Anti-engagement, authentic content making a comeback

I've been wondering about this for a while, not sure if it's just my feed but, I've been seeing lots of low effort authentic videos with minimal editing in my feed and I don't recall it being like this few years ago, while people talk about how everyone is tired of engagement farming and "content creators" and how there's going to be a renaissance in authentic content, am I the only one who actually notices this happening? Jacob Jones is a good example, he videos are anti-youtube, anti-"content", no reason to engage with it, you can't even clickbait it because there's no hook there, it's just him talking to a camera without any editing... yet he has a decent following. I don't know if something like this existed in late 2010s or early 2020s.

i think the two main reasons for this are early youtube nostalgia and the fact that trying to get "youtube famous" is honestly unachievable in this day and age so people feel no incentive to be inauthentic for the sake of views

I found Jacob while looking up cigarette videos intentionally, and I found his videos calming and genuine. But honestly I don't notice a lot of anti-engagement videos suggested to me at all. The closest thing are tech tutorials popping up everywhere after the lainons here convinced me to go linux. >talking to a camera without any editing to be honest, I think this is what we're all missing. Teenagers making skits in the pre-prank video pandemic of 2016, people just wanting to get something off their chest and send it out into the world so someone might listen, or a guy talking about his hobbies. Authenticity is always best, but only best for some, and clickbait is mediocre for everyone, and never best for anyone. I wish it was changing, but I think the only solution for me is to go back to using an extension that deletes the homepage entirely so I just don't have to see the flood of trash. I find goofing off with lainons on mebious more valuable than youtube most days.

The world suddenly became SERBIAN (And RUSSIAN)

>am I the only one who actually notices this happening? I likely don't have the same algorithm has you, (thanks for sharing the channel. He's great to listen to. Just a dude doing what he likes.) but I have noticed the algorithm probably being better at judging what a person likes. It is pretty aggressive now, in the sense that it feels more bold about what to recommend. Often recommending me videos that have low numbers, but are spot on with the topics I usually click on, instead of giving me metrically "good" performing videos. Certainly feels better at guessing compared to a few years ago.

>>97101 This type of content is wack. The dude abandoned his family and admitted it, and now is just sitting around drinking and smoking all day on camera. I feel sorry for him and would never watch his content.

>>97116 Really? I never knew he had a family at all. When and where was this?

>>97118 He posted videos about it, look for them. They were titled something like "I left my wife and kids" or something absurd like that.

I have never seen any positive change to youtube's recommendations. I don't use the youtube.com frontend, so I only get the "default" recommendations, which are just US politics, local politics and football. That wouldn't be too bad, if only they weren't shoved into unrelated searches. >>97116 Pretty cool to be honest

It's happened to me with stuff like old performances, like Kalinka, hymns of countries, old viral videos, people doing some arguably cool stuff, yeah, basically coonsumption media from before everything got deep fryed, from the times I would brainrot not with 15secs videos but with 3mins videos, and would spend 14 hours a day wathing ifylyl 50mins compilations part 163.

>>97119 You can't be serious? It's a bit.

>>97126 Sauce? On the basis of his daily routine of drinking and smoking all day its pretty typical of people who actually do this kinda thing. Nothing would surprise me either way.

>>97160 You're clearly new on the internet if you can't detect very obvious absurd humor. Apart from the fact that he literally says in the intro that it's a joke (which in itself is a joke, he's pretending he has to say it because his lawyers advised him to).

>>97166 I would have no way of knowing if it was a joke or not, and keep in mind the first rule of comedy is all funny jokes are true. If it was not true it would not be funny.

this is the youtube version of the pseudo indie revival that happened with Juno in the the mid 2000s. they attempted this in the 2010s with van v loggers, but it will come out eventually that most of these channels are traditional influencers again.

>>97171 It is a joke you dingus

It cant be anti engagement or you wouldn't be seeing it whats engaging is just shifting.

>>97205 Prove it. I would be fully willing to believe its a joke. But even if it was, you have to admit that people who do leave their families often tend to have a daily routine the same as his. Perhaps thats the joke? Would like proof either way.

