>>https://youtu.be/geCSPVzuLJk
>
>A couple of glaring errors in that vid which immediately leapt out at me:
>
>- YouTube is a "free and open" platform - ROFL
>- Non-subscribed content views are 100% due to recommendations. I for one don't subscribe to any channels, but I follow some, which I found by search, not recommendations
>
>When you follow the money, how is any of this surprising? Murphy's Golden Rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules.
>
>Therefore, advertisers rule YT. They want efficient, positive results from the impressions they buy. YT tries to facilitate this by pushing ads for Tide laundry detergent to viewers of anodyne mainstream news shows, lipstick to viewers of Ariana Grande videos, and ammo to viewers of hunting channels.
>
>If YT gets it wrong, the results are disastrous. Imagine offering ammo to Ariana Grande viewers. This principle goes far beyond just YT e.g. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/08/26/keiths_beer_ad_actor_jailed_for_child_porn.html . As the saying goes, one "aw, shit" wipes out a thousand "attaboys".
>
>So, if YT can't predict what a content creator will say or do, they can't reliably match ads to that content, and they can't reliably avoid disasters. Advertisers still want the impressions, so they have to go somewhere. As far as YT can tell, ad efficiency will be greater when associated with more predictable channels, all other things being equal.
>
>More and more I evaluate situations like this from the POV of "assholes vs doormats". Assholes are people who have authority but no corresponding responsibilities; doormats have responsibilities but no authority to meet them.
>
>YT CCs have a pretty sweet gig: they get to say or do almost anything they want, and YT hosts it for free. Full authority, no responsibilities. No wonder YT, Twitter and other social media platforms are asshole magnets.
>
>Another bonus is YT will even promote their content for free, in the form of recommendations.
>
>Some CCs are now finding they're getting fewer recommendations and views. What actions can they take?
>
>- An asshole will whine about it. If the channel is monetized, a sure sign of assholery is to frame it in terms of "loss of views" and "censorship". Never discuss loss of revenue or anything else which would invite labelling as a "sellout" or otherwise impair their "intellectual purity". Occam's Razor says that for monetized channels, it's really all about the Benjamins. But why admit that when you can frame it as a conspiracy?
>
>- A responsible person who wants to stay on YT can pay to promote their content on YT and/or other media. If they're monetized and want more revenue, they can also adjust their content to attract more impressions
>
>- A responsible person will consider an alternative platform. Even though Google owns YT, a Google search of [youtube alternatives] brings up some mainstream examples. Or they could start their own e.g. CocoScope, ts.today
>
>AFAIC a YT pundit whining about a drop in page views is an asshole until proven otherwise.
>
>As a side note, running the "Enhancer for YouTube" add-on in Firefox makes for a civilized viewing experience: https://www.mrfdev.com/enhancer-for-youtube

All true.

But where else can i find this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzb9uwfgD1w

Zzb9uwfgD1w