The Death of Meritocracy on YouTube

The Death of Meritocracy on YouTube

A follow-up to yesterday’s video talking about the “Myth of the Meritocracy” Today, I talk about the meritocracy of YouTube, the (former) objectivity of the algorithm, and the importance in believing your merit will be rewarded – and the possible consequences of the death of the Myth.

Sign up for my mailing list to receive free books, advance access to upcoming content, and the latest updates on my book and video endeavors!
My Books:
Get my newest heroic fantasy novel, The water of Awakening, for only 99 cents!
Muramasa: Blood Drinker (Japanese Historical Fantasy)
Prophet of the Godseed (Hard Scifi)
Garamesh and the Farmer (Fairy Tale):
Buy my music –
For more book talk – Writers of the Dawn Podcast

Find me outside of youtube:
Read my books-
Listen to my music!
For more music stuff –



David Stewart says:

Surprise, surprise, folks, this video has been demonetized! Who would have thought talking rationally and calmly about the potential negative future of YouTube would have earned the ire of the YouTube AI?

Or maybe it was the fact that I mentioned Luimarco.

Peter Gahan says:

The problem with the You Tube meritocracy, is it continually points you in the direction of stuff you have already watched. It thus restricts your viewing. You only watch stuff that is similar to what you already have watched and presumably like.

You tube also has acted on swearing, even when it's fairly incidental, humourous and harmless. This used to be ok, and almost seems to be from the influence of a moral majority types.

MACABRE L.A. says:

bro, meritocracy has alweays been an iffy propositon at best (don't even get me started on what's happened to the music industry). and just as so many other forms of entertainment have gone to shit so too awesome vloggers like yerself will never do as well as some annoying 13 year old girl doing make up, get ready with me and haul vids. it sucks but that's reality.

Star Trek Theory says:

Isn't this the inevitable end of having YT not collectively owned? Obviously the Invisible Hand of the Market doesn't work.
The only solution is to take a couple of squads & secure You Tube corporate HQ.
I'll provide fire support from orbit.

Benny Doe says:

RIP Luimarco.

TentaclePentacle says:

I think most people think of merit the objective way of measuring merit is how much money can you make at the end of the day. That's the free market argument, it's about the bottom line. The problem with youtube and the death of its merit system is that youtube doesn't make any profit. Youtube is losing money every time someone uploads a video, there is no profit incentive with youtube. So when you take money out of the equation, the whole concept of merit, or what you choose to measure merit warps. So merit to youtube becomes who youtube likes, who youtube agrees with. Youtube picks and chooses videos based on the merit of the message being delivered by said video, not on how many eyeballs (money) that video can earn.

When it comes down to it, youtube have a different standard for merit than the free market's definition of merit.

rants n' rambles says:

thoughts on the recent protests? I feel like alt right and antifa are almost the same thing and it's sad that those are the 2 banners being represented.

treiz says:

I made my reply on the other video.

Gallen Dugall says:

It's not so much an algorithm as it is a blacklist.

Zach Gardner says:

Lmao this channel is so legit

Joey says:

Basically, YouTube is a dictatorship trying to squeeze every penny from its content creators. Maybe that's a little exaggerated but the content creators aren't even close to getting a fair shake.

I think an interesting case study is the UFC(Mixed martial arts organization). The UFC has also been criticized for financially abusing its fighters. The fighters are making pennies on the dollar and a few years ago the UFC decided that the fighters also can't make any money anymore from personal sponsorships because Reebok has become the main sponsor of the UFC. That meant that a lot of fighters had to work full-time jobs next to being a professional athlete.

The UFC's response to this criticism was that: "Hey if fighting is your passion you want to fight in the UFC, don't fight for the money, fight because you love to fight. And when you are good/well known enough, you will make the money". Of course, that's a cheap excuse for not paying the athletes the amount they deserve.

In reaction there were several attempts of fighters to unionize to put pressure on the UFC of a more fair pay. but for some reason, all attempts at this have failed. The UFC simply says, we don't really care who we deal with: union people, fighters, managers, agents etc. We have to negotiate with someone anyway. The UFC knows they are the only top dog in town so they don't care.

When things really changed is when Conor McGregor hit the UFC scene. What McGregor did is, he became very vocal about what he deserves and he doesn't take shit from anyone. He knew what he was worth, put the work in, and demanded what he deserved. He communicated very clearly to everyone involved his value, and got the compensation. This resulted in the fact that a lot of fighters followed suit and also become more assertive in getting what they deserve. They stopped acting as the lap dogs of the UFC. They let the UFC know: "Hey UFC, without us, you are nothing".

I feel that the big content creators on Youtube also need to put some pressure on Youtube to listen more to the creators. The people of Youtube need to know that they are simply a portal to the content creators, Youtube itself isn't really a thing. The content creators need to let Youtube know that if the creators and the Youtube people collaborate there can actually be a synergistic effect; 1+1=3. But for that to happen the creators need to rise up first.

joe van gogh says:

hehe, fasted pedal back in history, nah i'm just playing, i get what u mean, i think sort of, some people have a weird holistic view of meritocracy that makes it acin to a natural force.but then the one that arbets what is good in stead of what is heavy.

i never understood why they didn't just make a category for people that dont care what their commercials appear on, at a different price if necessary. can this be explained without inferring motive to the company?

hmm, when people say u need to belive to reach your goal i'm always afraid they are forgetting believing u can do something u can't sets u up for failure every time. u need a good way to know what is possible, probable and impossible.

Comments are disabled for this post.