Follow TV Tropes


YMMV / YouTube

Go To

YouTube Rewind has its own page.

  • Acceptable Targets:
  • Archive Panic: As of late 2018, over 450 hours of content is uploaded to YouTube every minute, which equates to a staggering 648,000 hours of content per day.
  • Author's Saving Throw:
    • Initially, you could only upload videos up to 10 minutes in length and no bigger than 1GB in size. Later, this was increased to 15 minutes with the size limit removed. Now, you can make your video as long as you want.
    • Advertisement:
    • Custom Thumbnails were once only granted to YouTube Partners. Now, anyone who has verified their account can make use of them.
    • In 2015, YouTube dropped the deeply unpopular policy of requiring a Google+ account to comment.
    • In 2016, after years of complaints about it falling on deaf ears, YouTube finally made changes to their notoriously broken copyright system.
    • In the final years of The New '10s, YouTube attempted to make amends with creators after having ignored their criticisms for so long. This included attempting to clarify their infamously vague rules concerning copyright and demonetization, addressing the site's infamous Adored by the Network status concerning the trending page, and making movies and YouTube Originals available to watch for free after years of having them locked behind paywalls. How effective these amends were varies greatly on who you speak with.
  • Big-Lipped Alligator Moment:
    • Most, if not, ALL ads that play in a video are this. It could show something completely irrelevant to what you're watching/about to watch, like a shampoo ad in a video about sports. After it ends, the video starts/resumes/ends immediately, as if nothing happened. Sometimes, though not as much as when they first installed the ad system, an "ad" video can seem to "misfire" and go to a completely random video on YouTube. It's one thing if you get to the little yellow bar and get an advertisement for a product, it's another entirely when you're watching a ten-minute clip from a nature show only to suddenly get interrupted by a four hour concert, or a cellphone camera video where someone is ranting about something in a completely foreign language.
    • In 2011-2012, there was a troll war (or if you made TV mocks a mock reviewer war), where trolls and users fought (in communities like the Barney Bunch, the Emergency Alert System fanbase, and other fanbases and groups) and for people who made TV mocks, mock reviewers "reviewed" mocks and fought with the makers. Fast forward to 2016, and almost nobody remembers it, as if nothing happened.
  • Broken Base: The YouTube ad system is a divisible topic between the users. Defenders say it's a good, albeit flawed, idea which bring more creators to the website (giving half of the ad revenue), increasing the content. On the other hand, people who hate it say it's annoying to have to watch ads and YouTube should be ad-free again (although this argument is mitigated thanks to adblock software). Then there are some who hate the ad-system for encouraging clickbait and outrage videos since such types of videos are most likely to garner views and therefore make the most money for creators.
  • Critical Research Failure: There have been countless videos taken down due to YouTube recognizing bogus copyright claims. So many that listing them all would take all day, so that's all we're saying on the matter.
  • Dork Age:
    • The implementation of Google+ is what users can generally agree was the beginning of this, with its forced integration and the beginning of the site's general disconnection from it's creators.
    • While already suffering through the first Dork Age, early 2017 had "The Adpocalypse" happen, which heralded a far worse Dork Age. Huge criticisms consist of the censoring/demonetization of all content that didn't fit the site's new "family-friendly" image, the increasingly vague and stricter guidelines on what counts as such, the push for big-name celebrities and big brands over home grown creators, and the staff becoming increasingly disconnected from the creators and what they want for the site. Many argue that YouTube has never recovered since.
  • Fandom Rivalry: With Twitch by sheer virtue of being the next biggest video sharing site. This became more prominent late into The New '10s with YouTube jumping into the streaming business with YouTube Live in a direct attempt to compete with the streaming site.
  • Germans Love David Hasselhoff: YouTube in general is very popular in Brazil.
  • Good Bad Bugs: Believe it or not, there was a short period in 2014 where users could have animated channel banners thanks to a bug. Needless to say, many were upset when Google patched the bug just a few weeks later, although those who had changed it during that time were allowed to keep their animated banners.
  • Harsher in Hindsight: On March 20th, 2018, YouTube implemented a strict policy on gun-related videos that resulted in many firearm videos showing how they functioned and could be disassembled/reassembled getting taken down or threatened. Furthermore, their prior demonetization and copyright system led to mass penalization of smaller channels. Exactly two weeks after the policy implementation, a disgruntled Youtuber went on a shooting spree at the HQ.
  • It's the Same, So It Sucks: It was announced on May 17th 2018 that YouTube Red would be rebranded into YouTube Premium, a paid version of YouTube with ad-free streaming, background playback and offline playback of videos. The fact that its essentially a slightly more expensive YouTube Red did not garner a lot of excitement from users or the market.
  • Lawful Good: YouTube. A system controlled by a collection of people who create videos. But, what do those people who create videos most feel inclined to do when a milestone is reached, whether it's on the code of the website, or the code of their own community?
    • They say "thanks" with a Rousing Speech and emotional title.
    • Whenever the system is randomly changed by those who govern it, they actively exploit YouTube's rule of being human and berate them for their mistake of a system.
    • People who attempt to radicalise their audience most adhere to the new systems and try to get as big of an audience as possible, regardless of whether their influence is negative, positive, or justly chaotic.
    • Those who didn't do the above incorporate such an attitude into their videos by browsing a social media platform and reacting to what they're most capable of.
  • Memetic Mutation: So many memes have originated from this site that it has its own sub-page.
  • Mis-blamed: A common misconception is accusing YouTube of constantly attacking users for copyright, when it's actually not them doing that; it's the companies that involve said content that attack the users, YouTube simply being in a sense, the dog of the company on chains.
  • Narm: A good number of the comments are hard to take seriously, and are unintentionally funny. Even the serious comments that get liked often have too many misspellings and errors to ever take seriously.
  • Overshadowed by Controversy: Most discussions about YouTube in The New '10s have revolved around their tricky relationships with content creators and advertisers:
