Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Coming Content Creation Collapse" video.

  1. Bottom line for YouTube is the same for all platforms, these days. The monetization of content. They had huge assistance/capital behind their startup, and had their bandwidth and server storage all set up before they made a nickel. And they took over the fledgling market by offering so much for free. The entire enterprise was set up like a "loss leader" sale at the grocery store, or free samples from a dope dealer that get you hooked. But making it truly profitable without a subscription model is very difficult. Most people got hooked on free stuff (with commercials), and they're generally easy to manipulate, and their content is pre-sanitized, in keeping with the mores of corporate/government establishment in our fascist system. But they're STILL losing money on all the NPCs, and the sanitization of content is disgusting to most who would be willing to pay. I paid for YouTube Premium for a time, hoping to encourage YouTube to free itself from the shackles of its awful business model (and corporate advertisers). It just got WORSE. So I canceled. The algorithm forces content creators to produce content every day, to keep the algorithm happy. Tim Pool's a master of this. There are others who produce fresh content, daily. Styx is one. He does it on the cheap, says what he wants, and keeps it short. Even then, he's often just following the news cycle, and I may or may not watch stuff like that, because everybody ELSE has a take on it. The bottom line is almost NO ONE has enough to say to justify daily shows, especially daily shows of more than just a few minutes. Paul Harvey did it for DECADES before the Internet. He did his own research, and had a team of helpers, always scouring all the news feeds for gems that no one else was talking about. He was sort of hybrid old and new. You could probably re-run his shows and it'd still be relevant (mostly). r Then there're guys like Limbaugh and Crowder. Limbaugh did it pre-Internet. But neither of those two really had enough fresh to say to keep their daily 2- or 3-hour shows worth your while, unless you're stuck on a road trip, or have it on in the background. Your average "good" creator has maybe a solid half-hour per WEEK to offer up. But they all want daily shows, to make money. and so it gets padded with fluff and personalities and personality cults. I remember this happening to Jamie Dukes (Put up your dukes!"), who started with a half-hour show, which was pure gold, so they expanded his show to 5 days a week, and it started to suck after a week or two. You can tell when a content creator's jumping the shark, trying to drum up views for $$$, and that's where click-bait comes in. It works, for a time. But the public slowly (It's actually very fast, and accelerating) figures out that the titles and the content aren't matching up, or they're REALLY stretching a point for clicks. To observers in real time, the positive evolution is taking place at a snail's pace, but from "System Control"s point of view - and from the historical perspective 50 years from now - things are changing SUPER fast. Bottom line is that Styx's model is a pretty sound one. Grow no faster than your support. Eschew the "monetization" model so many others are tied to. Say what you want. Disperse your content across multiple platforms, like bread on the water, and live on DIRECT support.
    3