Why I Want to Break My YouTube Addiction, or Get It Under Control

by James Wallace Harris, 9/14/26

I love YouTube. If I’m not careful, I’ll watch it for four or five hours a day. And I’m not saying YouTube is all bad; it’s just so damn addictive. But YouTube also has tons of crapola content to avoid. If I mined more gold and less pyrite, I might feel better about being such an avid fanboy.

Is avoiding bad content my problem, my self-control, or can we blame content creators or even YouTube? Too many people see YouTube as a gold rush, especially after AI. They have no scruples seeking views and will do anything to capture our attention.

Either I figure out how to watch the best content and ignore the bad, or I’ve got to go cold turkey. Yet, what determines if a video is worth my precious time? Is it up to me, or could YouTube become its own Maxwell Perkins? What makes newspapers and magazines great aren’t just the writers, but the editors.

There are two approaches. First, identify the best and ignore the rest. Or I could keep pulling weeds until YouTube is a beautiful lawn for my mind.

Identifying the Best

  • Subscribe to channels produced by the best magazines. The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, etc. This works for the pro content, but not the amateur.
  • Subscribe to channels with trustworthy human hosts. YouTube is fantastic because it allows anyone to create content. It’s open to amateurs. But somebody has to hold the hook.
  • Limit which topics to follow. My mind wanders, and YouTube leads it all over the universe.
  • Find the hosts that I’m convinced know what they are talking about.
  • Stick to sites that don’t waste my time.

Identifying the Worst

  • If it’s AI-generated, I pull the plug.
  • If they bury the lead. This drives me insane. I always back out when I realize this is happening.
  • They spend 30 minutes covering five minutes of information.
  • If they use AI photos or videos, or stock photos or videos that don’t match the narration. Or they use stock photos with watermarks.
  • If the human host is not qualified.
  • If the human host depends on AI slop.
  • If the thumbnail is deceptive.
  • If the title is deceptive.
  • If the channel is designed solely to sell something.
  • If the host is obviously an influencer.
  • If the reviews are paid for.
  • When AI is used instead of real photos. For example, all these images have famous actors in them, but you can’t recognize any of them.

Luckily, I pay for YouTube Premium Lite, so I don’t have to watch commercials. However, if I didn’t pay that toll, I’d probably never watch YouTube because of the insane bombardment of ads.

I Wish YouTube Would …

  • Have something like a “get the hook” button. Meaning, never show me this channel again.
  • And if I’ve used the hook, let YouTube’s AI deep-six anything like that again.
  • Switch/setting that filters out pure AI content.
  • Strict rule requiring all AI-generated video to be clearly watermarked.
  • A method that allows viewers to report misinformation.
  • Hire human editors who reject shitty content. Basically, YouTube is one vast slushpile that everyone is reading. Hire some editors who can tell content providers they suck and should try harder.
  • Go ahead and use AI to recognize the content I value and reject what it knows I will hate. Potentially, this could make YouTube irresistible.

YouTube is Changing

A Few Examples I Admire

Just Josh is an A+ site for laptop reviews. I post this video because Just Josh has problems with YouTube too. Much of what makes content bad for viewers also makes YouTube bad for creators.

Listen to how he’s going to combat AI. It’s a case of fighting fire with fire. I like that. AI search engines and AI YouTube slop are killing his channel. His approach is to use AI to make his channel even more useful to humans.

I admire CBS Sunday Morning, but I seldom watch broadcast TV. Using YouTube to catch the best of broadcast TV makes watching YouTube more valuable. It’s funny to contrast the professionals at CBS with amateur YouTube content creators reporting on the same information.

My opinions sync well with the science fiction book reviews by Bookpilled. YouTube channels don’t have to be by world-class experts. Just people you trust.

Useful Charts has a highly unique focus. Matt Baker explains history using charts. It’s very effective.

