Archive for 2025:

YouTube and Creators HQ launch their first MENA creator academy in the leadup to 1 Billion Followers Summit

YouTube has officially partnered with Creators HQ, the United Arab Emirates’ makerspace and creator biz dev/educational organization that’s dedicated to bringing 10,000 new content creators into the region.

Together, the duo are launching the first YouTube Academy in the Middle East & North Africa–a program that will “supercharg[e] our commitment to creators by bringing our exclusive workshops to even more talent across the region,” Javid Aslanov, Google’s Head of YouTube MENA, said in a LinkedIn post.

He added that the Academy is aimed to “specifically help emerging creators stand out by moving beyond generic advice and providing them with actionable, in-depth knowledge across content production, analytics and community-building.”

The end goal, per Aslanov, is to give MENA-based creators “the keys to a thriving career on YouTube.”

And those keys will include topics like how to master YouTube’s multiple formats (long-form, Shorts, livestreams, etc), how to reach audiences across devices (living room TV, mobile, etc), understanding its monetization tools (ads, brand deals, and more), dissecting YouTube Studio’s channel analytics, and strategies for community-building.

“YouTube Academy is a powerful symbol of our shared commitment with Creators HQ to fostering an environment that nurtures creativity, innovation, and sustainable career growth for content creators across MENA,” Aslanov said.

Alia AlHammadi, Vice Chairperson of the UAE Government Media Office and CEO of 1 Billion Followers Summit, added, “We believe that our collaboration with YouTube will empower content creators with the skills and expertise needed to build a thriving creative community. This will support the content economy in the UAE and the region while solidifying the UAE’s position as a global hub for creativity.”

She describes the Academy as a “comprehensive educational programme designed to enhance creators’ capabilities” that will help “[ensure] a more stable and sustainable future in this rapidly growing sector.”

The Academy kicks off in the leadup to 1 Billion Followers Summit 2026, which is expected to bring tens of thousands of digital content creators and industry experts to the Emirates Towers, Museum of the Future, and the International Financial Center in Dubai for three days of biz dev programming and networking.

Tickets for 1 Billion Followers Summit are available here.

 

1 Billion Followers Summit is a Tubefilter partner.

Have you heard? Hasan Piker has words for Charlie Kirk, Glitch Productions has a new show, and Gary Vee gets Stan

Each week, we handpick a selection of stories to give you a snapshot of trends, updates, business moves, and more from around the creator industry.

This week, Hasan Piker gets an op-ed, Owl House maker Dana Terrace is behind Glitch Productions’ new show, and Gary Vee is launching a mentorship program.

Creator commotion

Hasan Piker didn’t get a chance to debate Charlie Kirk. But he knows what he would’ve said, if he’d been able to.

The folks behind The Amazing Digital Circus and The Owl House have a new show out. Knights of Guinevere is Glitch Productions’ first foray into 2D animation–a psychological thriller from creator Dana Terrace that’s set in a theme park where everything is not as seems. The debut episode just dropped on YouTube, and fans can expect more installments (all free) to roll out from Glitch’s channel in the coming months.

Ashley Alexander is making millions with the matcha craze. The YouTuber who goes by urmomashley got herself 1.8 million subscribers by vlogging her life–and when she noticed viewers were really into her matcha videos, she used that to launch her own brand, Nami Matcha. Since its July 2024 debut, she’s sold $2.5 million worth of products, and is currently expanding her team with new hires. Now that’s tea.

Family vlogger Missy Lanning is making bookshelves sweet. Her first book, Once Upon a Chocolate Chip Cookie, is the first release from Lanning and husband Bryan’s self-publishing company Bake-Along Books, and combines storytelling with a recipe for parents and kids to make together. Lanning raised ~$30,000 on Kickstarter to make Once Upon a Chocolate Chip Cookie happen, and will start shipping preorders in November.

Rebecca Zamolo and Matt Slays are asking big cash for their big house. The creator couple listed their 7,100+ square foot house in Los Angeles for $7.5 million. The reason they’re moving? The arrival of their second baby, a son named Zander.

Platform headlines

Newsletter builder Beehiiv is now integrated with YouTube. Cofounder/CEO Tyler Denk hyped the move as a way for creators to loop their audience traffic from newsletter to video and back and bee-yond (sorry, we couldn’t help ourselves).

Zigazoo is partnering with pocket.watch. The family-and-kids social network now has official channels for creators like Toys and Colors and Love, Diana. “For the first time, kids will not only watch their favorite pocket.watch stars, but also interact, create, and have two-way conversations with them through Zigazoo’s challenge-based, video-first format,” Zigazoo and pocket.watch said.