>>97171 Sorry, chap, but you got the 'tism. I just watched it, clearly a joke.

there's no such thing as authentic content on youtube and there never was. there is a reason why even the best actors in the world have to have someone behind the camera called a director to yell "cut" and tell them their acting isn't good and reshoot the scene over and over again until they do it right, and even then the results are often bad. the kind of people who really want to be on camera and go out of their way to be on camera all the time are always really phony performative pathological liars. even early youtube was horrible, the early era of vlogging where all these people with very obvious emotional problems would record vlogs every day where they try to turn their mundane lives into some kind of dramatic narrative where they are the hero. it was always unhinged behavior.

>>100245 Idiotic bootlicker neotardcon opinion, discarded automatically.

>>100245 not every video on youtube is about people who really want to be on camera and go out of their way to be on camera all the time. while i agree with the premise that people recording themselves do it for a reason, which is attention, it's not accurate that this only leads to unhinged behavior. someone may post a video with a motivation not different from that of showing a video to their friend. how much someone wants to share is the problem here which leads to unhinged behavior. wanting to share something with your fellow humans about your activities, thoughts, or whatever is a completely normal need, seen anywhere, not just youtube. we do it all the time, and both of us just did it now, we shared our thoughts on the matter, because we wanted someone to read them, maybe reply to them, which means we just sought attention to our thoughts from other people. and the only difference between us and the obsessed youtube people is how intensely we seek attention. there is no reason why someone with modest attention seeking needs wouldn't upload on youtube.

>>100249 i actually don't care about your opinions at all, i just have a sexual fetish for indignant imageboard replies and i am masturbating as i write this

what will it take for people to realize its not AI or this algorithm vs that algorithm but algorithms themselves that are no good. That is to say algorithms that reccomend or guide you this way or that way in digital space which today is basically everything you see. When its served up to you by an algorithm its inherently slop, information without a conscious search involved or a friend sharing it with you has no mental weight and devalues information in its entirety. Its not about the content itself its this very situation your talking about where your like "ive been liking what the algorithms showing me lately" when the content or information was always out there and you should just be searching for what you want to see instead of waiting on the algorithm. whether thats online (which is almost impossible now) or at the library or in real life. Otherwise what your feeding your brain and whats guiding your emotions and thoughts is google and the various players that have a vested interest in showing you and everyone this or that. And so even if its something good it wasnt something you needed until you saw it, and why it was shown to you at that moment is nebulous and always in question.

white people are finished if we think this is authenticity

>video has 3 million views there is no such thing as anti-engagement content. the spectacle is built out of everything it's not. debord's fuarrrking book is now an empty signifier mediating the exchange of social value between smarmy academics. "authenticity" is just another aesthetic that "content" (c.f. commodities) is presented in, and which evolves over time as people grow used to all of its particular manifestations (c.f. "commodification"). hell, if day drinking and smoking are authentic, down to earth things you can easily identify with, then I am quite sorry for you.

>>97101 If Reddit was a person

>>100822 >if day drinking and smoking are authentic, down to earth things you can easily identify with, then I am quite sorry for you You are seriously stupid and can't form a single coherent thought without buzzwording. Authencity is not related to the content itself. If he's simply showing the thing he's doing, without clickbaiting and engagement farming in any way, then it is authentic because you literally get what the video title says.

>>100960 It is inherently inauthentic, as he is deliberately adding the artifice of recording what he is doing for the purpose of presenting it on a platform for the purpose of getting engagement. It does not matter that the nature of what drives engagement (what attracts users to engage) has changed such that he does not need to use the same tricks as before, but the reality is the same. If it is on YouTube, it is content that is to be understood, dissected, and consume through the verbs that drive engagement. The medium is the message.

>>100962 You are engaging in an exchange with me right now, you should stop typing words that appear on a screen (it's a medium!) and instead just sit there without expressing anything, because if you do, someone might... engage with it! Be careful you're creating content without realizing it, say no to consumerism.