Usagi Electric focuses on rebuilding old computers. This is rather esoteric. But that’s a significant virtue of YouTube: finding the esoteric topics you’re interested in.

Python Programmer promotes learning. I have no idea what his credentials or educational background involve, but I’ve come to trust him. YouTube allows anyone to teach. It would be great if the system had a way to validate what’s being taught for accuracy, but I don’t see how that’s possible. We all have to decide for ourselves. There are too many channels where I’m wary of the host.

AstroBackyard is a channel devoted to astrophotography. This is a hobby I wish I had, but I don’t for many reasons. I live vicariously through his videos. There are many YouTube creators who I wish I could be like.

Pop Goes the 60s is a great example of an amateur expert. His videos are well done, well researched, and worth their length.

Pete Beard has cornered the market on videos about old book and magazine illustrators. His little videos are beautiful and instructive. It’s an extremely narrow focus, but he does it so well.

I could list dozens of more channels I follow. I don’t want to point to channels that annoy me. I don’t really want to pick on people. Some creators are well-intentioned but lack ability. Others use every trick in the book to get views because they dream of giving up their day jobs and becoming rich. This type has exploded since ChatGPT.

And don’t get me wrong, some people can wring some amazing content out of AI. But so much of it is horrible. On the other hand, what will happen when AI gets so good that anyone – and I mean anyone, even a five-year-old kid asks an AI to create a 30-minute professional quality video for YouTube that will get a million hits, and the AI does it?

One reason I want to reject AI content is not that I’m prejudiced against AI, but because I enjoy seeing what humans can do. YouTube is a wonderful venue for that, but it needs some kind of control. I wonder if a voting system like the one on IMDb.com? I find that any movie or TV show that gets a 7.0 or higher rating is something I’m likely to enjoy. But there is a technical issue. I watch YouTube on my television. How would I enter the rating?

I don’t know if YouTube has any incentive to help its viewers find better content. It’s already the most popular streaming service.

If I can’t learn to discipline my YouTube addiction, I will have to give it up. Yesterday I didn’t watch any YouTube, and I got so much more done. Today, I watched a little and still got a lot done. That’s a good sign.

JWH

Can We Fight Back Against Enshitification?

by James Wallace Harris, 2/9/26

“Enshitification” is the trendy catchword of the moment. Cory Doctorow coined this handy term and describes what it means in his latest book, Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It. However, I don’t think you need to read the book to get the idea. At a minimum, just listen to the interview with Doctorow and Tim Wu below on the Ezra Klein show titled “We Didn’t Ask for This Internet“:

Tim Wu covers similar ground in his book The Age of Extraction.

For my purposes, I use both terms to point to a specific kind of corporate greed that’s making our lives miserable. We could use both terms in this sentence: The relentless extraction of wealth is leading the enshitification of society.

Cory Doctorow uses the Internet to illustrate the process. Every program, app, or site begins life doing something wonderful for users. Often, their creators promise to always keep their users’ best interests at the core of their business model. But as time goes on and they need to keep making more money, they forget that promise. Eventually, they will do anything to get more users and more money.

Tim Wu models his term on the evils of private equity and similar practices. For example, in the interview, Wu gives this evil example:

In America, hospitals preferentially hire nurses through apps. And they do so as contractors. Hiring contractors means that you can avoid the unionization of nurses. And when a nurse signs on to get a shift through one of these apps, the app is able to buy the nurse’s credit history.

The reason for that is that the U.S. government has not passed a new federal consumer privacy law since 1988, when Ronald Reagan signed a law that made it illegal for video store clerks to disclose your VHS rental habits.

Every other form of privacy invasion of your consumer rights is lawful under federal law. So among the things that data brokers will sell to anyone who shows up with a credit card is how much credit card debt any other person is carrying, and how delinquent it is.

Based on that, the nurses are charged a kind of desperation premium. The more debt they’re carrying, the more overdue that debt is, the lower the wage that they’re offered, on the grounds that nurses who are facing economic privation and desperation will accept a lower wage to do the same job.

