[HN Gopher] How YouTube won the battle for TV viewers
___________________________________________________________________
How YouTube won the battle for TV viewers
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 41 points
Date : 2025-07-19 22:28 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| al_borland wrote:
| I'd say 98% of my YouTube views are on the AppleTV.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| I ditched Chromecast recently. They made YouTube too
| heavyweight for the Chromecast Ultra, to the point it regularly
| crashed. The new "Chromecast With Android TV" is barely more
| specs and has broken the interface by being... Android TV.
| Rather than take a well deserved second place, they chased
| Apple's design and ruined their niche.
|
| Worse still, the best replacement I could find... Was Apple TV.
| So now I'm on that ecosystem.
| kimixa wrote:
| Does it use a different app on the Ultra? I'm still using my
| second generation and (aside from some nonsense earlier this
| year about expired certificates) still going strong - can't
| ever remember it "Crashing".
|
| Perhaps it's not "app weight" but more specific to the 4k
| video or SoC implementation?
| consumer451 wrote:
| YouTube is apparently #1 in music streaming as well, which I
| found surprising.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| YT Music is a dollar cheaper than Spotify, and generally
| better; it's also included in YT Premium, so if you already
| have that, 'may as well'.
| al_borland wrote:
| In terms of subscribers or actual use?
|
| I have YT Premium, so I automatically get YT Music. I would
| much rather pay less and drop the Music app. I almost never use
| it and don't like it. I can't justify buying for another
| service on top of this, so I went back to managing a local
| library and manually syncing all my music to my phone like it's
| 2007.
|
| A side effect of YouTube treating music special is that I can't
| read comments on the TV for videos that it thinks are music. I
| find this very annoying. The same video will have comment on
| mobile or the computer.
| consumer451 wrote:
| IIRC, it was in terms of use.
| anon7000 wrote:
| My gripe is that when you try to sync over a library from,
| say, Spotify, you'll end up subscribed to hundreds of
| artist's YouTube channels in your main TV app, and playlists
| are basically shared too. Which I do not want at all
| al_borland wrote:
| Yep. This is one of the reasons I don't really use YT
| Music. The shared playlists are a nightmare. If someone
| tells me to check out a song, I might go there to listen to
| it as a one-off, but that's about it. It's so poorly done
| for anyone who also uses YouTube, which I assume is
| everyone.
| oersted wrote:
| Quick tip: You can see the comments on such videos (at least
| on my TV), the comments button not shown but clicking on the
| video title to open the description also shows the comments.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Went to a wedding, 10 years ago even, and the "kids" DJ-ing the
| wedding party were pulling up music on YouTube.
|
| (To be sure, this was very much a low-key affair, teens there
| with their parents were "DJ-ing" -- but I was still surprised
| that is was YT. Just vanilla YT, pulling up "videos" and
| hitting "play".)
| radley wrote:
| YouTube is pretty common for in-person, social music sharing
| because it's the least friction. It's hard to share between
| Spotify, Apple Music, Soundcloud, and personal collections
| from the same device. YT search will usually find pretty much
| everything.
| ksec wrote:
| I dont believe that is the case, and I cant any reference to
| it. Nearly all are pointing to Spotify as number one both in
| terms of revenue and market shares.
|
| The thing I dislike about Youtube Music is how it is basically
| not a product the team have put any thoughts into it. It is
| constantly rated one of the worst in Apple Music and Spotify
| comparison. It has so much potential but it is just very poor
| done.
| apricot13 wrote:
| so did I until I found myself using YouTube music over Spotify
| more and more. it has all the standard music but also includes
| more remixes and smaller artists. the most important thing is
| that it doesn't mix podcasts in with music and you can easily
| view your own playlists!
|
| haven't used Spotify in any meaningful way in a few years now.
| mrj wrote:
| Same. Also, my Spotify auto generated playlists hadn't
| changed for several years. I finally got fed up and googled
| around only to find it was a known issue. Clearly somebody
| realized they could just turn off those expensive GPUs...
| rambambram wrote:
| I always wondered if this would be the case. All non-tech-nerd
| people I know share Spotify links that I can't open (yes, I can
| download another app, no I'm not going to do that).
