Latest news with #GenXers
Time of India
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
YouTube's victory in the TV wars depends on parents
HighlightsYouTube commands 12.4% of audience time spent watching television, surpassing Disney's 10.7% and significantly outpacing Amazon's 3.5%. Concerns arise over YouTube's algorithm, which prioritizes quantity over quality, leading to potential exposure to harmful content for younger viewers. The platform's unregulated environment, including its comments section, contributes to the spread of misinformation and targeted harassment, raising distrust among parents. Here's a stat that might come as a shock to casual observers of the media ecosystem: The media company that commands the largest percentage of our eyeballs is not the mighty Netflix Inc., the Walt Disney Co. juggernaut or the omnipresent Amazon .com Inc. Prime. It's YouTube . The platform represents 12.4% of audiences' time spent watching television, according to Nielsen Holding Ltd.'s Media Distributor Gauge report for April. That beats Disney's 10.7% (which includes not only the platforms and channels that bear its name but ESPN and Hulu to boot), nearly doubles the 6.8% and 6.7% for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery , respectively, and pummels the puny 3.5% share for Amazon. But before we hail the platform as another nail in traditional TV's coffin, it needs to accomplish something else: earn the trust of its users, particularly parents. There are real problems with the way YouTube works and the suggestions it makes to viewers (especially younger ones). It sets the entertainment powerhouse up for the kind of backlash we're seeing against other dominant but problematic tech companies. If you're old enough to remember a pre-YouTube world or when the platform struggled through its initial era of low-res user-generated videos and one-joke viral breakouts, the idea of consuming media primarily through that portal sounds absurd. For example, Gen Xers like me may use it as little more than a last resort destination: a place to find a clip from a movie that isn't streaming, an episode of a show that we forgot to DVR, the badly-dated music video for a song that was briefly popular when we were in high school or various other goofy little things that aren't substantial enough to exist anywhere else. But I can also tell you, as the father of a tween, that this is not how younger people think of YouTube. For many of them, it (and other social media sites) is the window through which they see the world and the door though which they travel to find whatever they're seeking. The beauty of YouTube circa 2025 is that it has everything, from rentable movies to full, free seasons of television to vast musical archives to daily updates from your favorite influencers. The horror of YouTube circa 2025 is also that it has everything, from unhinged conspiracy theories to casual racism and misogyny to hours-long videos of ideological indoctrination to sexually suggestive material. Its everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach might not be such a concern if the platform increased efforts (aside from the most basic and easily evadable parental controls) in keeping the scarier stuff contained. Instead, viewers are in the thrall of the platform's problematic algorithm, which exists not to enhance the quality of the user experience but the quantity of it. In December, the company reported that people watched more than one billion hours of YouTube on TV daily. That time can often be spent not on the specific video that a user is seeking out but on the videos the platform's algorithm recommends and/or auto-plays at its conclusion. By now, there are well-known stories of how quickly the algorithm can steer viewers toward unrelated, or even worrisome, content. A much-shared 2019 New York Times story detailed the online radicalization of Caleb Cain, who 'fell down the alt-right rabbit hole' on YouTube. A year earlier, the company's then-product chief and now CEO said that the site's recommendations accounted for more than 70% of all time spent on YouTube. (Alphabet Inc.'s Google , YouTube's parent company, did not share updated metrics when asked by Bloomberg Opinion ahead of publication.) And while it may be uncommon for the platform to function as a full-stop radicalization machine — suggesting QAnon screeds to innocent cat video connoisseurs — it's hard to find a user (or a parent) who can't recall at least one head-scratching recommendation or ill-advised curiosity click. Busy parents or guardians, for example, might turn on an age-appropriate show for their kids to watch on YouTube (there's a reason 28% of the platform's viewers are aged 2-17). Maybe they need to occupy their children's attention while working from home, doing a household chore or two or perhaps just to get a mental break — only to hear or see a questionable video playing before it can be intercepted. Does that scenario sound familiar? For at least a segment of the population, this has led to an inherent distrust of YouTube's anything-goes, Wild West approach, which is absent from the sense of curation on conventional television networks or subscription streaming services. And it's hard to overstate the role that the platform's unruly and frequently unmoderated comments section can play in the dissemination of misinformation, to say nothing of the targeted harassment that runs rampant on both the site itself and various third-party tools. Unfortunately, the monopolistic nature of our current tech landscape means that the chances of an upstart video streaming platform replacing the ubiquitous YouTube are slim to none, even if other sites and apps (such as Vimeo , to name the most obvious example) offer a far superior user experience. But never forget, it was once hard to imagine any social media website overtaking MySpace, and user enthusiasm for Google's search engine, has cooled of late. The combination of copious ads and insipid, unwanted and frequently inaccurate AI-powered results have sullied the latter brand, at least among users who are paying attention. Some people have begun to seek out alternate web searches, just as many fled the Elon Musk iteration of Twitter. Is a similar migration for more ethical online video platforms in the realm of possibility? YouTube should make its algorithm safer for its youngest demographic to avoid finding out. (This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its Bailey is a film critic and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. He is the author, most recently, of "Gandolfini: Jim, Tony, and the Life of a Legend.")
