• Lantern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    321
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, it’s the terrible content moderation policies that are going to kill YouTube, not a certain type of video.

    • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      120
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bingo. I don’t find shorts all that appealing (especially since I can’t cast them to a TV! Wtf, seems like core function there) but I agree, the REAL problem with YouTube is how much creators have to top toe around demonization.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Demonetization” is just what YouTube’s promises to advertisers look like when they affect video creators.

        Money on YouTube flows from advertisers. The revenue from charging advertisers to show ads is split between YouTube/Google and the video creator. If your video is not shown with ads, then there is no revenue to split.

        YouTube gives advertisers a very small control over what videos their ads are shown on. They have a few different classifications of videos, and advertisers can choose which ones they want to be seen with. Advertisers are paying for the service of YouTube putting their ads on videos — but only the videos that YouTube thinks the advertiser does want to be seen with.

        If your video is fully “demonetized”, that means YouTube has decided that no advertisers want to be seen with it; or that they are not willing to take revenue from showing ads on that video. But they’re still hosting it, making it available to viewers.

        Video creators’ revenue is a share of the ad income from YouTube showing the video (and accompanying ads). A “demonetized” video is one that doesn’t show any ads — so there is no revenue to split. It’s not that YouTube is taking all the revenue and leaving none to the video creator. They’re not making any, because they don’t think the advertisers would be okay with being charged to be seen alongside that video.

        However, the creator of a “demonetized” video is still receiving value from YouTube. It is not free to host that video — especially if it is popular. Network bandwidth, data storage, and transcoding of video for viewers’ browsers are not free; YouTube covers the cost of these. YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense, rather than censoring those videos by taking them down.

        • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense

          That’s just not true…they’re hosting it because they data-farm the living shit out of both the creator and anyone that gets tangentially close to their site. More content = more people visit = more data on these people = more money…They make a lot of money on this data, even if no ads are shown on a video, and are by no means doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but they aren’t making nearly the amount of money on the video as they would with the ads, and no where near enough to compensate the creators beyond free hosting.

            You can still publish demonetized content, just don’t expect to make money from it on YouTube.

            • darth_helmet@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They use that data to sell ads at you across the entire internet. Google is making plenty of cash off those “demonitized” videos.

          • fubo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t say it’s charity. I said the video creator (who wants people to see their video) is receiving a service from the video host for no charge, which otherwise the creator would have to pay for. Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don’t believe me, go try doing it yourself.

            If the creator didn’t think they were receiving any benefit, they would just take that video down. They sometimes do, but usually they don’t.

            Publishing a book costs money. Someone has to buy the paper from the paper makers, and the ink from the ink makers. Someone has to line up the print on the page. Those people have to get paid, so they can go buy a sandwich and pay their rent. So, publishers exercise some judgment in not printing books that they don’t expect to sell, because they’ve gotta pay their bills, including parts and labor.

            Same goes for video. Hosting a video costs money. Servers cost money. Power costs money. Network connectivity costs money. The people who run those services need to get paid so they can buy a sandwich and pay their rent. If YouTube is hosting your video, even if they’re not paying you a share of any ad revenue (because they’re not getting any), they’re paying bills that otherwise you would have to pay.

            I’m not saying you’ve gotta be grateful or something. I’m saying if you want to understand what’s going on in the world, you can’t do that without understanding the actual bills that people are actually paying.

            To put it simply: The hosting costs of demonetized videos are paid for by the hosting of monetized videos.

            Don’t believe me? Take your video and store it on a server that you pay for, with network connectivity you pay for. That’s a thing you can do. You can even do it with Fediverse technology. However, it will in fact cost you some amount of money.

            • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don’t believe me, go try doing it yourself.

              I know this is true but why do I see so many people on lemmy pushing for self-hosting and even talking about it like its some low rent hobby?

              • fubo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not exactly an expensive hobby, but it’s also not free.

                YouTube hosts a lot of videos.

                And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — “not free” times “a lot” equals “big bucks”.

                • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — “not free” times “a lot” equals “big bucks”.

                  Finally, someone who gets my idea of math.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        they’re all paying the bills by hawking raid shadow legends anyways, may as well not rely on youtube monetization anyways and host elsewhere

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not even sure it is bad policies. I am pretty sure that they just don’t have moderators.

      I doubt anyone reads 99.9% of reports.

