In the early days, people uploaded videos they felt were funny, entertaining and educational. For free. The idea that you should be paid for uploading a video of yourself camping is preposterous. Go get a real job if you want to make money

The creators I watch aren't making their income from YouTube, even when that is their only main platform. Patreon and video sponsorships through direct deals/ad networks are the bulk of it, in a lot of cases.

So now, you're proposing the PBS model of broadcasting vs advertising supported broadcasting.

It's amusing to me how we keep reinventing existing models but consider them a totally new thing because "on a computer" kind of thing.

I watch my YouTube videos on patreon, ad-free. The creators are making more off me, too.

great, so you just provided evidence that YT isn't so critical as you've found the same content elsewhere

Technically patreon uses embedded YouTube vids, but your point stands. YT isn't so critical.

I'm not proposing anything, just noting that Youtube ads are not providing a relevant direct incentive to a lot of creators. Obviously "keeping Youtube running" also matters to anyone using the platform as a part of making a living, but at least personally I feel like that is a different problem that needs to be approached from other angles.

Some amount of reinvention seems necessary, the cost model of video hosting (without just making it a public service) changes the maths a fair bit.

I can't even look at my own videos and no, I don't monetize.

Does my issue start to look a bit more reasonable?

No, because there are plenty of other sites that offer you that ability. Everyone knows that going to YT means ads. That's like showing up to Victoria Secrets and being shocked there's lingerie every where.

I think you are so dead set on seeing things your way that you have lost something along the way: the ability to step out of this for a moment and to observe that YT is infrastructure, not content owned by Google and that the difference between Victoria's Secret and YT is that there are many alternatives to VS but no clear alternatives to YT and with such a dominant market position come certain obligations. This is exactly what anti-trust is all about. If VS commanded 80% of the market for underwear and they decided you can only buy their underwear if you also inject yourself with some unknown substance (which is roughly how I see advertising consumption, it is pure poison for your brain) then we'd have a comparison.

I would respond that I think you are deadset on thinking that the YT of today is supposed to be the same as when it first started. It has new owners now. It has a different operating model. It has decided that the content it plays will be ad supported. Continuing to expect the ad free model when the model has clearly changed is the dead set mentality.

That's called bait-and-switch and a lot of people and institutions used youtube because it presented itself in a particular way and now that there is no way back out that is practical the squeeze is on.

From your commenting in this thread I surmise that you have some kind of stake in the outcome. Personally, I'll just boycott youtube and I can't wait until I'm in a position to remove Google from my life entirely.