Standardise and Monetise: The Decline of Online Content
I use a browser extension called Control Panel for YouTube, which allows me to determine who many videos are displayed on my YouTube homepage and to filter the content that is shown. At present it is configured to display rows of six. Something that I have noticed of late, is the amount of videos with hyperbolic titles and thumbnail images created by AI. Both of which are design choices made to increase engagement. Clickbait titles are contrived to meet current SEO optimisation criteria and as such feature more and more in search results. The fact that they frequently have no relation to the subject I am researching, seems to be neither here nor there. The same issues arise with regard to AI generated images, which again frequently have no bearing on the matter. The fact that more and more content creators do this, infers that it works and is now an essential part of the process you must follow to be seen and featured in search results.
What worries me is not so much the inherent hyperbole, both written and with regard to images, but the fact that YouTube content is driven by a standardised process. A prevailing meta is often creatively stifling, generic and tedious. We have seen this time and time again online. TED Talks being a prime example. When these lectures first began to gain an audience in 2006/7, the talks had a degree of individuality about them. Over time people began to notice what worked and what didn’t work within the format and so began establishing a process. Eventually this evolved into a sort of unofficial formula that became commonly adopted. This resulted in a noticeably generic style that eventually became an impediment to the way a presentation was received by audiences.
Today, the prevailing philosophy that shapes how people approach, make and present their online content seems to be “standardise and monetise”. That is not to say that there isn’t any good quality content online as there certainly is. What it means is when you search for a video, podcast or blog post related to a specific subject, it is harder to discern what meets your criteria. The algorithms return results that have met SEO standards but not necessarily the users intellectual, or presentation requirements. To put it candidly, you may type a very nuanced search request in a search engine pertaining to something niche and specific, such as Etruscan pottery. The search engine then returns a list of links allegedly relevant to that inquiry. However upon inspection you may find that links to relevant sites, such as Museums in Etruria and other historical resources, are surrounded by irrelevant results, such as local pottery suppliers and tourism in Italy.
I believe this problem goes beyond the iniquities of SEO. You only have to look at the everchanging terms and conditions for YouTube. The company seeks to monetise content but only in a manner that meets the sociopolitical foibles of its advertisers, financiers and political associates. Any material that does not meet this ever shifting set of rules or offends in some manner is effectively disenfranchised by the algorithmic gods. It won’t be seen or returned in search results. Anyone trying to produce video content within such an ecosystem has a stark choice to make. Produce videos in accordance with their own personal principles and risk being demonetised and buried. Or attempt to self-censor one’s content to satisfy YouTube’s standards. The latter results in risible bogus phrases such as “unalived” and “graped”. The notion of trying to sanitise a global platform as YouTube so that the only content that prevails is “marketable”, is ludicrous and possibly immoral.
Upon reflection, YouTube’s policy should not come as a surprise. Similar market forces have been at work in the film and music industries over the last 35 years. There was a time when a film could be made on the merits of its story alone and its subsequent rating was a secondary consideration. Nowadays, mainstream films are frequently made to achieve a specific rating and thus be accessible to a broad audience. Filmmakers of note with a history of success at the box office struggle to find financing for their new projects, if they are deemed to lack mainstream appeal or reference subjects that are at odds with the politics of the prevailing establishment. It is for the same reason that politics and expressing views on social matters have all but vanished from mainstream, popular music. Both industries are now driven by proven formulas and market requirements. This is to their artistic detriment.
Finally it is pertinent to mention blogs with respect to this conversation. Despite rumours to the contrary, they still exist and constitute a major part of online content. Blogs are still a medium for fandom but I do not think that it is considered the first choice of platform. Long form writing takes time, effort and thought. As does reading such content. Videos are immediate and potentially require less application from the viewer. Video content can also be tailor made in a specific idiom and then targeted at particular audiences. Hot takes, controversies, militant fandom, gatekeeping, nostalgia and numerous other “perspectives” can quickly find an audience and gain their creator notoriety. Blogging seems at times quaint compared to such a bellicose alternative. It is also often pilloried for not monetising by default, as if fandom for fandom’s sake is a naive or a fiscally crass decision.
Despite all this, there is still good material to be found online. There are engaging and intelligent blogs, podcasts and YouTube channels. Good quality cinema still exists as does innovative music. The problem is that it is much harder to find among all the bland, homogeneous and spurious material, due to a fundamentally dishonest search methodology. The market may well have won according to some but in doing so it has led to a universal race to the bottom. It is not just a question of inferior content being spoon-fed to the credulous. The internet is partly responsible for creating an audience that cannot consume any other form of material. This is the price we pay for clickbait, dumbed down content, diminished concentration spans, educational decline and an inability to think critically. This is the reality of “standardise and monetise”.
