YouTube has a great personalization algorithm and a lot of content. Content and personalization make up a virtuous cycle, and drive higher engagement rates, which drives ad rates higher. Medium has neither the scale, content nor the engagement to be as valuable a platform for advertisers.

> So what holds for Medium holds for YouTube and vice versa.

I think the fact that YT hosts video makes it quite a different beast from Medium. Self hosting video is still quite difficult, and expensive. Hosting text is much cheaper and simpler.

This fact changes the game quite a bit.

On the other hand, managing a monetization platform (subscription billing, customer support, linking posts to email to social media notifications) is more complex than self-hosting. Not impossible, but more than most writers would want to take on themselves.

A platform isn't necessarily neutral. It can cultivate and influence the culture that that exists on it. Medium never really seemed to do that imo.

Except YouTube is wildly more popular and sustainable. Any company would kill to be the YouTube of [xyz].

> Medium is simply YouTube for written content.

They wish! Medium is Vimeo.