The biz

Gary Vaynerchuk goes Stan. Vee has invested in creator storefront company Stan Store, and as part of the deal, is starting “The GaryVee Stan Challenge”–an eight-week mentorship program. 15 creators who take part will be chosen to visit the VaynerMedia offices for half a day and “get the opportunity to meet with Vaynerchuk.”

Epidemic Sound goes AI. The royalty-free, creator-aimed music platform has introduced Adapt, which will let creators use generative “AI” to edit artist’s tracks to their likings. We’re not sure artists will be keen on having their work fed into the machine learning meat grinder, and are also not surprised Epidemic, like basically every other platform and company right now, is pushing AI into its product. That being said, Epidemic Sound CEO Oscar Höglund says Adapt is “a tool to amplify artistry, not replace it.” He also notes the company is expanding its “compensation model with a new bonus pool where artists are paid each time their track is adapted.”

The internet is a strange place

LimeWire is still around, and it just bought Fyre Fest. Not a string of words we thought we’d ever see, but here we are. LimeWire (yes, that LimeWire) paid $250K for the Fyre Festival brand, which creator Billy McFarland sold after (a) getting out of jail and (b) failing to get Fyre Fest 2.0 off the ground.

Meta is paying developers $2.5 million to make mobile games for Horizon

Meta might not be as gung-ho on the ‘verse that changed its name these days, but it’s still pouring money into Horizon, the virtual reality destination that was supposed to be its foothold in the internet of the future.

Infamously legless Horizon has always had ties to Meta’s VR arm Oculus, whose devices are used to access its interconnected web of virtual entertainment, meeting, etc spaces. But as fervor around the metaverse has died off (and, crucially, people have returned to the office, when a big part of Meta’s pitch was facilitating workspaces during social distancing) Meta has shifted focus to the gaming side of Horizon.

And it really, really wants other people to do that, too.

So much so that it’s offering $2.5 million to creators who make polished, “genre-focused” games for deployment in Horizon.

With a new Horizon Creator Competition, it’s asking developers to make games that will work “seamlessly” across both VR headsets and mobile devices–not a surprise considering how into mobile games competitors like TikTok and YouTube have been. (In fact, YouTube just pushed its mobile game division, Playables, by encouraging streamers to play them for viewers via its new virtual/horizontal simulstreaming tool.)

What’s interesting is that Meta says it will accept all genres of game, but is especially seeking titles like the ones we’ve seen get popular on Roblox in recent years. It mentions “simulation” games, like tycoon titles and incrementals where users tap/click on assets to generate XP/revenue to push them to the next level, as well as “roleplay & avatar sim” games, with a specific mention for dress-up games (hello, Dress to Impress).

Meta says it will judge submitted titles by their visual and sound designs, their user experience designs, their overall technical expertise, and by how social experiences are wrapped in. There’s one last requirement, which will make a lot of sense considering Facebook–er, Meta–is very big on bandwagoning: Developers must use “at least one GenAI feature in building your world.”

Devs behind the top four games will each get $200,000. The remaining $1.7 million will be divvied up between 31 devs “across multiple exciting categories,” Meta said in an announcement.

Those who want to participate must have their games finished and sent in by Oct. 30. Winners will be announced by Nov. 13.

This competition makes sense to us. Meta wants to chase the audience that’s spending millions of hours in (and millions of dollars on) Roblox games. It also wants to challenge the mobile game craze on YouTube and TikTok, and push its AI ambitions. We’re always in favor of platforms putting more money directly into creators’ pockets–but we’re curious where Meta will go from here. Which audience will it chase? What shiny thing will keep its attention?

YouTube is taking over TV viewership in the U.K. Legacy broadcasters are not happy about it.

Public broadcasters in the U.K. are facing stiff competition from YouTube both on TV and online, and as a result want regulators to force YouTube to give them more money and more prominence on its own platform.

Like it does in the U.S., YouTube has a massive TV presence in the U.K. It’s second only in living room TV watch time to the BBC, with viewers watching an average of 39 minutes per day of content in 2024. YouTube has seen some pushback against its dominance in the U.S., but mostly in verbal form, and from streaming competitors like Netflix, whose CEO Ted Sarandos has made no secret of his distaste.

The U.K., however, tends to be more regulation-happy with social media (as seen by the recent push for age verification that has U.S. digital rights groups concerned), so it’s no surprise broadcasters feeling financial pressure are asking organizations to make YouTube share its toys.

