this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
230 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37742 readers
505 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

At least, some of the recent controversies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anlumo@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

On YouTube, creators don’t earn anything unless a new video is released frequently. They have to sustain a huge corporation based on that. I think that it’s a bad decision to go for that income structure in the first place, but there they are.

[–] QHC@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don't "have" to do anything. LMG chose to hire dozens and then hundreds of people in an effort to grow as fast as possible. Linus could have prioritized accuracy or quality over quantity, but that would have made less money, so he didn't.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My point is that you should criticize the reason, not the consequence.

[–] QHC@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying we should criticize YouTube for making the algorithm that creators have to cater to, and not LMG for bowing to the demands of that algorithm?

If so, I agree that YouTube should be criticized, but that doesn't excuse LMG. Plenty of other channels have chosen not to go all-in on quantity and they have likely suffered financially for that decision. That is exactly what I mean by "priorities".

[–] GhostMagician@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

They chose to financially put themselves in a situation where they are forced to release content at that frequency because they chose to expand operations and drastically increase expenses compared to other channels. It's their decisions that created the work cycle that is needed in pursuit of exponential growth over a more financially sustainable model that affords the luxury for a less hectic release schedule.

It's getting old seeing people keep making they have to do it this way when it is the situation they created for themselves.

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's possible to release videos frequently while not rushing the production for each video. They'll just need more editors and writers to spread the load. e.g. instead of working on 3 teams working on 3 videos in parallel and rushing them to finish in 3 days, they can have 6 teams working on 6 videos in 6 days to achieve similar output (releasing 1 video per day) without overworking the team while keeping the attention of detail high. GN even mentioned it in their video. LTT has over 100 full time employees already, so they definitely have the resource to scale up their production team.