      So you get bigotry and hate, you get insane and deadly DIYs, you get 12yo girls being creeped while posting random 5s clips from their lives.

      Not to mention just the vast amount of extraordinarily low-quality content YouTube serves up. It’s amazing how bad a lot of the videos it thinks you will like are. The algorithm makes no sense.

      But hey, here’s 16 different Joe Rogan clips with sigma male music in the background.

      • Jumper775@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        The algorithm seems like it is optimized for profit, not for actually being a good platform.

        • admiralteal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That should mean engagement. It serves up such bad videos that I disengage.

          Once in a while I’ll realize I just spent 20, 30 minutes looking at a streak of pretty decent stuff. Rare enough to be remarkable. Usually after just 3 or 4 consecutive crap clips I’ll close it down and get back to work.

          I doubt anything disengages a user faster than low-quality content. I bet it does it even faster than the authoritarian politics and bigotry YouTube seems to inexorable serve you.

          • Zorque@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            If that were true, it wouldn’t be the way it is.

            Just because it causes your disengagement, doesn’t mean it causes disengagement with the vast majority of their userbase.

            They’re also more concerned with ad views and clicks, so if you’re not the kind of person who gives a crap about ads… they don’t really care that much about you.

            • admiralteal@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is predicated on the belief that Google/YouTube is run in a 100% hyper-competent way. I don’t buy that.

              Google does things the easiest way possible to make tons of money. They make unforced errors all the damn time.

              • Zorque@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They don’t have to be 100% competent, but they are very competent at what they want to do… which is monetize the technologies and services they provide. They’re not trying to make something that people can use well and enjoy… they’re making things to make a shit-ton of money. The two goals are not generally mutually inclusive.

                Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they’re all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever… which is confusing considering they’re a multi-billion dollar company and not just some guy in a shack banging rocks together to see how they sound.

                • admiralteal@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they’re all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever

                  Nope. It’s only this specific thing that I necessarily think they’re doing a bad job of. And I’m right; they are. Their algorithm is a struggling baby compared to TikTok and YouTube at large is not a major profit center (and indeed may not be profitable at all – but they maintain it because abandoning it would be too costly for them).

                  TikTok is so good at doing this thing that it is a profitable business for them. YouTube is struggling, and we can clearly see why.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The terrible content moderation policies are what keep it alive. No one subscribes to youtube so it’s primary customers are the ad agencies. And they want content moderation

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This Shorts issue seems to have measurable, constant and immediate effect in ad revenue and therefore platform profitability. Bad content moderation may or may not decrease engagement but in the end Google is a commercial enterprise that’s looking at the numbers at hand.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    202
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Might? It already has.

    If shorts were simply a separate section of YouTube with all of its functionality, then that’s understandable. But as they stand, shorts are just YouTube with both reduced functionality (forced vertical aspect ratio, no seek bar, time limit) AND all of the existing flaws (bad recommendation algorithm, reposted content, etc. )

    Unless you are some kind of tech contrarian hipster, I don’t think there is one thing that YouTube shorts does better than TikTok, or heck, Instagram Reels.

  • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m mostly fine with shorts, except for two things:

    1. You can’t move around in them, it’s either play or pause and repeat, which sucks (as shorts don’t have to be short…)

    2. On the homepage it doesn’t show who the short is from (which channel) without opening them

          • morrowind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            On the contrary, why bother hunting the down the slider for every different player when you could just use the system?

            Just curious, since I use the youtube slider like once a month.

            • JasSmith@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not the guy you asked, but I assume they do as I do. My system volume is calibrated for all the various applications I use day to day, including video conferencing. If I have to adjust that, it means everything else is the wrong volume. I’d rather modify YouTube to be the right volume than everything else.

              • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This. My system volume is calibrated to be similar across all applications, games, etc. This means all apps are individually adjusted to reach similar volume level. Why should I have to mess with all of my other volumes just random manager at Youtube decided a volume slider on shorts isn’t necessary despite the site still using volume from regular videos where it can be adjusted? This isn’t an issue with any other app or platform. Maybe the last Youtube video I watched had overly quiet or loud audio compared to the norm and I either have insanely loud audio or I can’t hear a damned thing and I can’t fix it quickly like on any other Youtube page.

                Not everyone had a set of dedicated volume buttons, or wheel, etc. on their keyboard, so having to go into Windows settings or reach for a knob or button on the speakers themselves to adjust is a lot more than getting a slider like every other website in the world gives you.