OK, we’re being a little facetious there, but we’ve been tracking for years how legacy entertainment industries are struggling to connect with audiences while creator-led platforms continue to grow. Creators are more in touch with their audiences, less strangleheld by decisions from studio executives, and have that magic quality going for them: relatability. They are a new age of entertainment, and legacy industries can learn from and embrace them.

It helps that their content tends to be free.

As The Guardian reports, viewers in the U.K. have to pay £174.50 for annual licenses to watch network TV; the BBC has seen a consistent fall in the number of licenses paid for per year, a pattern that matches general cord-cutting everywhere as TV gets more expensive, and cheaper options (aka YouTube and TikTok) become more available.

U.K. broadcasters are jostling for space on TVs and online. The BBC, S4C, STV, Alba, and other public broadcasters have come together in a complaint that centers around forcing YouTube to give their content increased visibility and revenue across viewership devices.

“We need our public service broadcasters to stand out in a crowded online world,” the broadcasters said in a joint statement. “That means action to ensure our content is prominent on devices and platforms where audiences spend their time—not just smart TVs but also video-sharing platforms like YouTube, and on fair commercial terms that don’t undermine our ability to deliver our remit.”

Dame Carolyn McCall, the chief exec at ITV, added in a conference speech that there is “no point us being told we have to go on [digital] platforms when actually the pay aways are so high that it makes it completely uneconomic. We all know there’s not infinite sources of ad revenue. So fair value […] is going to be critical.”

Channel 4‘s lead exec Jonathan Allan also chimed in, saying broadcasters are “very happy to work with YouTube on that without regulation, but in the end, we probably do need some regulation. […] It’s very different being a creator in your bedroom versus a big broadcaster like this.”

We think that statement significantly undersells modern creators. Yes, YouTube started with creators in their bedrooms, but these days it’s a $250 billion industry, with creators making multithousand- and multimillion-dollar investments into individual videos. They have production teams of dozens and partnerships with some of the biggest brands in the world. If broadcasters are thinking of YouTubers as their competition while simultaneously relegating them to all being “a creator in a bedroom,” well…we’ve got news for them.

One part of the broadcasters’ complaint echoes concerns from both creators and viewers: the amount of misinformation on social platforms.

Broadcasters said they want YouTube to give them more prominence because “we need trusted, independent journalism to thrive.”

“This includes promoting impartial news on the platforms young people use, and securing the right deals with social media companies that promote accurate reporting and combat misinformation,” they said.

Their capstone comment? “These [digital platforms] may be impressive businesses but they are driven by profit, not purpose. Most of their content is not subject to the same safeguards and regulatory standards as ours. They have no mandate to contribute to the shared social fabric of the U.K.”

Because they are contributing to “the shared social fabric,” these broadcasters deserve a bigger revenue cut from YouTube, they say. Right now, they’re getting the standard 55% cut of ad money generated by their uploads.

It’s possible YouTube might be willing to work with them. The platform has already put systems in place to prioritize news content (in search, recommended, Watch Next, etc) from trusted publishers around hot-button topics like elections, so it may view a new deal as an expansion of its efforts. (Then again, it’s also told moderators to ease up on removing videos with misinformation.)

The path forward from here likely involves Ofcom, the U.K.’s regulator for broadcasting, internet, telecommunications, and postal industries. The Guardian reports Ofcom has “signaled” acceptance of broadcasters’ desires to push back against the platform, which could result in an official investigation and mediating negotiations between YouTube and broadcasters.

MrBeast, Salish Matter, Anthony Padilla, and Ian Hecox soar into ‘Angry Birds 3’

Maybe there’s something in the American Dream mall air…Two creators who held shutout events there are now set with roles in The Angry Birds Movie 3.

MrBeast and Salish Matter have joined the cast, and they aren’t the only YouTubers present: Smosh founders Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox are reprising their roles from previous Angry Birds films as Hal and Bubbles, respectively.

They’ll join a roster of Hollywood names, include Jason Sudeikis, Keke Palmer, Josh Gad, Rachel Bloom, and Danny McBride.

It’s not a surprise these two were chosen: Both MrBeast (aka Jimmy Donaldson) and Matter have had minor voice roles in previous productions. Donaldson picked up small bits in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, Under the Boardwalk, Kung Fu Panda 4, and Love, Death & Robots, while Matter was “Kraken Kid” in 2023’s Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken.

We don’t know yet what parts they’ll play in the Angry Birds threequel, but considering studio Paramount Pictures made a special announcement about them alongside Padilla and Hecox, we’ll bet it’s more than bit roles.

