Post: #1

He makes good points.

What youtube used to do was weight the algorithm which recommended videos heavily on subscribers and views while ignoring date uploaded, which biased it in favor of older videos which had time to get more views, and "legacy" channels which already had a large fanbase. Hence new channels seem to struggle but once you already had a reputation for quality you had a solid lock.

Now they don't rely so much on subs and views, favoring newer videos. He knows this because it used to be that you would get most of your views in the opening week, now it's the opening day. You also get more of a bonus if you upload regularly and use clickbait/fad tactics and you're penalised if you take your time to upload quality videos. You're also penalised if your videos don't lead to other videos- which is especially why fads are so common.

He then showed what happened with his main channel now he started uploading weekly(before he uploaded more sporadically with higher quality). I was subscribed to him but I did notice the quality of his content start to drop in recent weeks/months. It was bad but it wasn't horrible enough for me to unsub. But the disturbing thing is he said he did that as an experiment and now using that strategy his performance on youtube has never been better!

This makes a lot of sense and why I seem to see a lot of trash on the youtube homepage. Clickbait videos, youtube drama videos, low quality content. I felt there had to be something wrong and perhaps concluded it was the problem with the West/internet generation/general public as a whole. But this starts to make the argument that that's not entirely the case- it's that like natural selection, the algorithm pushes down quality videos even if people are making and watching them.

If you're curious you should watch the video because these are mainly my thoughts inspired by the video, his thoughts are slightly different from my writeup.