    • visor841@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t move around in them, it’s either play or pause and repeat, which sucks (as shorts don’t have to be short…)

      Oddly enough, this seems to be a desktop limitation. I can scrub backwards and forwards just fine on my phone.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hopefully desktop PC hardware will become powerful enough to gain the ability to skip around in 30 second videos someday. I think I read that they expect them to be at parity with smartphone hardware in the next decade or two.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also annoying that you can’t save them without using the hack where you change the URL.

    • ObservantOcelot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can scrub around in them. Look for the red bar on the bottom after the short starts. You can tap and drag on it and a little red circle will appear that will show briefly after you release.

    • whiskers@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can move around in them. Atleast on Android, there is a hidden red bar at the bottom which becomes visible if you pause the video.

    • TheAndrewBrown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a problem with all of these Tik Tok clones (and even Tik Tok let’s you do it for some videos). It’d so annoying to be watching a 45 second reel but if I miss something, I have to watch the whole thing again

      • Bjornir@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have the exact opposite problem? I can skip around just fine in shorts, but can’t in reels… Is this due to A/B testing or am I dumb?

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I simply prefer TikTok for short form videos due to unique community and reasonably entertaining algorithm.

      I enjoy YouTube to the point of paying for Premium but I hate that my YouTube subscriptions feed on TV is littered with shorts that I have no way of disabling other than hiding them one by one (which I do to make a point).

      Suits at Google will try to shove it into everyone’s throats until they get bored and someone adds it to killedbygoogle.com so why would anyone even bother with it.

        • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m deep in Apple ecosystem and unfortunately this is not an option on Apple TV as far as I know.

            • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In case of Apple TV, it’s the smoothest TV software experience, leaps and bounds above any ad-ridden smart TV or aging Nvidia Shield. I used Android TV and it’s just jank. For a time I had HTPC with Kodi too, it’s been relegated to hosting Plex and downloading stuff from Usenet. I enjoyed freedom to install anything but ultimately this didn’t outweight better audio codec support on Apple TV.

                • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not sure what you’re making a stab at.

                  Apple software is obviously ad free and I have no problem with paying for YouTube Premium due to value it provides. Some good soul on Lemmy also recommended me a way to block sponsored content via isponsorblocktv which is a script that runs on my server and skips sponsored segments by reading YouTube app state and sending fast forward commands like a remote would.

      • asudox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s amazing how much social credit you possibly have. Xi Jinping is proud of you.

  • thann@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    1 year ago

    What if we fucked over all of the people that like our website to try and cater to people that don’t like it?

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mind you those are (at least some of) the guys that killed animation and comedy sketches on youtube because they made it necessary for videos to be 10+ minutes long to be relevant.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which I get a laugh out of, because in the early days youtube would not let you post any video longer than 10 minutes, unless you were a “special” approved account. Now, only 10+ minute videos matter. A complete about face.

  • Neptune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Using revanced. Disabled shorts. Watching these YT shorts & recommendations decays my brain cells

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      YouTube ruined YouTube

      I swear to god these dumb social media sites are going to hell faster every day.

      I used to like YouTube because I could watch all sorts of interesting things … funny things … informative things … things actually liked

      Now my main YouTube recommended feed is filled with clickbait thumbnails of idiots making surprised or shocked faces to try to get your attention to get you to look at their dumb video of nonsense that has zero information and is not entertaining at all.

        • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because if theres money to be made then theres a few million idiots that are happy to exploit the fuck out of the system and do essentially fuck all to earn cash.

          But without money, the platform would have sunk.

          It’s a harsh reality that all brilliant internet things have to face.

          And i hate it.

  • waz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t mind grabbing my pitchfork and joining the “YouTube is already ruined party”, but two thoughts first:

    That headline is so deliberately vague. It could literally be one employee who said “eh, I don’t think YouTube shorts is a good idea”.

    The article itself doesn’t really give you any information that isn’t in the headline. It feels like an attempt to stoke anti-YouTube sentiment without providing any useful information.

    …okay, with that out of the way…

    Yeah, the current YouTube situation is pretty crap.

    • average_internet_enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah honestly these are some great points, and really it’s one of these reasons as to why I just dislike modern journalism today with the headlines as such.

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does cite internal metrics on ad revenues going down for three consecutive quarters due to lower potential to show ads in short videos compared to longer ones. It’s anonymous and doesn’t give solid figures but that’s what this article is about.