Here at Tubefilter, we’ve written copiously about the hows and whys of Hollywood increasingly looking to online platforms like YouTube and TikTok for fresh injections of talent at all levels of filmmaking. MrBeast is the top-watched YouTuber in the entire world, and Matter proved with her recent skincare debut that she commands attention from thousands of preteens and teenagers. Paramount might be hoping their digital star power can pull Angry Birds 3‘s numbers up from the previous sequel, which box officed at $152 million globally compared to the original film’s $352 million.

Will people turn up at theaters just to hear their favorite creators? Probably. And Paramount might get a glimpse of Donaldson’s animated power in the months between now and The Angry Birds 3‘s Dec. 23 release date, thanks to the cartoon series MrBeast Lab: The Descent. It’s a production partnership between Donaldson’s team and Moose Toys, the toy company behind MrBeast’s Swarms figures, and will premiere on YouTube Shorts in October.

Fortnite challenges Roblox with in-game item sales, zero revenue split through 2027

Fortnite is coming after Roblox with a new update for developers/creators that will let them make and sell in-game items to its tens of millions of players.

Roblox, as you may know, shelled out nearly $1 billion to developers in 2024, paying them their cut for creating and selling social spaces, games, and items on its platform. Fortnite–through its Creative mode–also lets developers use its engine to make and publish hangout spaces/games called Islands, and it pays them based on how much engagement their spaces generate. But up until now, Fortnite has been missing out on the booming digital item market, where Roblox has been thriving.

On Roblox, devs can sell all kinds of items, from environmental assets (like trees, weather patterns, and city decor that fellow game-makers can simply buy and drop into their own creations) to outfits for players’ avatars.

Roblox doesn’t break down creator payouts, so we don’t know how much of that ~$930 million it paid in 2024 was generated by items vs other monetization streams. But we do know Roblox views this as a valuable part of its platform, because during its recent Roblox Developers Conference, it announced its turn on the AI bandwagon involves launching tools to let in-game item developers splurt out functional items like cars and weapons via text prompting.

Fortnite seems to recognize the value, too–and wants to pitch itself as a direct competitor for creators’ attention.

In a company blog post, it said introducing item sales this coming December means “opening up new revenue potential [for creators], in addition to receiving engagement payouts.”

Developers will be able to make both “durable items and consumable items,” it added. Durables are things like skins and weapons, which players can keep and use over and over, while consumables are used once to give a player something specific, like a power-up, then disappear from inventory. (Consumables could also refer to loot boxes, which are technically consumed when opened…)

As for pitching itself against Roblox, Fortnite is coming out swinging: As part of this item-sales debut, it’s dropping the cut it takes of developers’ sales (all sales, not just item sales) from 50% to 0% through the end of 2026, letting them earn more cash from their creations.

That comes with a slight caveat/explanation. Fortnite doesn’t take a straight 50% of government currency. Instead, it takes 50% of the V-Bucks value of a creator’s sales.

Here’s its rundown of how the system works:

“To determine the V-Bucks value in US dollars in a given month, we take all customer real-money spending to purchase V-Bucks (converted to US Dollars), subtract platform and store fees (ranging from 12% on Epic Games Store to 30% on current consoles), and divide it by the total V-Bucks spent by players. Fortnite’s average platform and store fees are currently 26% (with specific fees ranging from 12% on the Epic Games Store to 30% on console platforms).”

Basically, with all this considered, “50% of V-Bucks value translates to ~37% of retail spending, and 100% of V-Bucks value translates to ~74%,” Fortnite says.

Meaning even though it’s dropping its cut to 0%, creators still won’t make 100% of what’s spent on their games and items. Through the end of December 2026, they’ll receive around 74% of what players spend, and after Fortnite begins taking its cut again, they’ll make around 37%.

In its blog post, Fortnite directly compares those figures to Roblox, where developers/creators currently cash out around 25% of the retail spend on their experiences/games/items. (Worth noting, however, that Roblox also used RDC to announce a creator pay bump that’ll push developers from earning $350 per 100,000 Robux spent in their games to $380/100,000. That won’t bring it in line with Fortnite‘s percentage, but it’s better, and maybe indicates Roblox knew this was coming.)

In-game item sales aren’t the only monetization change creators have to anticipate. Fortnite also announced it’s tweaking its engagement payout system to “better reward creators for bringing in new or reengaging lapsed players in Fortnite.”

“Creators that bring in new or lapsed players will receive 75% of those players’ contributions to the engagement payout pool for their first six months. We’ll also factor in signals from direct links, in-game search usage, and first-day playtime patterns when attributing new and lapsed players to an island,” it said. “Additionally, the retention component of engagement payouts will now reward island-specific retention, rather than ecosystem-wide retention to better align with creators’ own efforts in growing this metric.”

