Before it was used for fun, people weren’t looking at it as a source of income, unlike now, take YouTube for example, in ~2010 it was those amateur captured videos where people are just happy they can share some clips with the world, right now, you have “content creators” with their soulless faces and setup, all have the same LED setup, thumbnails with reaction-face pics, shilling and a lot of it, try hards on everything from the tune of how they speak all the way to staged conversations, why? Monetizing the contents. Remove the monetization factor and you will see how it will fix 80% of the issue, following pareto chart method where 80% of the issues can be solved by fixing the 20% cause.
Writing for money and reservation of copyright are, at bottom, the ruin of literature. No one writes anything that is worth writing, unless he writes entirely for the sake of his subject. What an inestimable boon it would be, if in every branch of literature there were only a few books, but those excellent! This can never happen, as long as money is to be made by writing. It seems as though the money lay under a curse; for every author degenerates as soon as he begins to put pen to paper in any way for the sake of gain. The best works of the greatest men all come from the time when they had to write for nothing or for very little. And here, too, that Spanish proverb holds good, which declares that honor and money are not to be found in the same purse—honora y provecho no caben en un saco. The reason why Literature is in such a bad plight nowadays is simply and solely that people write books to make money. A man who is in want sits down and writes a book, and the public is stupid enough to buy it. The secondary effect of this is the ruin of language.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Literature/On Authorship"
I remember watching an interview to Jorge Luis Borges (can't remember which one, neither if it was in English or Spanish) in which he said something similar.
He argued that he preferred 19th century literature because back then it wasn't (as much as in the 20th century) about becoming famous or rich as an author.
That's a really good theory, but I'd suggest democratization as an alternate. Upvote/downvote metrics appended to every line of text invited cliquish behavior that optimized for non-monetized engagement. Giving people the ability to comment on anything turned every site into a bathroom wall.
Before it was used for fun, people weren’t looking at it as a source of income, unlike now, take YouTube for example, in ~2010 it was those amateur captured videos where people are just happy they can share some clips with the world, right now, you have “content creators” with their soulless faces and setup, all have the same LED setup, thumbnails with reaction-face pics, shilling and a lot of it, try hards on everything from the tune of how they speak all the way to staged conversations, why? Monetizing the contents. Remove the monetization factor and you will see how it will fix 80% of the issue, following pareto chart method where 80% of the issues can be solved by fixing the 20% cause.