>>>>- 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
>>>
>>>They did, and they had millions of views. And it's not the content that's stopped attracting views, it's the algorithm that changed. They have a point there.
>>
>>YT is allowed to change their algorithms. My guess is they found they can make more money that way. The pundits are framing it as a conspiracy.
>
>That's how they make content attractive, conspiracy sells better than "collusion" or "backroom deal". Though it is a stretch to call it conspiracy. It's just as much one as deal between a grocery chain and a large supplier to display that supplier's products prominently at eye level and the competitors near the floor. The numbers on YT may be staggering - but then we don't know the numbers for, say, PCC, Safeway or Kroger, maybe they also mean a difference in the millions a month.

I should refine what I said earlier - YT is obliged to change their algorithms, in order to pursue their goal of making more money. With big data, deep learning et al I see it getting to the point where it keeps making more and more money, but no-one really understands how. If the CTO expresses concern, the rest of the C-suite says to keep it running anyways, it fattens the bottom line, and their bonuses.

Another interesting thing is how online advertising has embraced the high-frequency trading model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_bidding . Dunno how much, if at all, YT is using it.

Online advertising is inherently ephemeral, which is attractive for influencing elections etc since there are fewer smoking guns for regulators to find. That's a concern here in Canada with the upcoming federal election e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-national-election-interference-fake-news-social-media-1.5179838