get to 200K subscribers you are making an INCREDIBLE amount of money. A million is so far out there to make the 1% seem like the minimum wage. If you are burning out, you are just getting greedy. YouTube does not owe you anything.
Dream on! With 200K subscribers, you would be lucky to get 4K views (2% of subscriber base) per video. Pewdiepie has 60M subscribers but gets 1M to 3M views per video. You need 50K to 200K views per month to make $100 from advertising revenues. The most successful YouTubers make more money in merchandise and brand deals than they earn from advertising revenues. You don't need a big subscriber base to make more money for less work.
Re: (Score:2)
You need 50K to 200K views per month to make $100 from advertising revenues.
You can get dollars per thousand views if you make content advertisers want to advertise on and properly label it.
This also happened in the 19th century (Score:5, Insightful)
But nobody blamed oil paints and canvas for the mental problems of artists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But nobody blamed oil paints and canvas for the mental problems of artists.
Erm yes they did. Analysis of paintings and history show that a great many artists went through various stages of depression and suffered various mental health issues pursuing their art. By pointing to "the canvas" and likening it to "Youtube" you have fantastically missed the point. Youtube isn't the canvas, Adobe Premier is the canvas. Youtube is the client who provides you food.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the perennial search of artists for recognition and sponsorship? The way in which this was done has changed since an artist's lifetime job was buttering up the Medicis, but it has changed several times and artists have always been able to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Lead and zinc pigment was gradually realized as being a problem with those specific elements, leading to different formulations for getting the same colors. Nobody wrung their hands about the medium of paints and canvas.
Youtube started hiding Secular Talk videos from me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Youtube started hiding Secular Talk videos fro (Score:2)
Re: Youtube started hiding Secular Talk videos fro (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all that non relational database bullshit. They can't give you complete, correct, or consistent results because their data is all in a big, meaningless heap.
Amazon has the same issue. You can't get a fucking simple price filter working on an Amazon search, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Search engine can't search.
I haven't tried comparing results from google and from the youtube search box, but I often find that I get a useful youtube video from google search.
YouTube's fault (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a lot of these creators probably could have dealt with the pressure from their audiences (and from themselves) to produce relevant content. But when you add in changing algorithms, changing community guidelines/demonetization, and fewer advertisers who are increasingly critical of where their ads go; then it doesn't surprise me in least bit that many creators are starting to break down. Imagine spending 40-60 hours on a single video, 3-4 years ago you could be safe in knowing that it would bring in a lot of viewers and a lot of ad revenue, but now you have to worry about whether your subs will even see it or if it'll even get recommended. Then you have to worry about whether it'll get demonetized/flagged which requires you to wait to get it manually reviewed. God help you if you made it public immediately because now you are losing ad revenue during the time period when you'd be getting the most views.
When I look at this new environment on YouTube, its hard for me not to believe that YouTube has purposefully 'poisoned the well' in an attempt to drive some of these larger YouTubers out and let the platform get taken over by big media outlets. Just look at Trending, its largely filled with Music videos, late night show clips, and the occasional news clip from like CNN or MSNBC.
A community of politics? (Score:2, Interesting)
And the user policy changed, and the SJW came, and the restrictions grew and bans against that creative content, and content was shadow banned, and great was the removal of creative content.
And the censorship, and the bans came, and the SJW reported and banned on that content, but it did not delete from the online, because better sites had been founded on Freedom of Speech.
The wise artist who built his own site on the US F
Re: (Score:2)
A foolish artist who
Yep. She should know she was going to get raped wearing that dress.
Re: (Score:3)
A foolish artist who uploaded his content to a site built on ads and SJW politics.
Even accepting all of those things as givens for the purpose of this conversation, Youtube has sucked all the air out of the room. There's none for other video sites to breathe. You can put the content on your own site, but if you then become remotely popular it will become a smoking crater in the battle-scorched ground of the internet. You can host your content on bittorrent, and then many users won't be able to access it at all, and most won't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
The funding goes via an external funding platform that users are thanked for in scrolling credits. The new short clips just has the direct link to another hosting site.
Social media becomes the simple reminder site that new content is ready on a real hosting site and that support direct to creator is a click away.
30 seconds of click the link
Re: (Score:2)
The way around that is to just use the SJW account on big brand social media as a link to a better site with US supporting Freedom of Speech and Freedom after Speech.
Name one.
Re: (Score:2)
Some are moving to their own hosting and welcome all of the same user content.
Some link to other video sites with links left on old boring political social media as reminder that new fun content is a link and new brand away.
The funding is moving to a support platform that connects funding directly to content creators (no video site's ads needed
The power the one sites social media is gone.
They cant ban a video talking about linkin
What's the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was a contract programmer and got burnt-out, nobody came to hold my hand or tell me how I deserved to be treated with more respect and love.
But I never expected them to. I was a big boy (with big-boy pants and everything) so I took responsibility for my own destiny.
Now I'm a full-time YouTube content creator and I still don't expect anyone to hold my hand or tell me how I deserve to be treated with more respect and love.
Still wearing the big-boy pants!
Yes, YouTube and it's constantly changing policies make life very hard -- but so did all those project managers I used to code for.
Life can be tough... get over it. Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up -- or find something else to do.
Newsflash! (Score:2)
Running a full blown weekly/daily media format all on your own is taxing to your mental health.
No shit.
Guess why John Oliver, Bill Maher and Co. have armies of staff supporting them.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking along similar line - most of the stuff on youtube is like public access TV (or whatever it is/was called) - the thing that Wayne's World was on. Amateur hour.
Get out (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone whose livelihood depends on youtube ads, should look for alternative streams of revenue.
That includes, IMO, taking a regular job and releasing only one video per week. In most cases, there's not more than one good video per week anyway and the rest are just trivial vlog-fillers.
My cat ... (Score:2)
My take on it as a large creator (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Brooke Brodack? She's my second cousin's niece. She has only uploaded a few videos the past decade. The last one I watched had the title "YouTube has changed." Despite at one point being #2 on YouTube, she can no longer earn a living on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The light that's trying to be twice as bright as it's capable of will burn out much faster!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty lost. She would have succeeded at what? Getting the video down? I'm fine with the long version if it makes logical sense..
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck's sake, stop calling these people "creators". If I film myself yabbering about some product I was secretly paid to rave about (after the obligatory "What's up you guys!", before filming some friends and I acting like idiots in a store, followed by the obligatory "make sure to subscribe!", I didn't -create- shit.
I disagree. In that case, that is precisely what you have created.