Too simple of a narrative. At the same time, YouTube videos are getting longer, and people are watching more YouTube videos on TVs than on mobile devices:
So I think we're seeing more of a bifurcation: in-depth longform videos are becoming 30, 40, 60, even 90 minutes long, whereas anything shorter than 10 minutes is being compressed to 30-60 seconds. The most popular video creators are doing both; even MrBeast routinely has videos over 30 minutes long.
Worth mentioning that literally any video under 60 seconds is forced to be a short, which is that stupid type of YouTube video where they remove a bunch of controls and make the overall experience miserable.
So maybe that’s pushing longer-form content as well. Some people making 30 second videos moves to 90 second ones to avoid the bad format, this crowds the format and pushes others up as well?
Fortunately, a video does need to have a vertical screen resolution to be counted as a short. So landscape/widescreen videos don't seem to be affected there.
But this can definitely trip people up, especially now the maximum length of a YouTube short is 3 minutes instead of 1. If you recorded a 3 minute video on a phone (or other random vertical screen device like a Game Boy/DS/3DS), YouTube will classify it as a short and there's basically nothing you can do about it.
YouTube has been pushing for longer videos for a while now. I believe it has to do with getting more money for ads. I remember YouTube updated their guidelines suggesting creators to create longer videos (10+ minutes for better monetization)
One thing I don't understand regarding YouTube shorts is that they can't be casted to TV. Whenever I click a short while casting other videos on my phone, it says the casting will be stopped if I continue. Why on earth does such an arbitrary limitation exist?
I understand the motivation but this mindset has failure modes of its own: I'm noticing an increasing number of longform YouTube essay channels adding tons of unnecessary padding to increase the runtime. They don't all do this-- to pick a random example, I think Defunctland videos are exactly as long as they need to be-- but a bunch of the smaller ones do. Ultimately there's no metric shortcut for actual quality.
In my case, YouTube has figured out that I love Pokemon videos where the streamer does really silly things with old Pokemon games (like resetting the emulator 9001 times to find a shiny in order to have a full on Shiny only pokedex, including the starter pokemon. In my case I don't care how long the videos are though.
Most of the 20+ minute long videos are bound to be filled to the brim with filler and bullshit. I'm not asking for much, but please stop pretending your video game review is worth an hour of introductions, personal anecdotes, comedy sketches and 3 sponsor ads.
If your Youtube video is 8 minutes or longer (and your channel is monetized), you're able to place midroll ads every minute or so to maximize ad revenue. Typically Youtube only serves a very small fraction of these midroll ads to each user; usually every 10 - 15 minutes. So 16min+ has been the sweet spot.
It's this ad incentive that has made long-form videos more popular on Youtube.
Yeah, I have unsubscribed/stopped viewing many specific creators because of this.
They start cycling content and using innovative ways to make videos artificially longer. Some videos of have "what this video is about" and "Summary" sections which can be even half of the video length in total. Sponsored sections are getting longer. There are longer pauses and less editing. The list goes on.
> So I think we're seeing more of a bifurcation: in-depth longform videos are becoming 30, 40, 60, even 90 minutes long, whereas anything shorter than 10 minutes is being compressed to 30-60 seconds.
Could it be that the shorter videos that are now 30-60 seconds present the same information as they did when they were ~10min, just without all extra prologue, epilogue, and sponsor inserts? Wasn't one of the reasons they were ~10min in the first place simply to get monetized better?
I think HN is getting old - nobody has mentioned second screen viewing! imo, youtube videos are getting longer because everyone is just turning stuff on in the background while they're on their phones.
That's what I do. But heck, that's what I've always done. In the 90 and 00s I would have the TV on while I was messing around on the PC, playing my Game Boy, or heck even while doing homework.
My wife and oldest kid who have ADHD are like that. My youngest, myself, and the middle aged kid never have anything on other than what we are actively paying attention to.
You haven't actually contradicted anything in the article. People can have low attention spans and watch a 30 minute MrBeast video of people shouting. People can have YouTube running on their TV while still being on their phone.
Your narrative isn't any less "simple" or any better backed up.