Another big change to the engagement system: Fortnite now only counts engagement from players who have made at least one purchase on their account. This, it says, is to combat fraudulent engagement boosting.

Last up is a way for developers to game Fortnite‘s content discovery system. This November, the platform is introducing a “Sponsored Row” shelf on its Discover page. Creators will be able to bid on Sponsored Row spots, and whoever wins will get their Island to display for all users who check out Discover.

Fortnite says Sponsored Row will pay off for creators not just in visibility, but in cash, too.

“Long-term, 50% of sponsorship revenue generated by Sponsored Row will go into the engagement payout pool, boosting the pool size for all creators,” it explained. “From launch through the end of 2026, this rate will be 100%.”

How do online platforms contribute to radicalization? The House is asking tech CEOs to answer.

Several recent events are sending several Big Tech firms back to Washington, D.C. James Comer (R-KY), the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has invited the CEOs of Discord, Twitch, Reddit, and Valve to appear before the House of Representatives and answer questions related to the topic of online radicalization.

As worldwide adoption of free-to-use platforms like Discord and Reddit has increased, those hubs have reshaped global politics. Nowhere is this truth clearer than in Nepal, where a Gen Z-led protest movement resulted in the first national election held via Discord. The outgoing Nepalese government attempted to restrict access to social media, but the will and organizational speed of protesters proved too powerful to contain.

As momentous as the Discord election was, it is not the main incident that led Comer to summon some of America’s leading tech CEOs. Rather, the House Oversight Committee is looking to gather more context about the radicalization of Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old who has been charged with the murder of conservative political organizer Charlie Kirk.

Kirk, who was an influential figure on the internet in his own right, was assassinated at a campus event in Utah on September 10. Bullet casings found at the scene of the crime referenced popular soundbites and memes, underscoring Robinson’s close connection with certain online gaming communities. The companies named in Comer’s invitation all have ties to gaming culture: Twitch streams gameplay, Discord is a common chat option for multiplayer matches, Reddit’s gaming hubs rank among its biggest subreddits, and developer Valve owns Steam, a popular distribution service for both indie and AAA titles.

Even though Comer chose to “invite” the chosen tech CEOs rather than mandating their appearance before Congress, his statement feels just as strong as those that preceded contentious tech-related hearings on Capitol Hill. “Congress has a duty to oversee the online platforms that radicals have used to advance political violence,” Comer said. “To prevent future radicalization and violence, the CEOs of Discord, Steam, Twitch, and Reddit must appear before the Oversight Committee and explain what actions they will take to ensure their platforms are not exploited for nefarious purposes.”

The hearing is scheduled for October 8. C-SPAN junkies can expect some fireworks on that date, just like the ones they saw when TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew sparred with regulators in 2023. If you follow these hearings closely, you know what to expect from the upcoming House Oversight Committee session: There will be feisty exchanges and questions about the responsibilities — if any — that are held at the platform level. It may make for good TV; whether it ends up influencing public policy is anyone’s guess.

Disney fined $10 million for failing to label YouTube videos as “made for kids”

Back in 2019, as part of its $170 million child privacy and safety settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, YouTube placed sweeping new restrictions on kids’ content. Videos aimed at children were no longer allowed to serve personalized/targeted ads, any ads that were served weren’t allowed to collect viewers’ personal data, and public comments were turned off.

In the wake of those restrictions clamping down, some creators in niches like toys, video games, and animation have complained their content being unfairly caught in the sweep. Their videos aren’t aimed at a young audience, but YouTube’s systems don’t appear to be smart enough to tell the difference between toy videos made for kids and something like a Gundam figure review made by a collector for fellow adults.

That being said, it’s rare that we see cases going the other way, where videos that should be marked as for kids aren’t. So we haven’t had to wrestle with one potential conundrum: What happens if YouTube is doing what it agreed to do, but an individual creator fails to use the provided child privacy tools correctly? Are they liable for COPPA-violating data collection if a video is improperly marked for adults when it’s really for kids?

Turns out the answer is yes, and we now know that thanks to Disney.

The Mouse House has agreed to pay its own $10 million fine to the FTC for failing to label its YouTube videos as made for kids, thus resulting in ad data being collected from users under 13.

The FTC’s complaint alleged that Disney had a corporate policy to designate individual channels as either ‘made for kids’ or ‘not made for kids,” instead of individual videos. This resulted in channels like those for Disney+, Pixar, and Walt Disney Studios, all of which produce some trailers, behind-the-scenes footage, etc, that could be aimed at adults, being broadly labeled as ‘not for kids.’

