I didn't say "irrelevance". Just low relevance, kind of like how ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox are all still "relevant", but they mean a fraction to younger gene

I didn't say "irrelevance". Just low relevance, kind of like how ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox are all still "relevant", but they mean a fraction to younger generations what they meant to even my generation (Gen Y). They're of such low relevance that those organizations have to pay YouTube to promote their content. There may come a day, maybe in another couple decades from now, where YouTube is paying some TNG platform to cross-post its content in much the same way. Relevance is a relative term, so I have to apologize for being pedantic here, but I also can't really help it in this case either. > Even if some channels leave, others will take their place quickly. Youtube has sufficient size for that. To some extent, yes. That doesn't mean it will be able to keep up with loss forever, especially when it's doing things to outright sabotage new channels. People will get tired of a mostly PG-rated platform once YouTube truly reaches that point. Cultures shift and change, and if global internet culture swings back to being more like it was in the 2000s, the warm safety blanket YouTube provides will be a totally uncool thing only old people and little kids watch. YouTube will someday have a rude awakening when their pushing of late-night TV and mainstream news clips is no longer a significant ROI to their customers. As for movies, well, they're definitely not the only ones in town for that.