I've noticed that the YouTube app on smart TVs typically recommends 10-30 minute videos -- probably a combination of people leaving things on in the background or seeking "mealtime videos" they can watch while they eat.
Sadly, some of the best contents aer 5-10 minutes, I pick up some investing tips from those, although some longer ones can be 2x-ed or seeked to only view a chunk.
I wish they'd give you more than 2x speed in the web player. Lots of videos seem to talk extra slowly to drag things out to the point 2x speed sounds like normal conversational speed.
> At the same time, YouTube videos are getting longer, and people are watching more YouTube videos on TVs than on mobile devices
I assume this is a replacement for TV/streaming. Cases were you previously would've wanted a 10-minute YouTube video are becoming cases where you watch 30-60 second ones. Cases where you previously wanted a 20+ minute Netlfix show are becoming ones where you turn to long YouTube videos
Exactly this tho with more than just 2 categories. You find more than ever optimized for the 60s category, that's true, and you do get longform silos - but those include one silo of channels that clock around 10m, as well as another in the hour+ podcasts case.
The main new takeaway is that the shortform category is bigger and more important than previously imagined but hardly the sole winner.
It seems that the very long videos are a reaction against the very short clips. Usually the topics and density of information are not enough to consistently fill that amount of time, whereas it would be perfect in 10-30 mins. 60 secs: too short to convey much, 60 mins too long to convey too little.
This checks out. I find myself watching more youtube videos anywhere from WW2 restored footage, to Bloodborne and Elden Ring lore. There is some great documentary style content on youtube that just isn't on major streaming services. Well at least that I can find.
>At the same time, YouTube videos are getting longer, and people are watching more YouTube videos on TVs than on mobile devices
I wager most people are putting those on while having a meal and using their phones or tablets at the same time. Moreover, 99% of the most watched content on YouTube is utter garbage that would make the average reality show on TV twenty years ago look like The Godfather in comparison. Gossippy, clickbait videos made to induce an immediate dopamine dump and be used as background noise aren't "in-depth" anything. I don't think people are sitting in front of a TV watching an hour-long, non-sponsored, ad-free interview with Margerite Duras and doing nothing else concurrently, for instance.
On top of all that, this trend of making longer videos comes mostly from an attempt to increase ad revenue. Let's not be fooled here.
With movies, I feel like that's a bit of return to form. I know lots of older greats were around 2-3 hours in length, and I feel like things moved to 90 minutes basically overnight around the 2000s. Though I feel like a lot of long recent movies are more padded, while older 2+ hour movies felt like they had to cut content to make it a reasonable length.
I suppose if I have to share the earth/air/roads with the brainrot plebs, they might as well subsidize my ad-free consumption of long-form podcasts hosted on YouTube.
These are definitely not the same. How many people are actually paying full attention to a 3 hour podcast?
The majority will be listening to it while on their commute, or at the gym, or doing chores around the house. My wife (a civil engineer) has a podcast going in the background even while working. I asked her how she actually manages to pay attention to it and she says that it's mostly for the background noise.
> Movies are getting longer at the cinema too -- what used to be 85 minutes is now 150 minutes.
Because these movies are not made for the cinema anymore, but for streaming platforms, where people can consume in the same way they consume their podcasts.
Yeah that's kinda like pushing the narrative of "the end of history" just for social networks which I think is very flawed. We can't underestimate the influence the medium has on thought, but I think we aren't in a dystopian monopoly of social interactions just yet.
Reading Debord's Society of the Spectacle in the age of TikTok is surreal.
In some ways, it reads like prophecy. He mapped the inevitability of image-mediated life before we had the feeds to prove him right. In other ways, it feels trivial. Today's hyperreality makes the theory so obvious it barely registers as theory at all, more like a weather report. We don’t have to imagine the spectacle when we're already drowning in it.
My gripe with "How is new media transforming us?" journalism is that it never gets past the pre-theoretical stage. It inventories symptoms: shorter attention spans, algorithmic optimization, but won't name the cause. It's like reporting the moon's position every night and refusing to mention gravity.
