“Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.” (About YouTube, 2022)
Proudly proclaimed on their site for all users to see, video sharing platform YouTube.com aims to provide a fair space for all users to use in their own unique way. The website allows for users to create and upload their own videos to the site and interact with others uploaded by different members. YouTube.com was founded in 2005 by former PayPal employees before being acquired by technology giants Google in 2006 (Madki, 2020), where it is now the second most visited site on the entire internet, only behind Google itself (SimilarWeb.com, 2022). Often regarded as a mashup of both a social media platform and a streaming service (Wagner, 2021), YouTube has over 1 billion unique users and has over 500 hours of content uploaded to it every minute (Hale, 2019).
In 2014, the Financial Times published an online article titled “Is YouTube the new television?” (Ford, 2014). In the article, author Jonathan Ford discusses the emerging similarities between YouTube and traditional broadcast television, such as drawing comparisons between the rise of social media stars occupying the site and mainstream celebrities that are seen on television. He also highlights the limitations of broadcast television, such as discussing the strict scheduling of shows, and how YouTube builds and improves on these issues. It is interesting that even 8 years ago, when YouTube as a platform was in its infancy compared to its size today, conversations were being made discussing the role that the site would have in defining the future of television. Since the mid-2000s, the television landscape has evolved to include the growing popularity of streaming services. Whereas in the past, the television set was the central “hub” for the consumption of content, the modern state of the internet, often regarded as “Web 2.0”, meant there is a new way of how television is consumed (Jenner, 2018, 90). As of March 2022, YouTube even plans to start streaming free broadcast television shows and streaming content in an attempt to compete with these other streaming services (Martin, 2022). With the implementation of new technological advancements shaping its evolution, the term “television” is now broader than it ever has been. Media Scholar John Ellis wrote about the evolving periods of television content in his book Seeing Things (2000). Ellis wrote that television content of the late 20th century can be categorised into different “ages”, demonstrating the rapid growth in content available to audiences. First, there is the Age of Scarcity, ranging from televisions early days to the early 1980s. Next, there is the Age of Availability, ranging from the 1980s to the early 1990s. Finally, the Age of Plenty summarises the 1990s up to the early 2000s, when Ellis published his work. When viewing Ellis’ findings, it is clear that his work is very outdated as it does not consider the growth of the media landscape in the past two decades since Seeing Things was first published. This now raises new questions. Are we still in the Age of Plenty that Ellis discusses? Perhaps the television landscape has evolved past this point and entered a new Age? With the transformations of television consumption, this has resulted in a new post-network era where the concept of television has become more loosely defined (Lotz, 2007, 30). Therefore, it is perhaps more appropriate to consider that we are now in an Age of Abundance, where a large amount of content is widely accessible from a multitude of avenues.
With new forms of television emerging in the form of streaming services, where an abundance of content is more accessible than ever, there becomes an apparent need in order to regulate how television is consumed. Streaming services use computer algorithms in order to appropriately organise the media found on their sites, recommending certain content to each user depending on their previous viewing habits (Hinkle, 2021). This dissertation will discuss and explore the role of the YouTube algorithm and how it dictates the various operations of the site. This will be used to analyse the accuracy of the statement by YouTube themselves by exploring whether the sites algorithm truly allows for each individual user to have their own “voice” and freedom to use the site as they wish. To do this, each chapter will reflect on the algorithms relationship with different areas of the YouTube site. The first chapter will discuss how the algorithm affects the viewing habits of the websites audience. To do this, the operations of the algorithm will be discussed by applying findings from various algorithm studies in order to answer whether it helps the viewing experience of the audience. The second chapter will discuss the algorithms impact on the Content Creator and their perceptions of the platform. This will be performed by comparing the role of the online Influencer to more mainstream forms of fame and how the algorithm affects the mannerisms of those who use the site as a career path. The third chapter will discuss the types of content found on the site, with a particular examination on how news and information is spread on the site. This will be analysed by how the algorithm is used to potentially stifle certain types of content, such as harmful topics or misinformation, from wider audiences, and whether it is successful in performing this. The findings from these chapters will culminate in a conclusion that will discuss the effectiveness of YouTube in providing a platform for its audiences, and whether its algorithm appropriately polices the abundance of content on the site whilst still conforming to its statement about providing a voice for all.
In order to accurately explore this topic, I will be highlighting from academic research that has been performed on established media studies relevant to the topic. My argument will be supported by academic texts on topics such as participatory culture (Burgess and Green, 2009; Strangelove 2010), political economy (Fuchs, 2017; Vonderau, 2016) and algorithm studies (Bishop, 2018; Jonker-Hoffren, 2021), providing a basis for my analysis. My own experiences with the site will support these academic sources. Having been a regular consumer of content on YouTube for the past decade, it has been an interesting journey to see the changes and growth found within the site and its users. I regularly consume a wide variety of content on the site, giving me a sufficient understanding of the codes and conventions of YouTube, which allows me to explore these areas in a more theoretical mindset throughout this dissertation.
PLEASE NOTE: You must be a member of the University of Lincoln to be able to view this dissertation. Please log in here.