The Decline of YouTube
Welcome to another episode on What the FK is up with YouTube these days. I have been on YouTube, well, I have had an account with YouTube since 2006. I used the platform before right after beta testing, but I did not have an official channel till 2006. I have watched YouTube grow so fast in the early years that I didn’t even realize what was happening. Sure, I posted, but I didn’t use for it for monetary gain. I am a film graduate, so I used the platform to upload my video projects so that I had a space to where I could link people to them in the case they wanted to possibly hire me to do their small scale video production work. Now anyone with an iPhone and access to AI tools is a “video production specialist.” However, I wouldn’t ask them technical questions on video production aspects. Lighting, what Dutch angles are, etc… It is likely they will not know what the hell you are even talking about. What I am going to cover here is a few of the more popular topics people tend to complain about with the philosophy and the functionality of how YouTube works currently in 2023. Much of this is going to be logical opinion driven. I will try to pull facts where I can, but more or less, this blog just serves as another cliff note on YouTube and some of the issues I have run into over the years to where I did blogs about them so that if I had to go back and do something YouTube related and ran into another problem I could refer to those blogs to help me figure out the issue. Also, I thought it was a good idea to blog these out for other people who may also run into the same unique issues I have over the years…
YouTube’s Fair Use Policy:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9783148?hl=en
“Fair use is a legal doctrine that says use of copyright-protected material under certain circumstances is allowed without permission from the copyright holder.” ~ChatGPT’s summary.
Fair Use, while clearly defined in the writing of YouTube’s Terms of Service “TOS”, still has that subjective nature to it and it is clear that nature now is being abused. I get that “some” people will attempt to upload full movies on the YouTube platform. There are whole channels dedicated to uploading full length movies. However, many of these channels upload either very old, out of circulation films or films that do not follow the strict copyright laws like some of those really old drive-in style flicks from the 1950s, 60s and 70s. YouTube only cares when copyright claims are filed. If a person, or company doesn’t do that then there isn’t an issue. YouTube is basically saying if you try to pirate newer popular titles we will strike and/or block the account outright. While, I feel, it should be alright for rare, out of circulation, independent, perhaps, banned, or clearly B and C quality movie territory, just so an audience can find them and enjoy them. Popular movies should not be allowed. I mean, I feel like the spirit of the algorithm that supports this is where the problem is.
I do not know how it works
specifically. This is all speculation and creative thinking on my side of this.
I am not going to pretend I am a coder and I know how this stuff works. I do
not have that knowledge. However, if it were me, I would have it looking for
big uploads. I mean if we are strictly talking movies here and not music or
music video, just movies, these would be massive uploads. Even if compressed,
these files would be fairly large. I would have the algorithm look at all large
uploads to check for copyright. That would narrow down a lot of the “auto-block”
issues that many channels have to deal with that use anything that could be
a copyright strike against them. This seems to be a major issue among channels
that do reviews or critical breakdown videos. If the algorithm is looking for
copyrighted materials, in general, no wonder so many videos are being
auto-blocked. They are treating all uploads, all of the time, as possible
copyright infringements. While there should be separate layers to it. There
should be levels to what is what, how it is labeled in the system, and how it
is being used. They use this “algorithm” to do what, exactly? Ok… Fine…
Program it a little smarter then. I will role play as the algorithm:
1) There is an upload.
2) Scan file for length
3) Scan file’s video/audio source and content.
4) If length is under (insert generic length of average movie here) ignore as full movie copyright.
5) If file containing possible copyrighted materials, apply rules for use (whatever those rules are).
Again… I do not know how it all works and whatever. This is a sarcastic example. I am simply saying; if we are now using AI for so much. We cannot train it to scan all videos coming in using rules of logic to figure out if said uploads violate the rules of the platform’s Terms of Service (TOS) regarding “Fair Use?” To me this should be broken down into a more binary form for the software to handle anyway.
When I was in computer school, years ago, I learned what an ACL is and how to program one. ACL stands for “Access Control List.” ACLs are a security list that manages permissions, ensuring only authorized users can access resources like files, networks, or systems. It works like a binary switch. If the switch is on to block specific traffic from (insert IP Address here). It will block that traffic and users from the IP or IP ranges from access to that data, which could be a site or platform or specific portions of that platform or website. So to me, this is why I feel like the algorithm’s logic is programed, well, to not accept the rules as they are in the TOS. Either the engineers did not physically do the work to program the specifics or they were told not to. It’s either on purpose or an oversight. It takes a very special mind to sort out and write ACLs. Its pain staking and one can mess up fairly easily. I, personally, was not good at this. I understood, conceptually, how to interpret the data. However, writing the instructions? Not so good…
As Far As Copyright Companies Go…
Yeah, they clearly do not understand the “fair use” laws as they are written. It is a fight that could cost you money or the potential to make money and for what? They have the power and the money to squash your argument. This is why if AI were doing it and the rules followed the physical rules and logic of those rules and their intentions, it would be cut n’ dry. From that, it would be based on a 0 or a 1, conceptually. It either broke a policy or it did not. If it were that simple, most, if not all, of this would be adverted. AI/software is going to behave how we program it to behave. If the TOS says a thing and it is programmed that way in the algorithm it will follow the rule. Take that logic and apply it to what the algorithm actually does and see if it actually matches what the TOS says.