|
| I use Youtube extensively for discovering new music and new
| artists. Sometimes (1 out of 100 times) I find myself on
| Soundcloud for a song that's not on Youtube, but for the rest
| Youtube is just perfect. I always wondered how many people use
| Youtube for music streaming... apparently a lot.
| qingcharles wrote:
| The reason I've always used YouTube Music over the competition
| is that it includes whatever-the-hell anyone uploads on
| YouTube.
|
| So, while Spotify can't get the rights (or the data) for that
| band that played down the pub one time in 1987, someone
| happened to record them and put them on YouTube and now they
| have royalties sat accruing somewhere and I get to listen to
| them on a nostalgia binge.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| That alternatives to YouTube have come to naught feels
| unfortunately like a de facto monopoly.
|
| Certainly it's because the content creators stay on YouTube
| because that's "where the eyeballs are". (Or rather, the money is
| to be made there on ad revenue ... because that's where the
| eyeballs are.)
|
| I don't know how you break that. eBay is probably in the same
| enviable position.
| veggieroll wrote:
| Ultimately, we need to convince DC to start enforcing monopoly
| laws again.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| Ain't happening with the current party at the helm.
| veggieroll wrote:
| Lina Khan for dictator.
| spwa4 wrote:
| That won't work, Youtube is fundamentally dependent on
| massive storage, massive compute and massive internet
| connectivity PLUS a revenue mechanism for creators. A whole
| lot of infrastructure.
|
| Monopoly laws and taxes are punitive. In other words: they
| can only ever create a situation where there is fundamentally
| less available. They cannot create a second Youtube, they can
| only destroy Youtube. Unless the government builds the
| infrastructure, which is a nonstarter.
|
| If you cannot use state power and/or resources to create a
| second and third Youtube, then letting Youtube be a monopoly
| is probably the best option. The big difference between
| competitors and a monopoly is that a monopolist can only
| improve outcomes by growing the market ... which is exactly
| what we want.
|
| Unfortunately it is _very_ much not what the government
| wants. Well, it is not what governments (plural) want.
| Governments think they 're god, and of course like two people
| in a madhouse that both think they're god, there is a rather
| fundamental disagreement here. They will realize, eventually,
| just how stupid it would be for god to let other gods (anyone
| but themselves, other governments, but also private people)
| control mass media. This means we will get closer and closer
| to the situation that Youtube cannot satisfy multiple
| governments. This could even apply to multiple parties within
| one state structure. You would hope this means they'll build
| infrastructure, but we all know what will really happen:
| they'll destroy it. Youtube will end because governments will
| see it as a threat to them, and they just won't care how much
| damage they're doing. Just look at the current government.
|
| There are a LOT of economy texts, some quite old that warn
| about the dangers of letting private interests control the
| only market for anything. They suggest the government should
| make sure they own or at least control the market itself, but
| that includes paying for infrastructure. This has it's own
| problems (like censorship), but there is really no
| alternative. Either you do that or eventually the monopolists
| will BE the government.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| YouTube isn't a monopoly. Quite a few creators I watch
| heavily promote their videos on other sites, usually
| targeted specifically at learning. I guess they get a
| better revshare there.
|
| Unfortunately for them, I don't watch enough of their
| learning content to care about subscribing. But it's an
| option, and if I wanted to spend more time watching videos
| I could do so.
|
| Operating a site with all the features and scale of YouTube
| is prohibitively difficult just because YouTube sets the
| bar so high, but operating a smaller more targeted
| competitor isn't. There are no barriers to entering the
| market. And that's largely thanks to Google and how they
| pushed so much video functionality into Chrome itself!
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| For most people, "entering the market" includes scoring
| high on virality, or even just "potential for virality".
| If not on YT or TikTok (or maybe insta too), it is very,
| very, very hard to score highly for those metrics.
| black3r wrote:
| > Youtube is fundamentally dependent on massive storage,
| massive compute and massive internet connectivity PLUS a
| revenue mechanism for creators. A whole lot of
| infrastructure.
|
| Yes, and YouTube essentially gets all of this
| infrastructure from its parent company for free and still
| operates at a loss. So no other company who doesn't already
| have such infrastructure for other purposes can effectively
| compete with YouTube, and all such attempts were
| effectively destroyed by YouTube because YouTube could
| offer better services while still operating at a loss.