The point that matters is Debord's: social relations mediated by images have replaced embodied relations. Platforms sell us connection, but what they deliver is commodification. Yes, some internet friendships spill into real life. But most are fragile, living inside economic structures designed to monetize attention. Everyone already knows the real relation isn't friend-to-friend but user-to-advertiser, and money always wins.
That's the basecamp for any way out: recognizing that hyperreal social life can't substitute lived social life. The spectacle doesn't mediate friendship, it mediates consumption. And if Debord feels obvious now, that's only because his warning has become the background condition of everyday life. Facebook can't really connect you to friends; it can only connect you to advertisers.
This post popped up a blocking window before I was even 3 sentences in, so maybe unsurprising that I clicked away in less than 60 seconds. If the author wants people to read whatever it is they have to say, maybe they should not put distractions in front of their writing?
Wow it is that bad! It's a white full screen on-your-face message that no one asked for, and it literally appears as soon as you start reading the content!
If that wasn't ironic enough to the title of the article, upon hitting the "X" and then "Back" on my phone (because it generated enough rejection on me that I didn't want to keep reading), the popup appeared again (-: so double annoyance for the price of one.
The worst part is that it pushes an item onto the history stack both when it opens and closes. So I need to press back 3 times to go back. It's a small thing to complain about but it's still atrocious.
It is sort of impressive, they seem to have keyed to what sort of posts make it here quite quickly (two failures, then two successes at getting engagement).
Ublock Origin in default block all Javascript mode results in being able to read the entire article with no distracting popup's at any time during the read.
For me, the worst part is that it is so hard to go back to previous forms of media. I often delete these short form content apps in an effort to quit them, but it is now so difficult to get engaged with "slower" forms of media. The thing with Tiktok isn't the length of the media, it's just how fast-paced and "catchy" it is. I could watch an hour long fast paced video just fine, but watching a slow paced show, or reading a book is so much more difficult.
> I could watch an hour long fast paced video just fine, but watching a slow paced show, or reading a book is so much more difficult.
Attention and concentration are skills that can be trained, so not all is lost. I was feeling like I was losing my focus about a decade ago and decided that every morning I'd wake up and read a novel for 30 minutes or so. Within a few weeks you'll notice the difference.
Yeah, it's amazing how nice this feels. You can tell your brain is healing. You're lighter, happier, more relaxed. The first few days are rough though. Hard to focus. Need for stimulation. It really is a drug. Horrible reality so many people are trapped in.
I don't understand. The problem is not that we don't have attention or concentration. Otherwise how can he watch hour long fast paced video. This a different form of attention. I would like to call it the intensity of attention.
Reading a book, require attention but of lower intensity. While watching an hour long fast paced video, require a high intensity attention.
Try going a whole day (like a Saturday) without consuming any digital media. It can be a challenging experience, but totally worth it, even if just once, to feel what it's like to not be tied to such things. I found it very relaxing and freeing.
No YT, FB, IG, TT, or TV for sure. For an extra challenge, try no music (except what you can make yourself) or news (including HN). You'll find yourself grabbing your phone only to immediately put it down again.
No need to force yourself to read or go for a walk or whatever. Do whatever you feel like all day, just not the digital things.
Try the video speed adjustments. Most sites offer 2x now. Up to 4x is getting around, and that's generally going to be past what most people can understand for speech, even with practice. I do a lot of YouTube long-form content but I do a lot of it at 2x or even 2.5x. There's also a lot of such things that are effectively podcasts with irrelevant video backgrounds, or only rarely relevant video, so you can do something else entirely while listening.
My kid and all of her friends watch video content at 2-4x now all the time, because they just can't seem to get through anything talking at a normal pace. I want to worry about that, but I don't know why it's worrying.
There are browser settings (or browser extensions) that restore “vanilla” media controls, which enables a lot of stuff that gets broken or disabled in vain otherwise. Playback rate is one of these.
Watch the film Sátántangó in one sitting with no distraction. If you can do that, you are healed. I imagine a chronic tiktok user would find the film a form of torture.
Almost any film from the mid-70s and earlier, go online and read recent reviews, and they're all full of complaints about the pacing. "Too boring!" "Too slow!" "Fell asleep while watching!"