But, the FTC says, sometimes Disney did upload content to those channels that was made for kids. And, when it did that, it didn’t change the videos’ individual labels–it just went with the default channel label for all of them, resulting in videos incorrectly being labeled as ‘not made for kids.’

Examples it cited included clips from franchises like Toy Story, Cars, and Frozen (uh oh). The FTC’s complaint alleged that because Disney didn’t label these clips properly, YouTube was “able to collect persistent identifiers from the children watching them and use that data to serve targeted advertising,” attorney Franklin Graves wrote for Creator Economy Law.

Disney also earned revenue from the higher-priced, targeted ads that were run on those clips, the FTC said.

Additional notes in the complaint said Disney caused “downstream harms” by exposing kids to public comment sections and causing other ‘not made for kids’ channels to be served up to child viewers via YouTube’s autoplay Watch Next feature.

YouTube apparently warned Disney in 2020 that it had reclassified over 300 of the Mouse House’s uploads from ‘not made for kids’ to ‘made for kids,’ but Disney still didn’t change its channel-wide policy.

“This case underscores the FTC’s commitment to enforcing COPPA, which was enacted by Congress to ensure that parents, not companies like Disney, make decisions about the collection and use of their children’s personal information online,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in a statement. “Our order penalizes Disney’s abuse of parents’ trust, and, through a mandated video-review program, makes room for the future of protecting kids online-age assurance technology.”

Like YouTube’s, Disney’s FTC settlement comes with more than a multimillion-dollar payment as penalty. Per the terms, it’s required to form an Audience Designation Program that will manually review each video it publishes to YouTube and apply a ‘made for kids’ or ‘not made for kids’ label. That means no more channel-wide labeling.

Now, does this settlement mean the FTC will come after every individual creator who fails to properly label a YouTube video? Probably not. Disney is a massive entertainment conglomerate that was pumping out hundreds of videos and (allegedly) flagrantly ignoring at least one warning from YouTube to make sure it abided by COPPA. A creator who mistakenly mislabels a video might get a “Hey, don’t do that” from YouTube, but likely won’t wind up with the FTC on their doorstep.

However, this should be a wake-up call to any creators who do make large amounts of kids’ content and consistently fail to label it, or have been operating on a similar channal-labeling-instead-of-video-labeling system. The FTC has made it clear: If you choose not to use the child privacy tools YouTube provides, it won’t come after YouTube.

It’ll come after you.

MrBeast who? When “reach” replaces views, ‘Saturday Night Live’ becomes the top U.S. YouTube channel.

Close your eyes and envision the channel you see as the most popular YouTube hub based in the United States. You may think of MrBeast’s eye-popping spectacles, Ms. Rachel’s kid-friendly tunes, or Alan Chikin Chow’s sprawling content empire, but if your mental image didn’t include Coneheads, Californians, or David S. Pumpkins, then you thought wrong.

According to research shared by Digital i, the official Saturday Night Live hub had the highest reach among all U.S.-based YouTube channels during the first half of 2025. Via YouTube, NBC’s venerable sketch comedy program connected with 38.6 million unique viewers across that six-month period.

Previous Digital i reports have covered topics like original content and streaming services. The software company’s findings sometimes run contrary to popular wisdom, and that seems to be the case here. Despite the creator economy’s rising cultural import, Digital i’s reach ranking is dominated by media companies. News networks (ABC News, NBC News, ) claimed six spots in the top ten, with the other four positions going to entertainment destinations (SNL, YouTube Movies, Netflix, and the NFL).

To be clear, the totals here are meant to omit repeat viewership and hits that come from automated sources like viewbots. That formula explains why news organizations fared so well in Digital i’s accounting: They’re channels that are designed for one-off visits rather than repeated viewing of specific videos.

In the case of SNL, a prosperous YouTube push has been supported by several platform-wide trends. SNL was already one of the most-watched YouTube channels before the advent of Shorts, and the popularity of comedy clips within short-form feeds presented NBC with a golden opportunity to repackage classic bits as vertical video uploads.

With its multiformat YouTube strategy in place, SNL headed into its 50th season, which hit its peak during the six-month period measured for the Digital i report. The 50th anniversary special was tailor-made for viewership on TV screens, where much YouTube traffic now flows. Digital i noted that TV screens outpaced other YouTube viewership locales during the first half of 2025.

So, to recap: SNL offers a rare combination of traditional media resources and short-form cultural tastes. No wonder the show continues to find new cast members online. That’s where its viewers are, and it is meeting them on their turf.