Deccan Herald
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Deccan Herald
YouTube's victory in the TV wars depends on parents
By Jason a stat that might come as a shock to casual observers of the media ecosystem: The media company that commands the largest percentage of our eyeballs is not the mighty Netflix Inc., the Walt Disney Co. juggernaut or the omnipresent Inc. Prime. It's YouTube. The platform represents 12.4% of audiences' time spent watching television, according to Nielsen Holding Ltd.'s Media Distributor Gauge report for April. That beats Disney's 10.7% (which includes not only the platforms and channels that bear its name but ESPN and Hulu to boot), nearly doubles the 6.8% and 6.7% for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, respectively, and pummels the puny 3.5% share for Amazon. But before we hail the platform as another nail in traditional TV's coffin, it needs to accomplish something else: earn the trust of its users, particularly are real problems with the way YouTube works and the suggestions it makes to viewers (especially younger ones). It sets the entertainment powerhouse up for the kind of backlash we're seeing against other dominant but problematic tech you're old enough to remember a pre-YouTube world or when the platform struggled through its initial era of low-res user-generated videos and one-joke viral breakouts, the idea of consuming media primarily through that portal sounds example, Gen Xers like me may use it as little more than a last resort destination: a place to find a clip from a movie that isn't streaming, an episode of a show that we forgot to DVR, the badly-dated music video for a song that was briefly popular when we were in high school or various other goofy little things that aren't substantial enough to exist anywhere I can also tell you, as the father of a tween, that this is not how younger people think of YouTube. For many of them, it (and other social media sites) is the window through which they see the world and the door though which they travel to find whatever they're seeking. The beauty of YouTube circa 2025 is that it has everything, from rentable movies to full, free seasons of television to vast musical archives to daily updates from your favorite horror of YouTube circa 2025 is also that it has everything, from unhinged conspiracy theories to casual racism and misogyny to hours-long videos of ideological indoctrination to sexually suggestive material. Its everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach might not be such a concern if the platform increased efforts (aside from the most basic and easily evadable parental controls) in keeping the scarier stuff viewers are in the thrall of the platform's problematic algorithm, which exists not to enhance the quality of the user experience but the quantity of it. In December, the company reported that people watched more than one billion hours of YouTube on TV daily. That time can often be spent not on the specific video that a user is seeking out but on the videos the platform's algorithm recommends and/or auto-plays at its now, there are well-known stories of how quickly the algorithm can steer viewers toward unrelated, or even worrisome, content. A much-shared 2019 New York Times story detailed the online radicalization of Caleb Cain, who 'fell down the alt-right rabbit hole' on YouTube. A year earlier, the company's then-product chief and now CEO said that the site's recommendations accounted for more than 70% of all time spent on YouTube. (Alphabet Inc.'s Google, YouTube's parent company, did not share updated metrics when asked by Bloomberg Opinion ahead of publication.)And while it may be uncommon for the platform to function as a full-stop radicalization machine — suggesting QAnon screeds to innocent cat video connoisseurs — it's hard to find a user (or a parent) who can't recall at least one head-scratching recommendation or ill-advised curiosity parents or guardians, for example, might turn on an age-appropriate show for their kids to watch on YouTube (there's a reason 28% of the platform's viewers are aged 2-17). Maybe they need to occupy their children's attention while working from home, doing a household chore or two or perhaps just to get a mental break — only to hear or see a questionable video playing before it can be that scenario sound familiar? For at least a segment of the population, this has led to an inherent distrust of YouTube's anything-goes, Wild West approach, which is absent from the sense of curation on conventional television networks or subscription streaming it's hard to overstate the role that the platform's unruly and frequently unmoderated comments section can play in the dissemination of misinformation, to say nothing of the targeted harassment that runs rampant on both the site itself and various third-party tools. Unfortunately, the monopolistic nature of our current tech landscape means that the chances of an upstart video streaming platform replacing the ubiquitous YouTube are slim to none, even if other sites and apps (such as Vimeo, to name the most obvious example) offer a far superior user never forget, it was once hard to imagine any social media website overtaking MySpace, and user enthusiasm for Google's search engine, has cooled of late. The combination of copious ads and insipid, unwanted and frequently inaccurate AI-powered results have sullied the latter brand, at least among users who are paying attention. Some people have begun to seek out alternate web searches, just as many fled the Elon Musk iteration of a similar migration for more ethical online video platforms in the realm of possibility? YouTube should make its algorithm safer for its youngest demographic to avoid finding out.