Now this is not a novel insight. Paying more desperate workers less money is a thing that you can find in, like, Tennessee Ernie Ford songs about 19th-century coal bosses. The difference is that if you’re a 19th-century coal boss who wants to figure out how much the lowest wage each coal miner you’re hiring is willing to take, you have to have an army of Pinkertons who are figuring out the economic situation of every coal miner, and you have to have another army of guys in green eye shades who are making annotations to the ledger where you’re calculating their pay packet. It’s just not practical. So automation makes this possible.

Doesn’t that sound like a cross between Nineteen Eighty-Four and the way China monitors its citizens? Wu is seeing how the extraction of wealth is doing something just as evil, but we could call it enshitification too.

Another example, this time from my New York Magazine subscription, “Body Cam Hustle” is about how people are making money off of videos of drunk drivers taken by the police. States enacted laws requiring police to wear body cameras to gather evidence and protect the innocent. The Internet went from promoting cute cat videos to scenes of personal shame. To show how society is also just as corrupt, audiences prefer seeing women being arrested.

I doubt I need to give any more examples, we all instantly recognize the genius of coining the word enshitification.

Cory Doctorow and Ezra Klein recall fond memories and hopes the Internet gave them when they were young. But it seems the Internet turns everything to shit eventually.

Does every sucky thing that depresses us most today connect to the Internet?

And more importantly, can we fight enshitification?

One area where I noticed people fighting back is with subscriptions. Tim Wu says subscriptions are the new, and more efficient, method of extraction. People are switching to Linux, free and open source software, unsubscribing from cloud storage, and going back to DVDs, CDs, and LPs.

Other people are taking up analog hobbies like sewing, gardening, woodworking, cooking, and handicrafts. Young people feel they are embracing the hobbies their grandparents pursued.

And other people are buying local rather than ordering online.

On the other hand, millions are adopting AI and racing full steam ahead into a dark Blade Runner-like cyberpunk future.

Does running from the clutches of Microsoft or Apple into the arms of Linux really help us escape enshitification? If Facebook and X are evil, does it make them less evil to access from Fedora and use the Brave browser? (I’m writing this post from Linux, and it’s been a struggle not to use all my favorite software tools on Windows.)

Would we be happier if we shut off the Internet and went back to televisions with antennas? I’ve contemplated what that would be like. My initial fear is that it would be lonelier. I don’t know why. I have many friends I see regularly. I guess the hive mind feels more connected.

I think we like to share. To communicate with like-minded people regarding our specific interests. Before the Internet, I was involved with science fiction fandom. I published fanzines, belonged to Amateur Press Associations (APAs), was part of a local science fiction club, and went to conventions.

I suppose I could regress.

But do people do that? Shouldn’t we figure out how to move forward and solve our enshitification problems? But how?

What if we split the internet into two segments? We keep the existing Internet, and create a new one that requires identity verification. To get a login would require visiting an agency in person and providing proof of your identity. Like when we got Read IDs. But also connect that identity to three types of biometric data. The login to the new Internet would have to be absolutely foolproof, otherwise people wouldn’t trust it.

I know this sounds scary and dangerous, but we’re already doing this piecemeal. Both corporations and criminals already know who we are.

Would people behave better on the Internet if they knew everyone knew exactly who they were? I assume that with such tracking of real identities, it would be almost impossible to rip people off since all activity would have a well-documented trail.

For this to work, corporations would have to be just as open and upfront. They would have to make all their log files public. So any individual could examine all the ways they are being tracked.

Is a much of enshitification due to anonymity and hidden corporate practices?

What if everything we did on the Internet was out in full sunlight?

I have no idea if this would help. It could make things much worse. But isn’t everything already getting much worse?

