I need to access Youtube from a completely different IP address, with a different user agent and browser window size to get rid of certain themes and suggestions that magically appear on the front page. Browser fingerprinting is responsible for this adversarial dynamic I find myself in.
I am sure they are still hoovering up all my data but I hope they at least heed the signal that some people will pay for ad-free alternatives!
I do think there is merit to the idea of market segmentation and value offerings in different ways:
1 - Eyeballs : Give us attention in exchange for browsing
2 - Premium : Pay us, and we will omit all ads
3 - VendorCosted: Vendor pays, and we omit all ads from certain content
IMO the curated youtube experience is far better. Yes, it recommends similar content and will push you down a rabbithole if you let it, but that's what recommender systems do. The flipside of discovering good content from good choices is discovering bad content from bad choices, and I don't think those can be automatically separated. On occasion you have to actively and firmly tell the algorithm "no" in the form of "don't recommend this channel," but once you do it respects your decision. A tiny bit of curation goes a long way, and if if I didn't let youtube work with me to figure out what I liked I imagine I would wind up doing the same thing but worse by keeping a list of interesting channels that I periodically checked.
I don't use it to watch political content, so I don't get much of it.
I'm not addicted to YouTube. I don't spend that much time on it. It's not my go-to source when I go online. Maybe I'm in the minority, but when you treat it only as a video hosting service where you can follow specific feeds, I don't think it's really problematic.
What about Hacker News?