CNBC
3 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
How much you should have saved by age 50, according to financial experts—and 3 steps to take if you're behind
Many Americans are anxious about their savings, especially as they approach retirement age. Over half of Gen Xers, those aged 45 to 60, say they have no more than three times their current annual income saved for retirement, according to a study commissioned by life insurance and financial planning provider Northwestern Mutual. This is significantly less than a benchmark set by Fidelity, one of the largest retirement plan providers in the U.S., which advises accumulating six times your current annual income by age 50 if you anticipate retiring at 67. Other experts take a different view. There's no magic number when it comes to saving for retirement, says Nathan Sebesta, a certified financial planner and owner of Artesia, New Mexico-based financial services firm Access Wealth Strategies. How much you anticipate spending every year of retirement and when you decide to retire can greatly affect how much you should have saved, Sebesta says. For example, those who plan on retiring later, as well as downsizing and living more frugally, may need less than Fidelity's benchmark, the report said. Additionally, the baseline amount you need can vary by as much as $1.49 million depending on what state you decide to retire in, according to an analysis by GOBankingRates earlier this year. To figure out how much you need, Sebesta recommends working backward. Start by deciding how much annual income you'll want in retirement and estimate how long you'll need that yearly income for. After taking that total and adjusting for inflation, you can determine how much you need to save each year and how your investments need to grow to hit that goal. If you're still feeling behind, Sebesta says there are a few other strategies you can consider to catch up and retire comfortably. "Don't panic," Sebesta says. "Start where you are and as soon as you can." While you can start claiming Social Security benefits as early as age 62, doing so means you'll receive a permanently reduced benefit. Alternatively, if you delay claiming benefits beyond full retirement age — 67 for Americans born after 1960 — your monthly payments could increase significantly, Sebesta says. For every year you wait up to age 70, your benefit grows by about 8%. That means someone born after 1960 who waits until 70 could receive up to 24% more than they would at 67. Once you turn 50, the Internal Revenue Service allows you to contribute more to various retirement plans in catch-up contributions. If you have a workplace retirement plan like a 401(k) or 403(b), you can contribute an extra $7,500 beyond the standard limit of $23,500, for a total of $31,000 in 2025. For those with an individual retirement account, the 2025 contribution limit is $7,000, plus an extra $1,000 in catch-up contributions for those 50 and older. These extra contributions not only help boost retirement savings but can also reduce your taxable income, which is especially valuable during high earning years in your 50s and 60s, Sebesta adds. Catch-up contributions are "definitely a neat benefit for people looking for more savings," Sebesta says, but they won't work for everyone: "You've got to be willing to put the money into the plan as well." If you haven't consistently contributed over the years or are struggling to keep enough cash on hand, finding the extra money to take advantage of these higher limits may be difficult. While it's not the ideal scenario, if you're significantly behind on retirement savings and working on paying off debt, Sebesta says you may have to consider lowering your expected lifestyle in retirement. If you have 10 to 15 years left to plan, the focus may need to shift to paying off debt and getting to a point where you can live on less in retirement, Sebesta says. This may look like scaling back on expenses, downsizing your lifestyle or living in a more affordable area. The last option would be to continue working in retirement. "No one ever dreams of that goal," Sebesta says. "But if they do delay for so long and are not able to catch up completely, that might be, sadly, one of the realistic opportunities that they would have." ,
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Economic Times
YouTube's victory in the TV wars depends on parents