I mean, first of all, who falls asleep during a movie? Even stuff I've seen 30 times already, is still engaging and holds my attention from start to finish. Yet, then again, we've had to cancel "friends movie night" in our house because people would come over, sit down to watch the movie, and after 10 minutes they're all scrolling their phones and bored with the movie. Unless it's got frantic action every second, you're going to lose people. Something is really wrong with our attention spans.
What if you are reading an interesting book ? I think it would be a great way to train your attention to the level it used to be.
And if you can’t even do that, I suggest you start reading a book right before sleeping until you pass out. Every night. You will fall asleep extremely fast at beginning but I managed to get back to reading while having extreme difficulty concentrating from a completely different illness than TikTok. It only took 2 years.
Probably a good thing then that I've never had TikTok and avoid even opening reels in Instagram, shorts on YouTube and clips in VK, unless someone sent me one.
I think you need to make the judgement if a long video is long because it's worth it and needs to be that long, or because it's padded for some reason. When I come across a padded video that I still want to consume for some reason, I usually just paste the url into gemini and ask for a tl;dr and get a few paragraphs to read summarizing the video.
That's how they get kids too now, look at patpatrol and the other slop they ship, you don't get more than 1 second without a cut. These kids are fucked forever, setup for failure from birth
I love YouTube but my problem with the content of YouTube is that almost all videos are introducing you to everything every time.
For example, there's this science video about this interesting property of fire right? They start with what's fire, when it was invented, what led to be studied this way and then they deliver the money shot. It is O.K. to be introduced to a topic once but it is brain wrecking to be 101ed every time. They are doing it to increase the watch time and the ad revenue and its horrible.
Forcing the videos to be short makes them deliver the gist quickly, TikTok videos that are trying to the introduction 101 thing are just as horrible, when a video is over 1min I'm very skeptical and feel the urge to move on.
Of course in-depth videos need to be long but those are not that many actually. From the pop-sci genre Veritasuim does it well but that kind of production takes long time and they publish videos every now and then. With the race to pump videos as quickly as possible, the short format is the better since you can get the content quickly and if you want to know more about it you can actually read about it. Which is how you actually learn anything BTW.
This is called “fluff” which I feel is too nice a term for how annoying it is.
Start with a clickbait question, then give a complete history ripped off of Wikipedia, then by the end they don’t even fully answer the question. Very frustrating.
Or install SponsorBlock. One of the things people can submit other than sponsor segments is the most interesting point in the video. Basically, whatever is teased in the thumbnail or what directly answers the question posed in the video title.
And remember Quibi [1]? Short-form video in vertical format specifically for mobile devices? They didn't have every aspect nailed, but they were definitely trailblazers on that front.
Quibi launched in April 2020. TikTok by this point would have 2 billion downloads [1]. It's difficult to assess they were trailblazers here. I might even say a component of their failure is free mobile video was widely accessible by this point.
Didn't have every aspect nailed? Definitely trailblazers? Quibi is a prime example of an absolute business wipeout. They got a bunch of investor money together, showed no interest in what viewers actually want, and then went down in flames immediately upon public release of the product. The whole thing was a disaster that didn't accomplish anything beyond putting a bunch of capital in the pockets of C grade C suite players.
I thought the kept incentivizing longer content so they could cram more ads into the videos. Hard to get some one to watch a 20 second ad for a 2 minute video, but if you can convince everyone to pad that thing up to 10 minutes you could stuff at least 2 ads in there.
> The irony, of course, is that if you've read this far, it may mean you’ve already mastered a rare skill: sustained attention in a world of distraction.
No, sorry I read the first and last sentence. This is why I like the short format more then the long forms, it often boils down to the same clever narrative trickery without waisting 3 hours of your life.
So you didn’t read that far then. You intentionally skipped it because you assumed to know the value. However by skipping the article you didn’t gain any value and hence why you’re in the comments section trying to “gotcha” the author of the article. You missed the point entirely and not as clever as you think.
I've banned shorts from my house [0]. The more you watch it, the more your attention span gets scrambled. If a joke doesn't land in 15 seconds, you skip it. If the video that just started doesn't reach its climax now, you skip it.
