[DaSHacka]

I've noticed this too, it's becoming somewhat infamous that modern YouTube videos are all these 1+ hour long 'video essays' on topics which could easily be replaced with 2-3 page articles to be read in half the time.

While back in the day a long video essay was usually borne out of necessity and thus information-dense and high-quality—not unlike a documentary, actually—it feels like length itself is an objective for a lot of newer videos.

I suspect many subconsciously think "if my video is 2+ hours long, then clearly it's high-quality and well-researched", regardless of the actual density of information.

And don't even get me started on content creators that use AI-generated sludge because they don't have enough relevant visuals for the runtime of the video. Like dude, just make the video shorter.

[satiric]

One way to tell that a video isn't worth my time is if after the intro they say "To tell this story, we need to go back to 1724" or whatever. If they're going way back in time to explain a modern concept, they're often just doing it to pad the runtime. Obviously doesn't work for all topics; like I expect a history video about the american revolution to go back to at least the mid 1700s.

[MourYother]

The people who have nothing interesting to say in a long form format were never worth following anyway.

[carlosjobim]

An independent creator can easily get paid by making a long YouTube video. It is almost impossible to get paid by making long or short web articles.

Inb4 "They shouldn't want to make money and just publish their articles for free"

Inb4 "People should only be creative online as a side hobby when they are comfortably employed"

[z3t4]

You can still make money writing blog or article if you have a sponsor. Just because you are on some platform it doesn't mean you will get free visitors. Its very competitive. You need to be among the top creators to be featured on YouTube et.al. Almost all creators have sponsors because you make so little money on the ads because the platform takes a crazy huge cut. The platforms are just middlemen rent seekers profitting on mindless zombies who are cunsuming content and just watch the next video in the recommendation flow.

[carlosjobim]

You can. But it's much easier to be a YouTuber – and it's not only the top creators who get paid.

Which is easier of these choices:

Talking or writing?

Uploading to YouTube or publishing to a blog?

Building an audience of millions or already having them on the platform?

Considering that online creativity should be for everybody and not just hacker and academic types.

> The platforms are just middlemen rent seekers profitting on mindless zombies who are cunsuming content and just watch the next video in the recommendation flow.

Oh never mind, you are stuck in illusions. YouTube as of 2025 has the highest quality and biggest quantity visual media library in history. If you actually press the like and subscribe button on good videos a bunch of times, YouTube will start recommending videos of the highest quality possible. Going in-depth into any subject imaginable. Made by some of the world's most professional film crews. You're really missing out if you're deciding to be an angry hacker about this.

[z3t4]

It's not just uploading a video... you are right about there's a loot of high quality videos, those take more work then writing a blog post though, several hours of video is cut down to minutes of content. But the platform takes most of the ad money, almost all professional Youtubers have sponsors. I still argue that you would be better off publishing content on your own website, but one problem is people now a day don't actually search for content, we are mindless zombies fed by algoritms, where most videos are just "clickbait".

[carlosjobim]

For the YouTuber who is merely talking into the camera, it is mostly just a matter of uploading a video. How would he be better off making a website and publishing the content there? It would be difficult to find an audience and almost impossible to get paid. I agree that it would make more sense for this content to be a textual article, but until better monetization opportunities and easier publishing becomes available for people, they are going to keep recording themselves talking into the camera.

> but one problem is people now a day don't actually search for content, we are mindless zombies fed by algoritms

People choose to be like that. Think of it like a supermarket: Up in front is the worst kind of garbage "food", literal sewage that will destroy your health while living and kill you prematurely. In the back you have the highest quality produce and ingredients in abundance. You can go to the back of the supermarket and enjoy the benefits of having this broad access. Or do like most people and go to the front shelves and fill up your cart with poison. It's a choice.

[z3t4]

If you go back in time around year 2000-2005 there where a lot of people making good money writing text articles on the web. You could earn much more then you do now on Youtube. You could earn $10 if just one person clicked an ad on your website. Now it still costs $10 to get a click from an advertiser, but little of that money goes to content creators, the platforms take most of it. You could almost make a living with only a few thousand followers. I think Google gave up on Google ads because of the click farmers faking clicks on ads. Google ads was a middleman between advertisers and content creator/publishers. Now you can still make money on your blog but you need to be big enough so that you can talk with companies directly asking if they want to sponsor your site/channel.

[bowsamic]

Just because you can make money a certain way doesn’t make it right to do so

[carlosjobim]

Of course it's right of them to make money from YouTube videos. It doesn't hurt anyone.

[bowsamic]

I wouldn't say it's good for anyone for these videos to exist