There is also this arrogant attitude from companies about what advanced technology can do to an inflated sense of self-belief in its actual ability to work. This attitude that their program, their policy, their protocol, and their company could, ever be, WRONG… This is a huge problem. Not just in technology, but also in bigger tech and biggest tech, insanely, obnoxiously humongous tech. “Ludicrous Speed! GO!” It terrifies me with its relationships with religion, politics, reality, existential existence itself. We have rules to govern how we do things and the very things that require the rules to operate correctly do not follow the rules and we are told to just ignore them. Is it really a surprise the world is in the turmoil it is in, even at this smallish scale of a video hosting platform for independent creators? That is what YouTube was when it started. For people who couldn’t get their voice out there and now Big Tech and Mass Media have literally stole it with their promises of ad revenue.
YouTube’s Corporate Culture:
Over the time where Google purchased YouTube and what YouTube currently focuses on with issues related to corporate advertising and the platform's shift towards a more corporate and advertising-focused direction. There is an extensive use of advertisements by large corporations on the platform. You all know these by the ads that often annoy, interrupt and disrupt the viewing experience per video. Another significant concern is the abundance of mainstream corporate news content now dominating YouTube. This presence of mainstream news content can overshadow and reduce the visibility of alternative opinions and independent creators. Currently, YouTube is a result of the platform's monetization strategy. YouTube allows content creators to earn revenue through ads displayed on their videos. While this has enabled many creators to earn a living from their content, it has also led to an influx of corporate advertisements, sometimes making the viewing experience less enjoyable for users and less is understating it.
YouTube has drifted away from its original appeal as the be-all-end-all platform for independent creators. It should be noted that Twitch and Rumble are now catching up. They are never gonna be YouTube, but they can take YouTube’s spot for small-time independent creators to go and get a better experience. Perhaps even a better monetization process. The platform initially gained popularity for allowing individuals to upload and share their content, fostering a sense of creativity, entertainment, education and community. YouTube's increasing corporate focus, which is evident in the platform's prioritization of corporate advertising and mainstream news content. This shift has led to a growing perception that YouTube is prioritizing corporate interests over those of independent content creators. These concerns and critiques are rooted in the evolving nature of YouTube as a digital platform.
YouTube has increasingly become a platform for news dissemination. Many mainstream news organizations have established their presence on the platform, uploading news segments and reports. While this provides users with access to a wide range of news content, it can also make it challenging for alternative or independent news sources to gain visibility. There is also pressure from the legacy mass media that what they report is FACT and if other, smaller, independent channels post a video as a news worthy story and it contradicts the reporting from the mainstream media that the uploader’s video is now in question of being labeled as misinformation. This is also a potential problem that is understated most of the time. Mainly due to many of the uploads being opinion-based anyway. Where actual, small time, independent news channels might have a problem there. That part is hard to say, as I do not follow any on the platform. YouTube's shift towards a more corporate and advertising-focused direction is partly a response to the need for profitability. To sustain the platform, YouTube has pursued partnerships with advertisers and legacy media organizations, which has led to the proliferation of corporate content. However, this shift has raised concerns about the platform's commitment to supporting and promoting independent creators. These concerns reflect broader discussions about the role and direction of digital platforms in the modern media landscape, where balancing corporate interests with the needs of the user and independent content creators remains a complex challenge.
What X (formally known as Twitter) is trying to do is be the YouTube of old with promoting everyday X users to report news where they are in the event “something news worthy is happening live” on the platform. While a good thought, I do not think it will succeed. What is more likely to happen is X (formally known as Twitter) will eventually get itself shut down and something new will spark from it. That new “thing” will be what X (formally known as Twitter) is trying to do, mixed in with what YouTube used to be in the early days, before YouTuber, Influencer and Content Creator were even phrases. Most of my thoughts here stems from X (formally known as Twitter) going all weird with pushing news stories that some are legit and others are just nonsense, all while displayed as legit news stories. I had to mute around 100 accounts before I started noticing less and less of that. Granted I may miss a real story that is actually a big story, but I look at things a lot deeper than the Flat Earther, conspiracy pirates that look at Twitter/X as NEWS that requires no validity; and/or look at CNN/FOX/NBC/NewsMax’s YouTube channels as the only places to get news.