|
| Monopoly laws should've prevented a situation like this.
|
| Of course YouTube wouldn't be able to provide its services
| at current scale if it didn't have Google backing. But
| perhaps that could've made the current content market
| better. If YouTube had to place some restrictions on
| uploaded content because it wouldn't afford unlimited
| storage and bandwidth, it wouldn't push creators to make
| every video 10+ minutes long, and if creators had to pay at
| least some minimal fees (while they could still get
| residuals from ads if the video was successful) to post
| videos, we wouldn't have so much low quality videos there.
| And the competition could maybe give us better features we
| don't even dream of today.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Pretty sure YT has been profitable since 2021.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Monopoly laws and taxes are punitive. In other words:
| they can only ever create a situation where there is
| fundamentally less available.
|
| The breakup of Ma Bell had its flaws, but it ABSOLUTELY
| created a situation where there was more available.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| It's even worse than you think, because by all accounts YouTube
| is absurdly expensive to operate. Some even claim to that this
| day it has still never turned a profit for Google. And if
| Google can't make it work-- with their own ad network, tons of
| their own fiber, their own operating system, etc.-- it's likely
| that nobody can. Hosting unlimited video for free is just
| stupefyingly expensive.
| Dig1t wrote:
| It's also really hard to compete with YouTube simply due to the
| cost of compute and storage associated with serving video. The
| costs are way higher than most any other type of website. You
| have to do transcoding and also store multiple versions of
| videos at different resolutions.
|
| There are few companies with the resources to create a real
| competitor.
| RumourRider wrote:
| It is partly the network effect. However all the alternatives
| having serious issues:
|
| - Odysee - has performance issues and the app is crap and no
| discoverability. Some niche, interesting content on there but a
| lot of the time I only used it because someone would upload Joe
| Rogan stuff while he was exclusive to Spotify.
|
| - BitChute - full of racists and not a lot else, crap
| discoverability. The website feels like something from the
| 2000s.
|
| - Rumble - US/UK right wing slop politics and conspiracy
| rubbish from David Icke wannabes. I don't like the interface at
| all. Tends to work okay. But there is very few things I want to
| watch/listen to on there. Discoverability isn't great.
|
| - Daily motion - I remember it being decent a decade ago, but
| it has fallen behind and turned into something else from
| briefly looking at the home page.
|
| - Twitch - Streaming platform only, I think. There is a lot of
| slop left wing politics on it and (for want of a better term)
| "titty streamers". I have visited the site once, not for me.
|
| - Kick - Basically Twitch but has more permissive T&C.
| Bankrolled by Stake.com IIRC. I watch one live show if I am
| awake to watch it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with it.
|
| I spend most of my time on YouTube watching stuff either about
| Computers, Repairing 4x4 trucks, Weird Soviet Era vehicles, WW2
| stuff by Mark Felton or some sort of Tech related stuff. None
| of that is catered to on the alternative sites at all. None of
| that is catered by TV particularly well either.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| YouTube is mostly popular, but it doesn't really stand out in
| any technical way.
|
| Content creators prefer YouTube because it has more users, and
| each creator is afraid that their followers wouldn't follow
| them to another platform. Even content creators focused on open
| source or self-hosting kind of tech.
|
| Honestly, I really wonder if users would refuse to follow
| creators whom they like to another platform. Are most people
| really that adverse to just watching videos on another website?
| heavensteeth wrote:
| personally i havent watched tv or listened to the radio on my own
| accord in many years because there are too many ads. i like the
| idea of not being able to choose the content im engaging in but
| it feels like 70% ads and 30% content
| ksec wrote:
| Non Youtube contents such as TV broadcast needs to get streaming
| done right. And they haven't done it. Apple or Google could have
| helped here. Where All Broadcast TV are in one place / App just
| like a normal TV. And the content will be streamed in decent
| quality. But neither are they interested as Youtube belongs to
| Google and Apple is going with Apple TV+ direction and wants to
| own TV itself.
|
| It is such a sad state of things since Steve Jobs passed away
| both Apple and Google have a complete lack of taste and product
| sensibility to deliver something truly helps the customers.
| Instead every product and features are marketing or sales driven.