Here's a stat that might come as a shock to casual observers of the media ecosystem: The media company that commands the largest percentage of our eyeballs is not the mighty Netflix Inc., the Walt Disney Co. juggernaut or the omnipresent Inc. Prime. It's YouTube. The platform represents 12.4% of audiences' time spent watching television, according to Nielsen Holding Ltd.'s Media Distributor Gauge report for April. That beats Disney's 10.7% (which includes not only the platforms and channels that bear its name but ESPN and Hulu to boot), nearly doubles the 6.8% and 6.7% for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, respectively, and pummels the puny 3.5% share for Amazon. But before we hail the platform as another nail in traditional TV's coffin, it needs to accomplish something else: earn the trust of its users, particularly are real problems with the way YouTube works and the suggestions it makes to viewers (especially younger ones). It sets the entertainment powerhouse up for the kind of backlash we're seeing against other dominant but problematic tech companies. If you're old enough to remember a pre-YouTube world or when the platform struggled through its initial era of low-res user-generated videos and one-joke viral breakouts, the idea of consuming media primarily through that portal sounds absurd. For example, Gen Xers like me may use it as little more than a last resort destination: a place to find a clip from a movie that isn't streaming, an episode of a show that we forgot to DVR, the badly-dated music video for a song that was briefly popular when we were in high school or various other goofy little things that aren't substantial enough to exist anywhere else. But I can also tell you, as the father of a tween, that this is not how younger people think of YouTube. For many of them, it (and other social media sites) is the window through which they see the world and the door though which they travel to find whatever they're seeking. The beauty of YouTube circa 2025 is that it has everything, from rentable movies to full, free seasons of television to vast musical archives to daily updates from your favorite horror of YouTube circa 2025 is also that it has everything, from unhinged conspiracy theories to casual racism and misogyny to hours-long videos of ideological indoctrination to sexually suggestive material. Its everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach might not be such a concern if the platform increased efforts (aside from the most basic and easily evadable parental controls) in keeping the scarier stuff viewers are in the thrall of the platform's problematic algorithm, which exists not to enhance the quality of the user experience but the quantity of it. In December, the company reported that people watched more than one billion hours of YouTube on TV daily. That time can often be spent not on the specific video that a user is seeking out but on the videos the platform's algorithm recommends and/or auto-plays at its conclusion. By now, there are well-known stories of how quickly the algorithm can steer viewers toward unrelated, or even worrisome, content. A much-shared 2019 New York Times story detailed the online radicalization of Caleb Cain, who 'fell down the alt-right rabbit hole' on YouTube. A year earlier, the company's then-product chief and now CEO said that the site's recommendations accounted for more than 70% of all time spent on YouTube. (Alphabet Inc.'s Google, YouTube's parent company, did not share updated metrics when asked by Bloomberg Opinion ahead of publication.) And while it may be uncommon for the platform to function as a full-stop radicalization machine — suggesting QAnon screeds to innocent cat video connoisseurs — it's hard to find a user (or a parent) who can't recall at least one head-scratching recommendation or ill-advised curiosity parents or guardians, for example, might turn on an age-appropriate show for their kids to watch on YouTube (there's a reason 28% of the platform's viewers are aged 2-17). Maybe they need to occupy their children's attention while working from home, doing a household chore or two or perhaps just to get a mental break — only to hear or see a questionable video playing before it can be that scenario sound familiar? For at least a segment of the population, this has led to an inherent distrust of YouTube's anything-goes, Wild West approach, which is absent from the sense of curation on conventional television networks or subscription streaming it's hard to overstate the role that the platform's unruly and frequently unmoderated comments section can play in the dissemination of misinformation, to say nothing of the targeted harassment that runs rampant on both the site itself and various third-party tools. Unfortunately, the monopolistic nature of our current tech landscape means that the chances of an upstart video streaming platform replacing the ubiquitous YouTube are slim to none, even if other sites and apps (such as Vimeo, to name the most obvious example) offer a far superior user experience. But never forget, it was once hard to imagine any social media website overtaking MySpace, and user enthusiasm for Google's search engine, has cooled of late. The combination of copious ads and insipid, unwanted and frequently inaccurate AI-powered results have sullied the latter brand, at least among users who are paying attention. Some people have begun to seek out alternate web searches, just as many fled the Elon Musk iteration of a similar migration for more ethical online video platforms in the realm of possibility? YouTube should make its algorithm safer for its youngest demographic to avoid finding out. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Jason Bailey is a film critic and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. He is the author, most recently, of "Gandolfini: Jim, Tony, and the Life of a Legend."
