I mean...you say it's the opposite of the old TV model, but it comes to the same result, doesn't it? Before, the networks were king and viewers had to put up w

I mean...you say it's the opposite of the old TV model, but it comes to the same result, doesn't it? Before, the networks were king and viewers had to put up with what shows they decided to run. Now, Google is king and viewers have to put up with what video creators they are both willing to platform, and palatable enough that they put their stuff on YouTube. There will always be some viewers willing to follow a creator or show they like, in both of these scenarios (eg, when Buffy the Vampire Slayer moved from the WB to UPN in 2002), while others can't or won't—but there's much more difference, now, between moving from YouTube to, say, Vimeo than there was in the cable TV era moving from one channel to another, so long as you actually had that channel. (For some, these differences will not matter, and they may even claim they don't meaningfully exist; for others, they will be dealbreakers.) ...And I also agree that aftbit is being unfair with the cat videos remark. Google wants YouTube to be the place people go to watch videos on the internet, period. (Aside from, perhaps, porn.) That not only means that they get all your ad-watching eyeball time, it also means they get to control the narrative. Cat videos and shitty listicles are fantastic for Google, because they're an easy dopamine hit for viewers, but they absolutely want to be hosting more in-depth and controversial content, too. They just want to have unquestioned final say over what's actually allowed to be there, which sometimes means they'll remove things in order to make Russia happy, so Russia doesn't try to block Google/YouTube and replace them with a homegrown alternative.