YouTube’s Thumbs Up/Down Rating System:
Due to the corporate influencing on YouTube; videos were getting rated worse and worse. This is and was due to us, the viewer, that hates corporate ANYTHING and EVERYTHING… We left cable due to that gross, icky, dirty corporate feeling. These videos were getting lowered and not viewed as much. These companies were paying top dollar for these ads and they are now either not being seen at all or voted as low quality videos. I doubt companies want their ad on videos considered trash. So YouTube changed their rating system to a thumbs-up, thumbs-down where at first we could all see both votes. Flash-forward some years later and they switch the thumbs-down to be hidden at all times. One now can never see the amount of thumbs-down votes a video could have. At this point, it is not possible, before you click on a video to know whether or not the rating system is being honest with itself.
Rather than this idiotic thumbs-up, thumbs-down system, which is currently defunct thanks to YouTube blocking our ability to see any and all thumbs-down, so the system itself is pointless. YouTube now uses this for analytics and the almighty algorithm that basically dictates whether a video is good enough to label as “monetize this video.” I have heard so many horror stories that if the video doesn’t get liked it messes with the amount of monetization the video can get. The more thumbs up, the more money that creator will get for their efforts. This is not what the intention was for the thumbs up and thumbs down or maybe it was, in its current form. I can't help but think of the early days of YouTube when we had the star rating system. It was a system that offered so much more variety. If I found a video to be decent but not stellar or even terrible, I could give it a one, two, three, four, or five-star rating. Now, if a video truly stood out, I'd gladly grant it a five-star rating. This allowed for an averaged assessment of content quality that was our voice on what is good/bad.
Back then, this system served as a natural filter for weeding out subpar quality content. When I searched for a specific topic, all kinds of different videos would come up, and I could quickly gauge their worth to what it is I am interested in at that time. Even before clicking, I could see the star ratings. For instance, if a video boasted 250,000 views and a five-star rating, I knew it was likely to be what I am looking for or, at the very least, be up to the standard described in the title and thumbnail, which now feels all click-baity. Click-Bait came a little later. This is not a very good quality excuse for YouTube to blame Click-Bait for why the rating system was changed. It was changed so they can control how something appears on their website under the impression it is based on our votes. This isn’t much different than me hacking into your computer while you are on your bank website and I change the displayed HTML text in the background of your web browser; displaying whatever text I wanted it to. I could make it literally say anything. Oh, the implications… How is this any different from YouTube? They are literally controlling, telling us, what is good and we should watch this. If I am a million dollar company and I want to advertise on YouTube. Depending on how much money I want to spend I could have my ads on all the popular videos on YouTube, but from YouTube’s algorithm’s point of view.
The star rating system; videos with misleading titles, thumbnails, or poor-quality content would face the consequences of low ratings, because us, the viewers, were thumbs downing these videos. Their videos would display a dismal one-star rating, serving as a clear signal to other viewers that the content was trash. Granted that does not mean the video won’t be enjoyed by others, but it’s extremely implied, and it should be that way. This system was great the way it was. It sifted through the junk, simplified content search-ability, and allowed me to tailor my YouTube experience to my preferences. It's a shame we lost this feature.
YouTube’s Search Engine:
YouTube’s current search engine, how it currently operates, is extremely limited at trying to find something specific. With the evolution of chatbot language modals like ChatGPT. I’d love to see YouTube adapt a language modal AI, like this, to replace YouTube’s search engine or at least as an ad-on. You could have a short conversation with YouTubeSearch, let’s call her ‘Syrche,’ with what specifically you want to see in your search results or what you do not want to see.
An example prompt could be: “Syrche… Please display YouTube’s 15 most watched videos on Starcluster formations. Please display these 15 videos from channels that have between 100,000 and 200,000 subscription followers. Other video search criteria: only show results for Videos that are under 11 minutes and have no mid-video sponsored ads.” Should be noted that ads are to be expected, but what I am specifically asking in my search results are videos that have no “mid-video” ads. This means no breaks during the video. The search results could show me videos with an ad at the beginning of the video, which is to be expected, and ads that might be at the end of the video. There also could be ads in the creation of the video content itself that are not added by YouTube. They would be part of the video uploaded from the uploader. That is the beauty of using a language modal AI for this. It understands the context of your query in conversational form. The thing about AI language prompts is being extremely specific but doing it in the simplest way possible to your own abilities. If I want a more mainstream results driven approach in my search results I would just use the search like normal. If you want something extremely specific include an advanced search engine that is really a prompt answer language AI. I mean, why not? Everyone is using this now.
I guess the Future YouTube or FutureTube would be like YouTube but completely AI dependent. That would be interesting to see. Just imagine a thing like YouTube where you talk to an AI about what you want to watch or even Tell AI what to create for your channel. Maybe even before the end of the decade? Be interesting… Ciao…