As for “reach,” it isn’t an agreed-upon stat, but in the age of generative AI, the measurement favored by Digital i starts to look more suitable. There’s fakery everywhere on YouTube, from its creators right down to its viewers. If, as a result, view counts are going to be artificially inflated, then perhaps analysts are right to look elsewhere for a preferred metric.

Creator-curated storefronts hit the mainstream thanks to brands like Sephora and Condé Nast

Many consumers turn to platforms like YouTube and TikTok in search of product recommendations from their favorite creators. Most brands are happy to capitalize on those interactions through sponsorships and other forms of influencer marketing, but an increasing number of businesses are looking to bring that exchange onto their owned-and-operated hubs.

In recent days, two separate companies — one in the retail sector and another in the world of media — have announced new products that will foster the development of creator-curated storefronts that exist outside of social feeds. Sephora is expanding its ecommerce operation through a venture called My Sephora, while Condé Nast is ramping up its creator-centric activity with an upcoming app called Vette.

With Vette, Condé Nast is looking to combine the basic structure of an affiliate marketing campaign with the flexibility and efficiency of creator-curated hubs. When Vette launches in early 2026, it will equip editors and influencers the tools they need to set up boutique ecommerce destinations. Lisa Aiken, Condé Nast’s SVP of Commerce, described the platform as “a new route to market” that can drive sales without requiring foot traffic, direct-to-consumer actions, or clunky affiliate marketing links.

My Sephora brings a similar setup to the realm of beauty products. The platform’s users, described as “creators and influencers,” will be able to curate storefronts that will live on the Sephora website.

Condé Nast and Sephora will join the other brands that have launched creator programs to beget digital storefronts. Two notable adopters of that strategy are Best Buy and Dick’s Sporting Goods, who are following commercial trends into the creator economy.

Those moves are predicated on research that shows the power of the creator-fan relationship. Among younger generations, many consumers trust creators more than brand voices. As influencer marketing campaigns look for more cost efficiency, brands are turning to digital storefronts to leverage the perceived closeness between creators and their followers.

Sephora President and CEO Artemis Patrick invoked the power of creator trust when she announced My Sephora at the Fast Company Innovation Festival. “Whether it’s the app, desktop or mobile, they can just go on, they create it and it’s shoppable and right, and it’s a very seamless experience, and it’s very, very authentic for both the creator and the consumer,” Patrick said.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Fast Company (@fastcompany)

Perilous economic conditions could bring significant changes to the creator economy, but for now, the ecommerce iron is hot — and brands are striking. If you’re finding that more of your purchases are coming through curated storefronts, the latest updates from major consumer-facing brands will show you that you’re not alone.

Digital platforms are introducing new age verification systems to keep kids safer online. Lawmakers are taking it even further.

Twitch is the latest platform to roll out amped-up age verification systems and policies amid mounting concern over children’s safety online.

YouTube recently introduced a system that will use machine learning to parse a user’s search and watch activity, and will automatically apply age restrictions if it believes a user is under 18. (If a user gets mistakenly flagged as a minor, they can prove their age by submitting a government-issued ID—a solution that’s drawn criticism from people like VTubers, who are worried their personal information will be leaked.)

Meanwhile Roblox, facing several lawsuits from families of children who were abused and in some cases kidnapped by men who found them on its platform, introduced a system where users have to send in videos of their faces and sometimes government IDs to prove they’re age 17 or older. Users who haven’t verified their ages are not allowed in games or spaces that have “private” locations like bedrooms and bathrooms, nor virtual bars or clubs.

Twitch’s new system requires users to submit a live scan of their face when they sign in; it uses facial recognition tech to judge the person’s age based on how they look.

Now, an important note: This system is only being implemented in the U.K. in accordance with the Online Safety Act, a law that requires users to be 18 years old in order to access what it refers to as potentially “harmful” content. “Harmful” broadly covers things like graphic imagery–which could include video game violence–but, as digital/personal rights advocacy org Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, it can also be subjectively applied to content some people wouldn’t consider “family friendly,” like LGBTQ+ discussions.

Per the Online Safety Act, people who fail Twitch’s facial scan age verification and cannot otherwise prove their age will not be able to access the platform.

Twitch assured users their scan data won’t be used for anything else: “To protect your privacy, Twitch and k-ID (a third-party vendor we partner with to verify your age) do not store your face scan video selfies,” it said. “The video selfie used for facial age estimation is analyzed entirely on your device and will never leave it.”

It’s not clear if users will have to scan their face every time they log in, or if this will be a one-time thing, like YouTube and Roblox’s age verification systems.

