Hacker News Reader

This is a bad take. There’s a lot of genuinely good content on YouTube, it’s just that band content tends to get more attention. Even with the bad content, that’s not a reason for YouTube to “die for good.” Just because you have to spend more time seeking out good content doesn’t make the platform invaluable.

View on HN

Of course there’s good content on YouTube, but the vast majority is crap or even anti-content and YouTube pushes bad content with its algorithm.

I think it’s a function of preferring longer content to show more ads so what was once a 4 minute read blog post is now a 15 minute video that meanders around and around killing time.

People watch it, very much, so it’s not YouTube’s fault entirely. But I wish they would incentivize valuable content over chaff. I think there’s a lot of bloat wastage that exists only because YouTube pays more and encourages it.

invaluable: of great value, priceless. Seriously, youtube is not that. Let's go with a more reasonable definition that youtube is valuable. Value of time vs value of content. I can easily see having to spend more time seeking content resulting in the platform no longer being valuable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com