| halJordan wrote:
| This could easily have happened. Apple especially lets anyone
| fit their catalog into the TV app. It's the non-Apple and non-
| Google part of the equation that chose the current system.
| ksec wrote:
| There are additional requirements involved with getting the
| catalog in TV App. And Apple obviously are not willing to
| share accurate user count numbers as well as a lot of other
| data. Once they said they are Apple's customer and not those
| TV / Broadcasting customers that was the end of the
| conversation.
| jppj wrote:
| I wonder what it's like in various countries. I was surprised
| that Japan came up with that, TVer which basically all
| broadcast shows end up on for at least one week, shown with
| ads. AFAIK it's driven by a coalition of broadcasters with
| nothing to do with the big platforms - where there's a will
| there's a way I guess.
| izacus wrote:
| Apple and Google tried that for years on their TV platforms and
| the content providers aggressively blocked them.
|
| E.g. Netflix outright refuses any kind of integration where
| their content would be surfaced next to other services - their
| product managers DEMAND that people go to their app into their
| owned experience to access content.
|
| And designers/product managers at other content providers are
| the same.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Because they want you to pay for _Netflix_. It isn 't hard.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Netflix refusing to integrate is a huge pain. I recently set
| up an Apple TV box for a non-technical parent, and while most
| services can be effectively navigated with the system-level
| voice search, Netflix is the odd one out and so I suspect
| Netflix is going to go mostly unwatched.
| comprev wrote:
| Netflix wants 100% of your attention on _their_ content.
|
| Instead of "channel surfing" and picking a competitor's
| production they want to keep viewers inside their walled
| garden.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| In an ideal world, each streaming service would provide the
| service itself, users can pick whichever app they like, and
| connect that app to the services they use.
|
| In the real world, each company wants to be THE number one
| streaming platform, and wants users to use their app above all
| else. So each company reinvents the same things, and users need
| to deal with the mess of N apps for N services.
|
| The idea of cooperation is completely alien in big tech
| companies. Descentralisation is perceived as dangerous, since
| it doesn't let each individual be the number one.
|
| In the end, because everyone want to be the number one and
| screw the rest, they all end up sucking. This is obviously
| predictable, but management everywhere remains oblivious of it.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > In the real world, each company wants to be THE number one
| streaming platform, and wants users to use their app above
| all else. So each company reinvents the same things, and
| users need to deal with the mess of N apps for N services.
|
| The companies do not care about app usage. They care about
| subscription fees, which are highly (though somewhat
| elastically) dependent on a platform's available content.
| They don't give a damn what you watch with, they just want
| you to pay. They already know there will be no 600lb gorilla
| in streaming, so it's all about getting another month of fees
| from you, and that is unrelated to app usage.
| gnz11 wrote:
| > All Broadcast TV are in one place / App just like a normal
| TV. And the content will be streamed in decent quality.
|
| Isn't that what YouTube TV is? The problem with YouTube TV is
| that it's essentially the old expensive cable model that
| everyone was trying to get away from in the first place.
| ta1243 wrote:
| BBC has been doing streaming likely longer than you've been
| aware of streaming -- it left beta in 2007, same time that
| Netflix started streaming in the US.
|
| The content is nowhere near as addictive as youtube though,
| partly because the format is still television and still built
| with a television executive mindset.
| brycewray wrote:
| https://archive.is/Ii9n3
| radley wrote:
| I feel like this is the result of the major streaming services
| cutting back on original content due to production costs, the
| 2023 strikes, and winning the broadcast fight.
|
| Initially, streaming had to compete with broadcasting's long
| seasons by producing the equivalent amount of content, spread
| between more shows, with higher-quality production but much
| shorter seasons. Now streamers are providing fewer shows and only
| semi-annual seasons. It ends up leaving a lot of open viewing
| time with nothing fresh to watch.
|
| YouTube also has the advantage of people making highlight reels
| of the most popular movies and series. We get out-takes, behind
| the scenes, bloopers, best quotes etc. Streaming services haven't
| figured this out (yet). I've never watched _The Late Show with
| Stephen Colbert_ on TV, but I watched almost every monologue on
| YouTube.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Streaming services in general have become terrible.
|
| What once was on ~3 platforms is now on ~10+ platforms. They
| constantly shuffle around who has what, new promising series
| are constantly killed because if they don't instantly become a
| worldwide sensation and the prices are rising non-stop.
