What I feel gets missed in these kinds of discussions are that YouTube is a thousand things to a thousand people. I probably have it running more than any other streaming service, but I almost exclusively watch music videos and skateboarding videos, and there is nothing obviously algorithmically driven about their production. They're not made for YouTube at all. YouTube just happens to be one of many distribution channels they end up available on, but the basic style and production methods of these videos hasn't changed a whole lot since the late 1980s. I'd have never heard of Mr. Beast if not for HackerNews talking about him all the time.

My wife is probably closer to a YouTube-native watcher, in the sense that what she's watching is created for YouTube specifically, but even then, it's informational deep-dives, lately on liminal spaces lore, Twin Peaks fan theories, and 3d printing. She raved glowingly lately about a 4-hour long Twin Peaks explainer. I'm sure that is many things, but it isn't flashy, short, there is no skimpy clothing, bright colors, or whatever it is that YouTube is supposed to be incentivizing. Whoever made it almost certainly made no money off of the effort and dumped decades of his life into the study of what ultimately came out there, and nobody is watching it because of the algorithm or a clickbaity thumbnail. The only people watching something like that are the most serious of serious nerds who deeply love Twin Peaks and probably have for most of a lifetime.

I watched one of his videos and quit pretty early because it was boring. Thinking back on what I remember, it seems very weird.

It was the one where he "gave away" a chocolate factory, after he did the Willy Wonka thing with his chocolate bars where you could win a chance to be on the show. I clicked because I was curious what he was actually "giving away", if it was actual chocolate factory property, shares in his snack brand, or some disused industrial building. They had a "candy room" with plants supposedly made of real sweets but it looked like a cheap imitation of the Willy Wonka movie, the walls were mostly white and it seemed like it could have used more set dressing. The actual content was a game show (seems to be a lot of his videos) but it didn't make good use of the space they built, I think it was a basic scavenger hunt. Then the contestants had to throw a giant Mento into a giant Coke bottle, it was impressively large but the game wasn't exciting at all, they just threw the disc at the bottle over and over without any drama. MrBeast even said something like "we're going to be here a while" so he started their ad read, that's when I turned it off.

Unlike a TV game show or reality show the contestants had no characterization, they didn't play up any rivalries or reactions or drama. It seemed like they were there doing the most basic challenges so MrBeast could talk about what they made and give away something expensive at the end. I found it all very odd and it reinforced that I am very far from the median viewer since I found none of it interesting.

I watched many of his videos. They're pretty good. I dont understand the complaints of click bait. One of the main reasons why he works so well is he makes outlandish premises that seem like clickbait, and then delivers. If he claims they will blow a house up, they literally will pack it with explosives and blow it up. If he says he will show a million dollar hotel room, thats what I'll see in the video. Throw a lambo into a crusher? Its going in for real.

It's not even like he draws it out. Like lets say its time to blow something up as a finale: we see 2-3 shots of them waiting, we see it explode in 3 angles we get 2-3 reactions and boom video is probably over.

I don't, on principle.

A few years ago, if you opened up YouTube without being logged in, the algorithm would show you its default recommendations in the purest state, uninfluenced by your proclivities. MrBeast and similar dumpster clickbait videos were prominently featured. These days, I think you have to at least search for and watch some things before you are told what to watch.

If MrBeast has ever shown up on my YT front page in the past, I slapped YT's hand until it stopped. Haven't had a problem since.

I'd never even heard of him/it until a previous submission here (and I also watch a lot). Still hadn't heard of any of the other apparently big ones mentioned in another thread.

I assume most of us aren't using YouTube for that kind of doom-scrolling click bait scream face 'content' about nothing in particular, but I could be wrong.

Nope, on principle. I’ve tried to make YouTube as “healthy” as possible — disable shorts, disable watch history, only watch subscribed channels — and I’m still not convinced it’s a net positive in my life.

The trick is finding something else to replace it during that time at the end of the day when I don’t feel like I have the mental energy for anything else.

I have never watched one, but I consume a lot of YouTube content. My teenager calls MrBeast-type channels "brain rot". He says teenagers watch YouTube when they want to make time disappear. (I guess they are uncomfortable being bored.) I find it sad because YouTube is actually a great source of educational content.

I watch it all of the time but only because of my daughter. I definitely wouldn't watch them on my own but it's tolerable.

I've watched like three. They are quite entertaining but tend to follow a similar formula.

I've watched a few of his videos, they're pretty good.

Never watched any and don't have a desire to.

It's a younger-people thing primarily.