JWH

Create and Control Your Own Algorithm

by James Wallace Harris, 12/6/25

If you get your news from social media sites, they will feed you what they learn you want to hear. Each site has its own algorithm to help you find the information you prefer. Such algorithms create echo chambers that play to your confirmation bias. It becomes a kind of digital mental masturbation.

Getting information from the internet is like drinking from a firehose. I hate to use such a cliche phrase, but it’s so true. Over the past decade, I’ve tried many ways to manage this flow of information. I’ve used RSS feed readers, news aggregators, social media sites, browser extensions, and smartphone apps. I’m always overwhelmed, and eventually, their algorithms feed me the same shitty content that thrills my baser self.

I’ve recently tried to reduce my information flow by subscribing to just four print magazines: Harper’s, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and New York Magazine. I’m still deluged with news. However, I’m hoping the magazine editors will intelligently curate the news for me and keep me out of my own echo chamber.

I’ve even tried to limit my news intake to just one significant essay a day. For example, “The Chatbot-Delusion Crisis” by Matteo Wong from The Atlantic was yesterday’s read. Even while trying to control my own algorithm, I’ve been drawn to similar stories lately — about the dangers of social media and AI.

Today’s article, “When Chatbots Break Our Minds,” by Charlie Warzel, features an interview with Kashmir Hill. In the interview, Hill refers to her article in The New York Times, “Chatbots Can Go Into a Delusional Spiral. Here’s How It Happens.”

If I could program my own algorithm for news reading, one of the main features I’d hope to create is dazzling myself with news about important things I knew nothing about. I’d call such a feature Black Swan Reporting.

Another essential feature I’d want in my algorithm, I’d call Your Full of Shit. This subroutine would look for essays that show me how wrong or delusional I am. For example, for us liberals, we were deluded in thinking our cherished ideals made most Americans happy.

Another useful feature would be Significant News Outside the United States. For example, I listened to a long news story in one of my magazines about how Australia will soon enact a law that bans children under 16 from having social media accounts. This is a significant social experiment I hadn’t heard about, and one that other countries will try in 2026. None of my social media feeds let me know, but then maybe they want to keep such experiments secret.

Mostly, I’d want my algorithm to show me Important Things I Don’t Know, which is the exact opposite of what social media algorithms do.

However, I might need to go beyond one article a day to keep up with current events. That risks turning up the feed to fire hose velocity. How much news do we really need? I’m willing to give up an hour a day to one significant news story that’s educational and enlightening. I might be willing to give up another hour for several lighter but useful stories about reality.

I hate to admit it, but I doom scroll YouTube and Facebook one to two hours a day because of idle moments like resting after working in the yard or waking up in the middle of the night. And their algorithms have zeroed in on my favorite distractions, ones that are so shallow that I’m embarrassed to admit what they are.

The whole idea of creating a news algorithm driven by self-awareness is rather daunting. But I think we need to try. I’m reading too many stories about how we’re all damned by social media and AI.

I’m anxious to hear what kids in Australia do. Will they go outside and play, or will they find other things on their smartphones to occupy their time? What if the Australian government is forcing a generation to just play video games and look at porn?

JWH

Say Goodbye to the Internet in Your Will

by James Wallace Harris, Monday, April 9, 2018

I’ve been using the internet long enough to have online friends pass away. I’m in one online book club that has had three members die. I’ve had other internet friends just disappear, and I’ve wondered what has happened to them. Sometimes on Facebook family members will post a goodbye. I greatly appreciate that when it happens.

Quite often I don’t know where my internet friends live. And even when I do, the standard of publishing an obituary in the local paper seems to be fading along with print journalism.

Last Will

There is much anger directed at Facebook in recent weeks. However, Facebook is how many people stay in contact with friends and family. Few reports count all the positive benefits of Facebook. As many as two billion people use the service. In recent years, Facebook is often how I find out internet friends are sick, dying, or have passed away. It’s become the new obituary page.