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    God I hate shorts. Luckily you can disable them. But youtube is so riddled with ads in general, it makes watching without adblock impossible. If they’d go back to one 3 second ad at the very beginning, I might even tolerate it. But the current shitshow? Not on my system.

    Doesn’t help that they have a whooping 113 trackers running simultaneously.

      • eee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        with uBlock Origin, right click on the shorts area > click on ublock’s “Block element” > select the Shorts section > Block

        • DV8@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Blocking with uBlock really isn’t the same as disabling. Disabling implies you’re using the app and it’s a setting.

          • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can disable them in Vanced and Revanced. NewPipe either disables them by default or doesn’t even support them, which is fine with me.

            • DV8@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              None of those apps are the original and official app. Which is pretty obviously what this was about. I used to use Vanced and it never worked as easily as everyone seems to imply, and I never could get it to cast. Vanced is no longer available on the PlayStore btw, and the same can be expected for every app that tries to offer YouTube content, modified.

      • Zerfallen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I target the Shorts container row element with uBlock, so it’s removed permanently from the grid.

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a viewer I agree with their assessment.

    Shorts is (for me) a worse viewing experience and it’s just more useless junk tha clutter up my youtube main page.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s why I have a Firefox extension that automatically redirects from shorts. Although, if Google’s new Web Environment Integrity goes through I guess I could kiss stuff like that goodbye.

    • Pantsofmagic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I usually watch YouTube on my shield and it clutters up every channel with junk I have no desire to watch.

  • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    not only is the shorts UI shitty but the shorts themselves are often shitty imo, or at least the “scroll through shorts one at a time” linear format means you see a lot more videos you wouldn’t click on intentionally.

    • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “No YouTube I do not want to watch Jordon Fucking Peterson. I will NEVER want that. Fuck all the way off.”

      I stopped watching shorts because of the unwanted boosts of fascist content.

      • jrubal1462@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Silver lining: It gave me the opportunity to “dislike” Jordan Peterson, which was not an opportunity I previously had.

        I mean, I guess I always HAD the option, but there’s something to be said about having somebody serve it up on a platter like that.

    • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate that I get such random shit in my feed when I really only look at art videos - like my scrolling should be nothing but people drawing but random shit like slime videos or some ass hat and his kid.

      • chuckd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah YouTube really likes to inject videos you wouldn’t normally watch into your algorithm. It’s pretty annoying. I would never seek out religious videos, and never have on YouTube, yet they keep making their way into my feed. Even voting them down doesn’t seem to change the frequency.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The interface isn’t consistent between videos and shorts.

      You can rewind and fast forward videos on phones by double tapping the left or right hand side of the video, but doing that on shorts just likes it.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I literally could not understand what half the ones I saw were even supposed to be about last time I went on YouTube. Like they were just random people doing shit with no punchline or point.

  • Qxzkjp@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    YouTube shorts was the dumbest fucking idea. They have a niche: long-form (as in >1min) video content. They are dominant in that niche. Then they saw TikTok was popular and dominating the short-form video scene, and their response was… “we should switch to making more short form”. WTF?! And on top of that, they’ve diverted resources away from their main product (longer videos) as the article says. It just seems like such a catastrophic unforced error.

    • petenu@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      YouTube have such a stranglehold on the >1m market, that’s why they can afford to stagnate in that area and look into other markets. They don’t have to fear a competitor threatening their core market any time soon.

  • metaStatic@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    might? Shorts are the main reason I found alternatives like Freetube, Newpipe and Invidious; and continue to look for actual alternative platforms.

    if there was just a checkbox to turn them off forever I’d probably still be on the mainpage.

    • docmark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s the hustle culture that’s been ingrained into society at this point. Every industry has it now. Get in, make as much as possible (with little to no regard for others), get out, retire early.

      After that just become an influencer showing off your lavish lifestyle for brand sponsorships for even more money.

      Shit like Tiktok and Youtube Shorts are only making things worse, faster.

      • rexxit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Get in, make as much as possible (with little to no regard for others), get out, retire early.

        Arguably, this is what the American dream has become. It used to be we wanted middle class wealth, 2.1 kids, and a nice suburban house. But now all we want to do is sell out, retire, and never have to work again. I can relate, even if I lack the skills to play the game.

        That’s where we got antiwork, FIRE, etc. It’s true: nobody wants to work anymore. I sure don’t. Maybe we never did.