"Decisions went from being made for the benefit of users, to the benefit of Google, to the benefit of whoever was making the decision." This is definitely a small-to-large company pattern I've observed
In reality, there’s lot of opportunities that benefit all 3 of user, Google, and decision maker.
it’s kind of the fundamental principle of trade/business - that both sides can proper in a deal.
I'd love to think so, but the truth is that any platform, working correctly, disadvantages those who contribute most of the content. The platform owners earn money in ways that are always contrary to the interests of the content creators.
Youtube's main source of revenue is ads which they serve regardless of whether the uploader is taking a cut from the upload or not. Most users have always and will continue to upload to and consume from youtube without the expectation of making money from the process.
So, yes in general users have historically been more or less satisfied with the deal: watch ads, get free video platform.
game developer, musician, mangaka, streamer, etc
As a result, the larger the company, the larger the hierarchy, the larger the inefficencies. At the extreme you approximate the government of a country.
Layers of managers who care only about collecting a paycheck, engaging in company politics and looking busy cause exactly this problem. Managers will pick the best decision for them, not anyone else.
These users don't seem to know what they want. I'll just listen to whomever keeps calling me personally about things. My buddies are successful, so it makes sense.
Eh, these shareholders don't seem to know what they're doing. I'll just listen to myself. Everything I do makes sense to me, so that makes sense.