The thing that makes unions work is the ability to go on strike (it's easy to shutdown a shipyard or a coal mine). I don't know how you coordinate a bunch of preening narcissists, but if film and tv actors can do it, maybe youtube stars can too.
It's not like when the factory stops because the workers strike, or there are no sports game because the players walked out. There's more youtube than I know what to do with no matter what.
I want to explore. I want stuff that's familiar, similar and also unrelated that I would potentially like. Their "related" stuff is always so similar that it falls into "more of the same". You used to be able to explore without entering search terms via trending and categories, but the same channels and types of videos dominate those avenues. If you don't like the type of stuff there, you'll spend a lot of time being disappointed for maybe one video that was alright.
It's ok to recommend more of the same, but give me a way to see stuff that isn't the same.
Since the purpose of a strike is fundamentally to prove the employer needs its employees [nearly] as much as the employees need their salary, a strike which proves the opposite would be really self-defeating...
The brand loyalty isn't there. It isn't that YouTube has anything magic other than quantity.
But there is so much out there I could watch if they all got hit by a bus one day.
They might be hoping for something similar: their content is not easy to find a substitute for.
i suspect you might brush it off as humor, but your statements belie a contempt for the group. why, in this context?
Google makes money from advertisers who are buying screen time with certain viewers.
If multiple high profile creators acted in a coordinated way it absolutely could disrupt the flow of dollars to Google and necessitate fairer policies in order to retain the creators who make them money.