|
| At some point I just said screw it and left all of them.
| DevX101 wrote:
| I'm not sure the economics of big budget TV series work anymore
| unless you catch lightning in a bottle so I understand them
| cutting prod costs.
|
| YouTube's economics are just so much better. YT provides no up
| front payment for content. The channels are almost infinite,
| microtargeted to everyone's interest. And the payout is
| proportional to the success of the content, and paid AFTER the
| audience has viewed. TV on the other hand has to make big bets
| before they know whether a show will be a hit.
|
| I've had a TV for years but don't have cable and never watch
| broadcast. My TV is just a large ipad.
| elzbardico wrote:
| I never get this argument. To see themselves without fresh
| content, I reckon people would have to expend at least some 4
| hours every single day watching tv. Anyone watching this much
| TV should instead cut it down, it is fucking too much time
| wasted.
| lysace wrote:
| So much of the expensive "original content" is just crap. I'm
| happy the days when there's 20 minutes of new quality
| "original content". Most days there's nothing.
| h4kunamata wrote:
| TV is hot garbage now.
|
| YT has solid channels, from DIY to black hole talks and most
| importantly, uncensored news.
|
| TV is just ADs and more ADs, garbage content after garbage
| content. Not everything is pretty tho, YT has a complete monopoly
| and there is nothing anybody can do about it, the alternatives
| suck with some silly subscription when there is no even content.
|
| I do pay for Youtube Premium since Youtube Music is hands down
| better than Spotify. I would pay for alternative services to help
| them out IF they were worth it. YT Premium is the only
| subscription I pay and happy to do so, I see value.
| lowdownbutter wrote:
| > uncensored news. Get a load of this guy
| tietjens wrote:
| very curious what is meant by uncensored news.
| amelius wrote:
| Is YT Premium 100% ad-free?
|
| I get the feeling that if many users start using Premium, at
| some point they'll see ads again.
| RaSoJo wrote:
| YT-Premium is still ad-free, though they did bump up the
| prices recently.
|
| Being a monopoly gives them that kind of power, but they
| haven't gone overboard--probably because they know regulators
| would start poking around if they did.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| youtube does not put ads before, during or after a video for
| a premium subscriber. creators are in control of the content
| within that video (and that could include sponsored
| segments). if that is an issue, you will need to skip those
| or use something like SponsorBlock.
| fragmede wrote:
| Premium has a "skip section" button for those.
| legitster wrote:
| Not only is it ad-free, they provide a "skip advertisement"
| feature for in-video ads.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| I unsubbed from YT premium when I realized the only feature I
| was really paying for was not being bombarded by ads every 30
| seconds of video. Sometimes you'll get back to back aggressive
| ads within only a handful of seconds. The purpose seems to be
| to annoy you into purchasing a subscription, which is really
| predatory and annoying. Or locking "features" behind a paywall
| basically every other app provides, like continuing playing
| even when the app is in the background made me eventually
| annoyed enough to just cancel, and I can somewhat tolerate the
| ads. If not it forces me off the app sometimes which is not
| what I had intended but is a nice side effect.
|
| It would be one thing if the ads weren't incredibly annoying by
| themselves, the content is either really, really weird,
| seemingly AI generated, or annoying, or some combination of all
| of those. I cannot imagine who they are for.
| apricot13 wrote:
| TV channels have been forced to produce TV shows that will draw
| the biggest audiences. they've not innovated online either.
|
| Streaming services make great shows then stop them after one
| season or force one episode a week. they also drop then pick back
| up shows constantly.
|
| YouTube let's people watch the kinds of shows they want to watch
| and let's people create the kind of shows they want to create.
| everyone wins, including YouTube! plus they do music, smaller
| artists, bigger artists and mashups in between. it's all just
| there fairly reliably and it works on every platform.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Jellyfin is really popular in our house. Everyone associates
| YouTube with quick and dirty dumb content. Garbage "looping"
| style content is allowed in private, but long form content on a
| screen or playing aloud has to be something that is an actual 30+
| minute thing with a point to it.
| zarzavat wrote:
| You need to subscribe to better YouTube channels. I stopped
| watching regular TV (including Netflix, etc), because YouTube
| is much more erudite and I actually learn things rather than
| passively consuming dramas.
| rambambram wrote:
| > actual 30+ minute thing with a point to it
|
| Good point. I hardly see any movies anymore and lately I found
| that what I miss is a good story. Some Youtube channels come
| close, but these are all 'garden variety' stories, so to speak.
