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.
> 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.