We all need to leave login credentials to our social media groups in our wills with instructions to contact these sites after our death. And even provide a parting farewell to publish.

Social media is often dismissed as shallow. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. Maybe we should make it better.

JWH

 

 

 

Should I Delete Facebook?

by James Wallace Harris, Friday, March 23, 2018

Cambridge AnalyticaI’ve seen at least a dozen stories about people deleting their Facebook account because of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Just now I read two news stories about Elon Musk deleting Space-X and Tesla pages from Facebook even though they had millions of followers. There’s lots of anti-Facebook sentiment percolating on the web right now with many users jumping ship.

But how many? Facebook has two billion users. Even if a hundred million people quit in protest will it matter? There have always been folks who grumped about Facebook. They are much like snobs who sneer at watching television. I look at TV and Facebook every day. Not much, in either case, but they both provide their little pleasures. And, little pleasures count for a lot in our social security years.

People fear Facebook because of identity theft or invasion of their privacy. But is any place safe on the internet? And if you read about Cambridge Analytica you’ll see that people happily filled out forms and shared them with friends. You’d have to be an idiot to not know that everything you do on the internet is monitored. No one pays to use Facebook. Have you ever wondered how Facebook makes its money? Our habits and opinions are valuable. Keeping America supplied with cat videos is expensive, so Facebook has to make its money someway.

When I’m on the internet I assume Big Brother and all his brothers and sisters are watching. I don’t care that they know I love cat videos and scans of old science fiction magazine covers. I have no idea what that information reveals about me politically or fiscally.

Before people rush to delete their Facebook account out of some kind of misguided protest, I think they should analyze what they get out of the service. Facebook keeps me in contact with relatives and friends I seldom or never see anymore. Facebook keeps in contact with people around the world that have the same esoteric interests as I do. And I enjoy seeing a half-dozen funny videos every day. They’re as good as a dose of Geritol.

For example, I’ve been reading old science fiction stories from the pulp magazines. I’ve made three online friends in South Africa, England, and here in the U.S. that also like to read such stories. I don’t know how many people left on this planet still love to read science fiction short stories in old pulp magazines, but Facebook has helped me find them. Facebook also keeps me in contact me with relatives I haven’t seen in fifty years.

Besides, Facebook helps me keep tabs on my wife. She always checks in wherever she goes.

I also find it very pleasant to share cartoons, videos, songs, beautiful photos, sayings, etc. with other people. For example, here’s one called Millennial Job Interview that has a passing dig at Facebook. I thought pretty damn funny and very revealing about modern times. Evidently, the young consider Facebook a hangout for older people. That might be true because most of my Facebook friends are older. And most of the people who write about deleting their Facebook accounts are younger. Should we consider this anti-Facebook movement an ageist attack on Baby Boomers?

I wonder if Big Brother finds what we share more revealing about our personalities than the facts typed into queries like Cambridge Analytica’s? For many people I know, what they share on Facebook reveals more about themselves than they reveal in person.

I share a lot on Facebook. My friends and family must think I’m odd from some of the content I post. However, I use both Facebook and Twitter as external memory banks. My biological memory is beginning to fail. I wish Facebook existed when I was young so I could scroll back into the past. When I scan through my timeline it’s like a stream-of-consciousness of what tickled my fancy. I’m sure if Big Brother applied a powerful artificial intelligence program to my timeline it could psychoanalyze my posts and provide me with the ads customized for my personality.

But you want to know something funny? If you asked me if there were ads on Facebook I’d tell you no. My mind is so good a tuning out ads that I don’t see them on web pages anymore. I do use an ad blocker, but they aren’t completely effective. I do know there are ads because I see them when I consciously go looking for them. But psychologically I don’t remember ads on Facebook. That might hurt them more than deleting my account. Sorry, Mark.

I suppose I could quit Facebook. Many who have quit Facebook claim their lives are so much better for it. Maybe mine would be better too, but I sure would miss those cat videos.

JWH