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| Since this isn't a defense of Google but of the many clever
| creators on YouTube, I can comfortably applaud so much of their
| work. YouTube isn't at all about just garbage content. It has
| no shortage of that, but it also has absolutely no shortage of
| truly fantastic, educative, production-worthy videos and
| channels of all kinds. I mean some truly excellent ones here,
| that are easily as good as or very often much better than
| anything I used to see for documentaries on network or cable
| TV. That so many of them are made at a fraction of those old
| documentary budgets and by completely independent creators
| (often just some guy working from his home studio) is an
| incredible achievement of modern media technology and
| innovation.
|
| The YT algorithm will often promote to you more that's similar
| to whatever you've already watched, so if you actually start
| seeking out a certain type of quality content, you'll find more
| of it being recommended. I carefully pick the things I take the
| time to view or play in the background while im working on
| household chores and so far haven't had any shortage of
| genuinely great things to enjoy.
|
| YT has its many flaws, but one of them certainly isn't a
| shortage of quality vidoes about nearly anything you could want
| to know about.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Too bad the YouTube TV viewing experience sucks.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I've been a subscriber for a very long time,
| and I get a lot of great content there. But going there to watch
| something specific, or watching a TV series, really sucks.
|
| I recently realized a few studios (IIRC Warner Bros and
| Paramount) had put a lot of content there including movies and TV
| shows. I decided to watch Dick Van Dyke, because I'm a Carl
| Reiner fan. You can't really "Watch Next" a TV show and then go
| in to watch the next episode. And in fact sometimes it just wants
| to show you the shows in a non-linear order. "I want to watch the
| next Dick Van Dyke" is not something that YouTube makes easy.
| Another example, a friend recent sent me The Chit Show, I opened
| the playlist of the shows, and it played them in the reverse
| order (which I didn't really understand until the end when I
| realized I was on the first episode).
|
| Also, the YouTube algorithm for suggesting things for you to
| watch is really bad. It gets stuck in ruts and it's hard to get
| out of them.
|
| YouTube is amazing for learning DIY things, which is a large part
| of why I have subscribed for so long. But for watching
| entertainment the whole UI really just doesn't work.
| eliasbagley wrote:
| You must be super knowledgeable. Maybe you should get a UX job
| at YouTube and fix it all.
| legitster wrote:
| I'll come out and say that I am a full blown Youtube addict.
|
| A lot of what I may watch on Youtube might be categorized as
| "background noise" - lots of talking head content that I can play
| on the background. Much of it is low quality and self-serious -
| but it's arguably much better quality than any equivalent
| "background noise" show on TV.
|
| Ironically, I feel like longform Youtube content is actually
| _better_ for my attention span and more rewarding - because
| creators aren 't trying to appeal to broad audiences, they don't
| have to jump from topic to topic and keep things under a time
| limit.
|
| I recently watched the Animagraffs video on the Hoover Dam and I
| was blown away. I have probably watched dozens of TV
| documentaries on the Hoover Dam over the year, but none of them
| actually just stop and methodically explained everything from
| top-to-down so thoroughly.
|
| Even beloved shows like Mythbusters, there are now dozens of
| channels on Youtube that do all the same things we enjoyed
| Mythbusters for but better and with less filler and shmaltz.
| miduil wrote:
| I've watched this video the other day
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWsL8ME3ruk and it somehow
| helped me breaking my YouTube addiction for the last several
| weeks. Quite random but it really helped.
|
| I still muscle memory enter youtube.com and I'm blown away how
| incredible addictive everything is setup there to be, the
| "algorithm" has trained the content creators to maximize their
| reach with incredible captivating thumbnails (and of course
| great content).
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Best thing is to turn off recommendations and history, which
| can be done with YouTube. You can also use uBlock Origin to
| block even more controls (on YouTube on other websites too),
| which make websites more unintuitive to use.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-23 23:00 UTC)