>>100960 lol if a video with 3 million views was intended to be "anti-engagement" it failed catastrophically. but sure the title isn't written for retarded 8 year olds to click on, so it can't possibly be baiting for your click. I will take your description of my post-marxist word salad as "buzzwords" as a compliment. it clearly failed to prevent you from engaging with it though, I'm not nearly pretentious enough yet. I'll get there.

>>100964 I'm not sure even know what you're trying to say here beyond capitulating. You post here to be heard and be engaged. The incentive structure here is fairly weak; no one is going to pay you for getting engagement, and no one is going to remember it was _you_ who said what you said, but you still desire me to use the verb that shows I engage with you. It is why even on this backwater fuarrrking imageboard you still get soykafheads spewing nonsense. To still say despite being faced with it that you don't recognize this is either to reveal you are not serious or that you are blind to it and lost all the same. Literally why do you think people cast (you)s into the wild? Even on anonymous boards, the most impetuous little soykafs still feel that hit, that drive for one more. YouTube is artifice. It is an engagement engine, corralling viciously users eyes in numbers far beyond the scope of this village and designed to drive each and everyone to engage as much as possible. To claim that someone who makes something for that medium is engaging in something authentic is an insult to authenticity.

>>100993 >authenticity I'm not the guy you replied but what is authenticity? There is only a finite amount ideas and things to be made. With the amount of people on the planet can anyone be still authentic and not consumed by a greater system? Is there a difference between a renascence painter making money and a modern youtuber doing the same? Both have greater systems behind them. One is a noble seeking legitimacy by possessing a great painting of the arts, one is a prole looking at his phone seeking his worries away. Both have incentives for engagement. The difference is scale and status .The noble splinter imageboard user has a smaller structure but still greater than one man, the prole has a global one. Is there truly a difference of how of authentic one is between having the thoughts of thousands or millions?

>>101064 Not him (not him chain) but sure il ride with that however im not sure that contradicts what hes saying because in that case then what is the point in singling something out as authentic content. I dont think most disagreeing are disagreeing cause it ISNT authentic content but because there is no authenticity possibly at all but definitely not online in things delivered to you by algorithms. This "the algorithms been good lately" is just its serving slop I like vs slop I dont, it also treats the algorithm as if its something we have a say in. We are input into it but we arent the makers or deciders or the people that can tweak it before an election and etc. The state of the internet in matters like these is best thought of as highways, with a video being a wendys on an off ramp of the i5 or a truckstop. You have the freedom to drive and eat wherever you want but you dont actually, you are corraled along highways with signs and advertisements blasting you and urban traffic volumes measured and they know how many cars regularly go down what roads at what times. They are part of a "control society" where we move away from spaces of confinement as a means of control (prisons, psych wards, etc.) and instead through information and design and advertisement and algorithms make it so you cant even go off course if you wanted to, its not even a thought. All over travellimg highways you find beautiful areas of nature right there, you could just walk off the highway to it, but youl drive the extra hour to a designated nature area obviously cause you cant abandon your car on the highway. Along the way at semi strategically placed points you will stop for fast food and gas. Isnt this just the price of road transport? No, people who bus or ride trains usually still travel wherever they want they have to walk a lot anyways and there is only so many worthwhile routes for a bus or train and also if there were only buses or trains you wouldnt find walls of cars everywhere that are dangerous to cross. Cars and highways werent designed with this purpose in mind but they only made incentive sense and came out of a society moving from a confinement to control society. The internet is the same, how quickly the liberation and freedom it brought turned to the opposite. Just like with cars, and similarly when people address problems around cars like traffic they often fixate on oh we need roundabouts we need another lane another on ramp here, they never even conceive "what if the problems are inherent to this car and road machine and unsolveable so long as we are beholden to it", same with this thread. Its exactly the same thing, theres no thought as to whether a better or worse algorithm feed misses the point that its all worse.

>>101067 I think the real problem is non-exclusivity. That anyone can get on the internet, that cool people don't have their own lane on the highway and that cool people like me who are part of a noble minority don't have the cool seats at the back of the bus separated.

This guy is A.I and the views are bots