zlacker

> is actually just a workaround Google suffers through in the YouTube product.

It used to be a Google mantra that "focus on the user and all else will follow." They are so far beyond that they've wrapped around. They actively hate users now.

All Google really cares about is making advertisers happy. Literally nothing else registers as a priority.

>>titzer+(OP)
If people stop watching, advertisers will not be happy

Unfortunately this seems to be what people want.

There's plenty of YouTube competitors (Substack, Patreon, Vimeo, Twitch etc.) Unfortunately, they just don't have the traction of YouTube

>>SJC_Ha+Ka
I think we need to be careful with the language like “this is what the users want” when something along the lines of “this is what triggers of pattern of compulsive behavior in users” is closer to the truth

>>droopy+Yy
Outside of legislation, there isn't a way to make a distinction. Corporations and most individuals are going to do whatever is legally permissible in order to maximize revenue.

And I would say its mostly not YouTube actually producing the content. They are responsible for the "reward mechanism" of clickbaity/shock content driving views, and in return, more views meaning more money for the creators. But I would really like to hear of another model. If YouTube didn't do it, someone else assuredly will. And traditional media is/was barely any better.

>>SJC_Ha+BD
As for a business model, I think that we should pay creators, either directly e.g. via Patreon, or slightly indirectly via smaller creator-led platforms like Nebula.

>>SJC_Ha+Ka
In the same way that compulsive gamblers "want" to feed their retirement savings into slot machines.

I think it's more fair to say that this is a behavior that is profitable to exploit if you care more about making money than what you do to your customers' or society's wellbeing.