Time of India
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
YouTube's victory in the TV wars depends on parents
Bloomberg Live Events Here's a stat that might come as a shock to casual observers of the media ecosystem: The media company that commands the largest percentage of our eyeballs is not the mighty Netflix Inc., the Walt Disney Co. juggernaut or the omnipresent Amazon .com Inc. Prime. It's YouTube . The platform represents 12.4% of audiences' time spent watching television, according to Nielsen Holding Ltd.'s Media Distributor Gauge report for April. That beats Disney's 10.7% (which includes not only the platforms and channels that bear its name but ESPN and Hulu to boot), nearly doubles the 6.8% and 6.7% for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery , respectively, and pummels the puny 3.5% share for before we hail the platform as another nail in traditional TV's coffin, it needs to accomplish something else: earn the trust of its users, particularly are real problems with the way YouTube works and the suggestions it makes to viewers (especially younger ones). It sets the entertainment powerhouse up for the kind of backlash we're seeing against other dominant but problematic tech you're old enough to remember a pre-YouTube world or when the platform struggled through its initial era of low-res user-generated videos and one-joke viral breakouts, the idea of consuming media primarily through that portal sounds example, Gen Xers like me may use it as little more than a last resort destination: a place to find a clip from a movie that isn't streaming, an episode of a show that we forgot to DVR, the badly-dated music video for a song that was briefly popular when we were in high school or various other goofy little things that aren't substantial enough to exist anywhere I can also tell you, as the father of a tween, that this is not how younger people think of YouTube. For many of them, it (and other social media sites) is the window through which they see the world and the door though which they travel to find whatever they're seeking. The beauty of YouTube circa 2025 is that it has everything, from rentable movies to full, free seasons of television to vast musical archives to daily updates from your favorite horror of YouTube circa 2025 is also that it has everything, from unhinged conspiracy theories to casual racism and misogyny to hours-long videos of ideological indoctrination to sexually suggestive material. Its everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach might not be such a concern if the platform increased efforts (aside from the most basic and easily evadable parental controls) in keeping the scarier stuff viewers are in the thrall of the platform's problematic algorithm, which exists not to enhance the quality of the user experience but the quantity of it. In December, the company reported that people watched more than one billion hours of YouTube on TV daily. That time can often be spent not on the specific video that a user is seeking out but on the videos the platform's algorithm recommends and/or auto-plays at its now, there are well-known stories of how quickly the algorithm can steer viewers toward unrelated, or even worrisome, content. A much-shared 2019 New York Times story detailed the online radicalization of Caleb Cain, who 'fell down the alt-right rabbit hole' on YouTube. A year earlier, the company's then-product chief and now CEO said that the site's recommendations accounted for more than 70% of all time spent on YouTube. (Alphabet Inc.'s Google , YouTube's parent company, did not share updated metrics when asked by Bloomberg Opinion ahead of publication.)And while it may be uncommon for the platform to function as a full-stop radicalization machine — suggesting QAnon screeds to innocent cat video connoisseurs — it's hard to find a user (or a parent) who can't recall at least one head-scratching recommendation or ill-advised curiosity parents or guardians, for example, might turn on an age-appropriate show for their kids to watch on YouTube (there's a reason 28% of the platform's viewers are aged 2-17). Maybe they need to occupy their children's attention while working from home, doing a household chore or two or perhaps just to get a mental break — only to hear or see a questionable video playing before it can be that scenario sound familiar? For at least a segment of the population, this has led to an inherent distrust of YouTube's anything-goes, Wild West approach, which is absent from the sense of curation on conventional television networks or subscription streaming it's hard to overstate the role that the platform's unruly and frequently unmoderated comments section can play in the dissemination of misinformation, to say nothing of the targeted harassment that runs rampant on both the site itself and various third-party the monopolistic nature of our current tech landscape means that the chances of an upstart video streaming platform replacing the ubiquitous YouTube are slim to none, even if other sites and apps (such as Vimeo , to name the most obvious example) offer a far superior user never forget, it was once hard to imagine any social media website overtaking MySpace, and user enthusiasm for Google's search engine, has cooled of late. The combination of copious ads and insipid, unwanted and frequently inaccurate AI-powered results have sullied the latter brand, at least among users who are paying attention. Some people have begun to seek out alternate web searches, just as many fled the Elon Musk iteration of a similar migration for more ethical online video platforms in the realm of possibility? YouTube should make its algorithm safer for its youngest demographic to avoid finding column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its Bailey is a film critic and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. He is the author, most recently, of "Gandolfini: Jim, Tony, and the Life of a Legend."