    • For creators, YouTube's infamously broken copyright systems and their general phasing out of home-grown creators in favor of celebrities and mainstream media have given YouTube the reputation of being one of the least creator-friendly platforms on the internet.
    • For advertisers, YouTube's failings to properly moderate their content and their biggest creators getting wrapped up in controversies has given the platform a reputation of being a place for conspiracy theories, inappropriate content and controversial figures, leaving it an unsafe place for advertisers to place their ads.
    • YouTube is also heavily controversial among the LGBT community due to allegations of the site engaging in pinkwashing (the act of a company or state attempting to appear LGBT-friendly as a way to downplay or cover up any sort of homophobic action).
  • Scrappy Mechanic: YouTube's horribly flawed copyright and Content ID systems, which exist as a broken mess that lingers over the heads of many users, specifically because of how shockingly easy it is for videos to be hit with copyright strikes and be pestered by Content ID, which could lead to, among other things, monetization being removed/limited/shared, age-restriction being turned on, the video or the channel itself being taken down or users being slapped with a lawsuit from the corporation for copyright infringement.
    • Part of the problem is the system is automated, and YouTube has bots that check and compare their library of copyrighted footage to the site's video library, and flag the videos that match. The owner of said footage can then choose from the above-listed options. However, these bots on the system do not check for context, or how much of said footage the video uses; so people can claim to own entire videos simply because an 18-minute long video uses a 7-second clip from the copyright owner. If said claim is made, the monetization immediately transfers to those who made the claim without the need to prove it. If it's discovered to be a false claim, time is wasted and money that would've been earned when the claim went up would be given back to the video's creator (though this never happened originally), and the claimant is never punished for making a false claim. This can happen even if the video's creator has full permission to use the footage, as the bots have no way of recognizing this.
    • Another huge problem is the process of appealing videos that are striked. Rather than having the appeal sent to a third party like YouTube (who has said it doesn’t want to mediate between a company and a YouTuber to determine who holds copyright), it goes to the person or company who originally made the claim. Naturally, this is shamelessly abused by these claimants since they can easily deny the claims with effectively little to no resistance and suffer no repercussions for what is basically theft.
    • It's so broken that games critic Jim Sterling managed to abuse the system with a loophole to maintain his ad-free videos by placing more copyrighted content in his videos to jam up the system, or as he calls it: "The Copyright Deadlock". The result is that no single person can make money on the video, meaning it remains ad-free. He initially did this to stop Nintendo and Konami from claiming his videos, and safe to say... it works. He also made Chains of Love his Go-to song of choice to block Nintendo in particular.
    • The restrictions YouTube has placed on videos marked as "for kids" raise some eyebrows. People that have an account are no longer able to leave comments on videos marked as kids which includes asking questions on educational videos that are also labeled as for kids. Yet despite that according to the site, it can't target ads to kids. However, YouTube accounts are supposed to be made by people that are 13 years or older, so if they're following those rules, anyone with an account should be the required age and allowed to make comments on any video, not just videos that aren't targeted for kids. That aside, other restrictions such as disabling the ability to add the video to a playlistnote  and for it to play in a miniplayer or be downloaded in Premium (according to YouTube, these features also use user data, so that's why they did it) are seen as too punishing. Especially if that video was labeled incorrectly. Also, a support page states that, 30 days after a video or channel is marked as for kids, all comments are permanently deleted, not just archived, which is even worse for incorrectly labeled videos.
  • So Bad, It's Good:
  • They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: Hoo, boy... where do we begin...
  • Vindicated by History: 009 Sound System's "Dreamscape" was originally loathed back in 2008 as it was seemingly everywhere due to it being one of the default free songs YouTube would allow anyone to add to their video. It also had a tendency to replace the original audio if there was a copyright strike on a video. Many years, changes and trends later, the song is now seen in a better light, with most people associating it with what they feel was the Golden Age of YouTube. Going by the comments, most dictate that the song itself is actually not that bad so much as it was overused back at the time.
  • WTH, Casting Agency?: Some people feel that YouTube's Copyright School video falls into this. While the video itself is fine in theory, the video chooses to use the Happy Tree Friends to tell the story, despite them not really having a channel on YouTubenote . As some people have pointed out, it would make much more sense for people who actually have to deal with YouTube's Copyright system on a regular basis to be the ones to walk people through the process.
  • What Do You Mean, It's for Kids? / What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?:
    • Since its inception, YouTube Kids has garnered a hefty amount of criticism for not living up to its name in the slightest. When it first launched, the filter barely worked at all (you could search for "Sesame Street" and get a Bert and Ernie sketch overdubbed with a vulgar scene from Casino). Then the situation got worse when videos with beloved children characters containing themes that are inappropriate for children started popping up, and YouTube did nothing about it for months on end. It is best not to trust the app with your child, and if you do, supervise them at all times.
    • A scandal based on videos since 2015-16, gaining popularity in late 2017, dubbed Elsagate, revealed hundreds of videos across hundreds of channels featuring seemingly family-friendly characters such as Elsa and Spider-Man enacting bizarre, violent, or even sexual scenarios, many of which were apparently seen by many passive toddlers millions of times. Folding Ideas does a thorough examination of the phenomenon here, as well as the dubious logic as to why they're still allowed on the website.
    • As part of YouTube's settlement with the FTC over allegations it violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), YouTube started requiring creators to designate if their videos are "made for kids". In addition, YouTube would use its AI to detect if content was "made for kids". However, the system started marking pretty much anything with cartoony characters as "made for kids", including Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, Cupcakes HD, Happy Tree Friends, and Superjail!.


How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: