Would YouTube be affected negatively if they did this?

[Silver7]

I know YouTube makes money from making a small percentage of users get large views but couldn't they make it so that every user gets at least 6K to 8K views and they can make it so that only those who get over 14K views can start making money in order to make sure they don't have to pay everyone who gets a couple thousand views if that's what they so badly want? (Because if they did that at least we could all get views)

[VibrantFox]

User engagement behavior is something that Youtube itself has little control over so views or even minutes watched is completely up to an individual not the platform itself.

As for view count gates or subscriber milestone requirements for monetization it's much the same as Tapas having a sub milestone before people can unlock ad rev or ink support. Either way no one is guaranteed views or subs or any other form of engagement so even if it was changed it's still the onus of the uploader to do what they can to get views on their content not the platform hosting it. Youtube can't just give you more view just like Tapas can't just give anyone more subscribers.

[Silver7]

Youtube can't just give you more view just like Tapas can't just give anyone more subscribers.

Actually they could make the algorithm in a way for it to push your videos more

[NickRowler]

What you are describing is called bot farming. Advertisers (where YouTube get their revenue) don't like bot farms. Bots are not going to buy goods or services, so companies won't trust YouTube as a place to advertise.

[VibrantFox]

afaik its not guaranteed especially since most platforms will still structure themselves to ensure profit and whatever appeases investors/advertisers

if people are making content that pisses off the advertisers guess whos not getting views or making money 🤷 that kind of thing has been especially obvious on platforms like tiktok (post oracle buyout) from what ive seen because of the way certain content gets supressed by the algorithm even if it's something people are seeking out

thats like even though here on tapas ive not seen instances of active suppression there is a lot more push to premium content since thats what keeps the lights on versus community content even though theyve got kakao so idk

plus neither platform nor person wants bots engaging with what they post even if it does "make number big" most sensible folks will want genuine engagement with their work so unless things are structured in such a way that everyone is guaranteed a fair chance (which you still have to determine what is deemed "fair" in everyones eyes) you're just kinda stuck with what exists and trying to find effective methods to earn viewer retention

[Ordinaryaverageguy]

couldn't they make it so that every user gets at least 6K to 8K views

Where will YT get the views from, then?
They can't make people watch a video. And they're not going promote a new video just because it is new. Pushing a new but low-interest video takes up screen space they should be promoting high-interest videos.
Should YT just make up the thousands of views? Assign a new video 5000 views just for being new? That's dishonest & waters down the meaning of views. You'd surely see it wrong if YT let channels buy more view numbers for cash. Then why would be be okay to give them for free?

if they did that at least we could all get views

That kinda sounds like an assumption that everyone deserves views just for participating.

[Silver7]

That kinda sounds like an assumption that everyone deserves views just for participating.

You said they can't force a person to watch a video which is true but what I'm saying is that if they made the algorithm in a way for it to push videos a bit more then people stand a better chance of getting more views that's all I'm saying.

You also said not everyone deserve views for participating but what I'm saying is that even if they make the algorithm push videos more, I'm still sure many lower quality videos with lame thumbnails might not get much clicks, which means things will still turn out the way you are saying they should be and at the same time we'll all stand a better chance. (So I don't see the problem)

[Ordinaryaverageguy]

Okay, I see your point. YT has its rationale for why they promote & not everyone will meet that. Also, while I said not everyone deserves views just for posting, I think the same reasoning would apply to YT promotional effort. YT promotes for its own economic reasons and not for anything like "fairness".

[PeteLensing]

There are around 250 videos uploaded to youtube every second. Would they get 6000 views
automatically then? That wouldn´t make any sense because 6000 views equals 0 views then.

[Silver7]

There are around 250 videos uploaded to youtube every second. Would they get 6000 viewsautomatically then? That wouldn´t make any sense because 6000 views equals 0 views then.

I'm not saying all of them would get views

[PeteLensing]

Which ones are getting the views and who decides that?

[Silver7]

Which ones are getting the views and who decides that?

No one really decides which videos gets views, it's all up to the algorithm

[PeteLensing]

So you are suggersting to randomise the algorithm to push videos with fewer views
instead of pushing the already popular videos?

[Silver7]

So you are suggersting to randomise the algorithm to push videos with fewer viewsinstead of pushing the already popular videos?

Push both the popular ones and also more that don't have any views, not that I'm saying all videos will get views if this is done but YouTubers will stand a better chance that's all

[Ordinaryaverageguy]

I think the OP is hoping there's a "more fair" system of some kind (to be determined) than the system that awards algorithm promotion to the channels or videos proven by subscribers to be more successful or interesting to watch. By some definitions of "fair" it's the latter that is fair. Any other system would have to explain how it worked & why it's more fair.

We don't really have a consensus here of exactly what "fair" means for this discussion or what metric proves any system is more fair than another.