I agree, the tech platforms threaten to form a monopoly, which is why I noted it but decided not to address that fact. It may become a bigger problem, it may no

I agree, the tech platforms threaten to form a monopoly, which is why I noted it but decided not to address that fact. It may become a bigger problem, it may not - I guess we'll see what competition arises. Arguably, the more people see the threat, and start to care about it; The more they'll do about it, and competition will arise. > How is that "fair" in the sense that was a low effort endeavour that got picked up and boosted to reach millions of people This seems very similar to the radio/record-label issue. Whatever subpar trash band band Simon Cowell picks up gets boosted, whatever the radio channels choose to air over gate-keeped frequencies. The web is different in that such a monopoly is harder to maintain, not easier. We are still in the early days of internet media. If cat videos are truly "low effort", then competition should be high, so expect the boost to be short lived as the competition starts to kick in. I'm actually somewhat surprised any particular cat video is able to make a lot of money still. > which is what Youtube does in the end YouTube won't necessarily be only game in town for long, I hope. Google rose to fame on the basis of a better search algorithm. Maybe the future of video streaming is a competitor with a better video recommendation algo? > the majority are not trying to game a algorithm The algo changes so much that this isn't necessarily a winning strategy. > looking for some sort of "art-market-fit" (jesus, imagine that), they do things for the sake of expressing themselves If you aren't ruled by capitalism, don't expect to earn as much capital. What else do you want: those ignoring the needs/signals of the market, get equally rewarded by the market? To quote: "I write.. erotic novels. For children." "What.." "They're wildly unpopular."