>>107093110>The whole thing is bot-driven>It's all fucking bots. Seriously, more than half of all viewers might not even be real, and the same goes for the ad clicks. The whole site is just an ad farm using bots to reach bots.Sources needed. I see no reason to assume robots drive viewership rather than normal people, especially since rooting out bots increases confidence in the value of buying Youtube advertising, the site's primary business model.
>all the content they promote is going to be mathematically derived and thus formulaic somehowThis comment belies a misunderstanding of how content recommendation using ML works.
The goal is to predict content which viewers similar to you are likely to also enjoy, as measured by predicted watch time for a video and predicted time you'll spend watching other videos over then next few hours after opening a video.
Math is used, but the result is not deterministic or formulaic, it's in response to what you watch and what people similar to you watch. The "rut" you're observing is internal, or in the people statistically like yourself, who watch these videos. Content creators merely operate in this framework.
>Advertisers don't have a clear picture of what they're advertising against or how the viewers really feel about the contentThey do. YouTube pretty granularly lets you set target demography for ads. Advertisers who don't want their work shown in political contexts have the tools to avoid doing so, and boycotts are a response to effective consumer advocacy, implying consumers have the means to handle this.
>Their model sucks>not supporting new studios, new ideas, or a healthy media environmentTheir model is good: there has been no past time in history where video entertainment has been so abundant, high-quality, and free (as paid by advertisers, which users can and do successfully shame when they act for bad causes, so regulation's unneeded). And, Youtube clearly supports a vast ecosystem of creators.