There's actually a format for movies now, where a short scene is shared with the contrast cranked to 11, and background music. And it pays off in under a minute. Shorts is short for climax, and everything over a minute is boring.
But to be fair, there's the opposite end of the spectrum where our time is being wasted. Like the whole life story before the recipe type thing. Or American YouTubers intentionally speaking veeeerrrryyyy sloooowwwwllllyyy.
Or Faceborg videos that cannot be fast-forwarded and have no progress bar, leaving unanswered the musical question "When does it get to the point, if ever ??"
Readit News
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2025/02/12/launched-...
So I think we're seeing more of a bifurcation: in-depth longform videos are becoming 30, 40, 60, even 90 minutes long, whereas anything shorter than 10 minutes is being compressed to 30-60 seconds. The most popular video creators are doing both; even MrBeast routinely has videos over 30 minutes long.
So maybe that’s pushing longer-form content as well. Some people making 30 second videos moves to 90 second ones to avoid the bad format, this crowds the format and pushes others up as well?
Totally talking out of my ass here.
But this can definitely trip people up, especially now the maximum length of a YouTube short is 3 minutes instead of 1. If you recorded a 3 minute video on a phone (or other random vertical screen device like a Game Boy/DS/3DS), YouTube will classify it as a short and there's basically nothing you can do about it.
I couldn't find a source (other than my memory) though, the earliest I could find is a reddit post from 2016 https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/4v6bmy/wh...
Deleted Comment
For your information, you can view every video through the normal interface by changing the URL to the usual /watch?.
It's this ad incentive that has made long-form videos more popular on Youtube.
They start cycling content and using innovative ways to make videos artificially longer. Some videos of have "what this video is about" and "Summary" sections which can be even half of the video length in total. Sponsored sections are getting longer. There are longer pauses and less editing. The list goes on.
Could it be that the shorter videos that are now 30-60 seconds present the same information as they did when they were ~10min, just without all extra prologue, epilogue, and sponsor inserts? Wasn't one of the reasons they were ~10min in the first place simply to get monetized better?
Your narrative isn't any less "simple" or any better backed up.
That may be a consequence of the monetization algorithm. It allows more time for ads.
The format of too many Youtube videos now is
- Useless intro
- Long recap of historical info to allow space for ads
- Actual new content
- Filler
- Conclusion
Those are the ones that aren't just some neckbeard with earphones and a big microphone.
I assume this is a replacement for TV/streaming. Cases were you previously would've wanted a 10-minute YouTube video are becoming cases where you watch 30-60 second ones. Cases where you previously wanted a 20+ minute Netlfix show are becoming ones where you turn to long YouTube videos
The main new takeaway is that the shortform category is bigger and more important than previously imagined but hardly the sole winner.
I wager most people are putting those on while having a meal and using their phones or tablets at the same time. Moreover, 99% of the most watched content on YouTube is utter garbage that would make the average reality show on TV twenty years ago look like The Godfather in comparison. Gossippy, clickbait videos made to induce an immediate dopamine dump and be used as background noise aren't "in-depth" anything. I don't think people are sitting in front of a TV watching an hour-long, non-sponsored, ad-free interview with Margerite Duras and doing nothing else concurrently, for instance.
On top of all that, this trend of making longer videos comes mostly from an attempt to increase ad revenue. Let's not be fooled here.
Movies are getting longer at the cinema too -- what used to be 85 minutes is now 150 minutes.
TikTok has not "won" at all. There's a place for content of all different lengths. The death of the attention span has been greatly exaggerated.
Spend 15 minutes with the median 7-30 year old and you’ll think differently. Yes it’s not everybody. But it’s clearly most of them.
The majority will be listening to it while on their commute, or at the gym, or doing chores around the house. My wife (a civil engineer) has a podcast going in the background even while working. I asked her how she actually manages to pay attention to it and she says that it's mostly for the background noise.
> Movies are getting longer at the cinema too -- what used to be 85 minutes is now 150 minutes.
Because these movies are not made for the cinema anymore, but for streaming platforms, where people can consume in the same way they consume their podcasts.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
In some ways, it reads like prophecy. He mapped the inevitability of image-mediated life before we had the feeds to prove him right. In other ways, it feels trivial. Today's hyperreality makes the theory so obvious it barely registers as theory at all, more like a weather report. We don’t have to imagine the spectacle when we're already drowning in it.
