"I don't know what it is with Youtubers who think they have to match TV production quality with their videos. The whole point (at least in my opinion) of even going on YouTube is to find content that isn't something you'd see on TV (that is often censored, regulated, and overly professional)...
...As I mentioned in one of my previous rants, the best content on YouTube was the stuff produced by nobodies and weirdos": this is absolutely correct, and I commend you for also understanding it. When YouTube tries to become like TV, it only ends up losing its unique charm that makes the site special.
lolwut, production quality is a way of futureproofing. I find nothing special in watching millions of randos' family videos shot on VHS and betamax and amateurishly converted to digital. Nor 99% of what's at 240p. Script/content quality is another thing altogether, I think you're mistaking one for the other. These people are dropouts and cling on the the one thing they once had going for them, slowly branching out.
Perhaps we simply have different tastes, then, godcock. I find a certain appeal to those old YouTube videos from the 2000s that have a resolution of 240p/360p and that were produced with Windows Movie Maker by an earnest amateur who uploaded them to the site simply because they wanted them to be seen, and not for money. There should be a place for everything, and YouTube should be the place for those types of videos.
See it from the other perspective. One uses a site has never turned a profit to archive something or wants to connects with like-mindeds; the other wants to appeal to his previous demographic, as well as to new ones, and casts a wider net, he has to put food on the table somehow, not make funny yt vids in early 2000s.
The use case has been altered, those getting most views have changed. I've not written whether I like the changes to older channels, bc. that's irrelevant. But both of you seem rather narrow-minded: "YouTube, entertainme!"
"I don't know what it is with Youtubers who think they have to match TV production quality with their videos. The whole point (at least in my opinion) of even going on YouTube is to find content that isn't something you'd see on TV (that is often censored, regulated, and overly professional)...
...As I mentioned in one of my previous rants, the best content on YouTube was the stuff produced by nobodies and weirdos": this is absolutely correct, and I commend you for also understanding it. When YouTube tries to become like TV, it only ends up losing its unique charm that makes the site special.
lolwut, production quality is a way of futureproofing. I find nothing special in watching millions of randos' family videos shot on VHS and betamax and amateurishly converted to digital. Nor 99% of what's at 240p. Script/content quality is another thing altogether, I think you're mistaking one for the other. These people are dropouts and cling on the the one thing they once had going for them, slowly branching out.
Perhaps we simply have different tastes, then, godcock. I find a certain appeal to those old YouTube videos from the 2000s that have a resolution of 240p/360p and that were produced with Windows Movie Maker by an earnest amateur who uploaded them to the site simply because they wanted them to be seen, and not for money. There should be a place for everything, and YouTube should be the place for those types of videos.
See it from the other perspective. One uses a site has never turned a profit to archive something or wants to connects with like-mindeds; the other wants to appeal to his previous demographic, as well as to new ones, and casts a wider net, he has to put food on the table somehow, not make funny yt vids in early 2000s.
The use case has been altered, those getting most views have changed. I've not written whether I like the changes to older channels, bc. that's irrelevant. But both of you seem rather narrow-minded: "YouTube, entertainme!"