the average length of a Mr. Beast video is 16 minutes long. Video Essayists on YouTube are famously commonly demonetized and almost if not all are reliant on alternative monetization methods (read: patreon, nebula, etc) to be able to stay afloat. your take is very silly and patently false.
OK, now I got your point. But that’s not what I meant.
My criticism aims at the “misuse” of the video format. I’m always annoyed when I want to look something up and instead of a written sentence I get pointed to a 10 min video.
Mr Beast’s content is very visual entertainment, like TV - that’s the kind of content we had on YouTube from the very beginning and video makes total sense.
For providing information video isn’t always a good choice (the only exception in my opinion is craftsmanship but even then text with photos is better). Those essayists may not be able to live off it but they do get money for each view which they wouldn’t if they wrote a paper or blog post. So they are incentivized to make videos instead of using the superior format and write it down (scientific papers are never videos). And to get those juicy clicks they make their stupid shocked face thumbnails even for the most serious, dry content.
Not sure what you’re implying. That the incentive is obvious? Well, then why post shitty video content instead of writing a short reply?
Or are you saying it’s not true and somehow the guy making dozens of millions off YouTube (so he’s paid by Google) is your counter-example?
the average length of a Mr. Beast video is 16 minutes long. Video Essayists on YouTube are famously commonly demonetized and almost if not all are reliant on alternative monetization methods (read: patreon, nebula, etc) to be able to stay afloat. your take is very silly and patently false.
OK, now I got your point. But that’s not what I meant.
My criticism aims at the “misuse” of the video format. I’m always annoyed when I want to look something up and instead of a written sentence I get pointed to a 10 min video.
Mr Beast’s content is very visual entertainment, like TV - that’s the kind of content we had on YouTube from the very beginning and video makes total sense.
For providing information video isn’t always a good choice (the only exception in my opinion is craftsmanship but even then text with photos is better). Those essayists may not be able to live off it but they do get money for each view which they wouldn’t if they wrote a paper or blog post. So they are incentivized to make videos instead of using the superior format and write it down (scientific papers are never videos). And to get those juicy clicks they make their stupid shocked face thumbnails even for the most serious, dry content.