The Online Safety Act and Twitch’s new system may only be of consequence to people in the U.K. for now, but again, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, this could be a glimpse of America’s digital future.

“Nearly half of U.S. states have some sort of online age restrictions in place already, and the Supreme Court recently paved the way for even more age blocks on online sexual content,” the EFF said. “But Americans—including those under 18—still have a First Amendment right to view content that is not sexually explicit, and EFF will continue to push back against any legislation that expands the age mandates beyond porn, in statehouses, in courts, and in the streets.”

The latest age verification law comes out of New York, where Attorney General Letitia James recently unveiled proposed rules for the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) For Kids Act. Called SAFE for short, the law (which was passed in June 2024) doesn’t so much target “harmful” content, but the algorithms platforms use to dish out any and all content. It applies to all platforms that use automated systems to surface/recommend user-generated content, as well as have users who “spend at least 20 percent of their time on the platform’s addictive feeds.” That’s YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and more.

If it keeps the proposed rules, SAFE would require all platforms to serve users under 18 a chronological feed of posts instead of one that’s interest-driven and geared at encouraging further engagement. Platforms would also have to turn off notifications between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.

The law states that if a platform cannot verify a user’s age for whatever reason, it must serve them the chronological feed + no nighttime notifications by default. SAFE notes that platforms can verify users’ ages via a “number of different methods, as long as the methods are shown to be effective and protect users’ data.” They must, however, provide at least one alternative to government ID, like a face scan.

“Children and teenagers are struggling with high rates of anxiety and depression because of addictive features on social media platforms,” Attorney General James said in a statement. “The proposed rules released by my office today will help us tackle the youth mental health crisis and make social media safer for kids and families.”

SAFE, though passed, will not take effect for at least another year and a half. There is a 60-day period for the public to comment on proposed rules, then a further 12-month period for the Office of the Attorney General to finalize said rules. Once the rules are set in stone, it’ll be another 180 days before SAFE goes live.

As The Verge notes, this already lengthy process could be complicated by pushback from orgs like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has called SAFE “an assault on free speech” and alleged that in practice, the law would “block adults from content they have a First Amendment right to access.”

Digital platforms have struggled to protect children’s safety since they first came online, but with our increasingly fraught political climate and documented instances of children being harmed on platforms that claim to have robust safety mechanisms, the situation is tougher than ever. Effectively protecting kids from predators is a must—but at the same time, the systems being set in place to do so could be co-opted by those who want to broaden the definition of “harmful content.”

For now, we’ll have to see how things pan out in the U.K.

The TikTok ban got delayed again, but Trump says the deal to create new, U.S.-owned app is done

If you’ve been following the long, drawn-out saga of the U.S. government’s attempt to shake up TikTok‘s ownership, then I have bad news and good news for you: The bad news is that President Donald Trump has yet again pushed back the start date for the Biden-era TikTok ban, but the good news is that this reprieve looks like it will be the last one.

As the president meets with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Madrid, he is informing the public that his deal to reshape TikTok’s U.S. operations is done. “We have a deal on TikTok, I’ve reached a deal with China, I’m going to speak to President Xi on Friday to confirm everything up,” Trump said.

The added negotiation time will require another legislative delay. The law that would require ByteDance to either divest TikTok or take it out of the U.S. was scheduled to take effect on September 17, but Trump’s latest extension pushes the start date back to December 16 — giving the White House more than enough time to shake on the rumored deal.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the negotiations are indeed in the final stages, with a consortium that includes Oracle, Andreessen Horowitz, and Silver Lake set to take control of about 80% of a new app. The new company’s board is expected to be dominated by Americans, and engineers will be tasked with creating a new content recommendation algorithm that uses technology licensed from ByteDance. That would allow the White House to deliver on the “Chinese characteristics” it promised to include in the new app.

In other words, the incoming deal sounds a lot like a proposed agreement discussed in a July report in The Information. According to that article, TikTok is testing an app that is codenamed M2. After completing the app, TikTok would start ferrying U.S. users over there, with the original U.S. version of TikTok remaining active into 2026.

Though TikTok reps argued that the M2 report was inaccurate, the latest reports line up with the coverage from July. There are also similarities between the current deal framework and Project Texas, TikTok’s long-term plan to install an American watchdog to oversee the data of the app’s U.S. users. Oracle has often been cited as the company that would occupy that role, and its inclusion among the list of potential buyers has had a positive effect on its stock price.

The Wall Street Journal noted that the details of the deal could still change. Given how many twists there have been in this story — and how reticent China has seemed regarding a potential TikTok spinoff — I won’t be convinced until an official announcement comes through.