My gripe with "How is new media transforming us?" journalism is that it never gets past the pre-theoretical stage. It inventories symptoms: shorter attention spans, algorithmic optimization, but won't name the cause. It's like reporting the moon's position every night and refusing to mention gravity.
The point that matters is Debord's: social relations mediated by images have replaced embodied relations. Platforms sell us connection, but what they deliver is commodification. Yes, some internet friendships spill into real life. But most are fragile, living inside economic structures designed to monetize attention. Everyone already knows the real relation isn't friend-to-friend but user-to-advertiser, and money always wins.
That's the basecamp for any way out: recognizing that hyperreal social life can't substitute lived social life. The spectacle doesn't mediate friendship, it mediates consumption. And if Debord feels obvious now, that's only because his warning has become the background condition of everyday life. Facebook can't really connect you to friends; it can only connect you to advertisers.
Very prescient given the book is from 1967.
If that wasn't ironic enough to the title of the article, upon hitting the "X" and then "Back" on my phone (because it generated enough rejection on me that I didn't want to keep reading), the popup appeared again (-: so double annoyance for the price of one.
Better to be just a txt file. If OP wants $$, just put up a Pantheon page.
It truly is like a drug.
Attention and concentration are skills that can be trained, so not all is lost. I was feeling like I was losing my focus about a decade ago and decided that every morning I'd wake up and read a novel for 30 minutes or so. Within a few weeks you'll notice the difference.
Reading a book, require attention but of lower intensity. While watching an hour long fast paced video, require a high intensity attention.
No YT, FB, IG, TT, or TV for sure. For an extra challenge, try no music (except what you can make yourself) or news (including HN). You'll find yourself grabbing your phone only to immediately put it down again.
No need to force yourself to read or go for a walk or whatever. Do whatever you feel like all day, just not the digital things.
I mean, first of all, who falls asleep during a movie? Even stuff I've seen 30 times already, is still engaging and holds my attention from start to finish. Yet, then again, we've had to cancel "friends movie night" in our house because people would come over, sit down to watch the movie, and after 10 minutes they're all scrolling their phones and bored with the movie. Unless it's got frantic action every second, you're going to lose people. Something is really wrong with our attention spans.
And if you can’t even do that, I suggest you start reading a book right before sleeping until you pass out. Every night. You will fall asleep extremely fast at beginning but I managed to get back to reading while having extreme difficulty concentrating from a completely different illness than TikTok. It only took 2 years.
You'll get there. Go from shorter form content to things that'll grab your attention, piece by piece.
I love YouTube but my problem with the content of YouTube is that almost all videos are introducing you to everything every time.
For example, there's this science video about this interesting property of fire right? They start with what's fire, when it was invented, what led to be studied this way and then they deliver the money shot. It is O.K. to be introduced to a topic once but it is brain wrecking to be 101ed every time. They are doing it to increase the watch time and the ad revenue and its horrible.
Forcing the videos to be short makes them deliver the gist quickly, TikTok videos that are trying to the introduction 101 thing are just as horrible, when a video is over 1min I'm very skeptical and feel the urge to move on.
Of course in-depth videos need to be long but those are not that many actually. From the pop-sci genre Veritasuim does it well but that kind of production takes long time and they publish videos every now and then. With the race to pump videos as quickly as possible, the short format is the better since you can get the content quickly and if you want to know more about it you can actually read about it. Which is how you actually learn anything BTW.
Start with a clickbait question, then give a complete history ripped off of Wikipedia, then by the end they don’t even fully answer the question. Very frustrating.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quibi
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21241788/tiktok-app-downl...
No, sorry I read the first and last sentence. This is why I like the short format more then the long forms, it often boils down to the same clever narrative trickery without waisting 3 hours of your life.
It did not take me 3 hours to read that article.
There's actually a format for movies now, where a short scene is shared with the contrast cranked to 11, and background music. And it pays off in under a minute. Shorts is short for climax, and everything over a minute is boring.
[0]: https://idiallo.com/blog/shorts-climax