HOUSE STATION LIVE: A COLLECTIVE SABOTAGED
Of course, I edited and hosted most of the videos myself. But House Station Live was never meant to be the project of a lone individual. It was a collective—a platform to showcase young talent, not yet another vlog centered on my own persona. This YouTube channel was supposed to serve as the launch campaign for an ambitious webTV, broadcasting 24/7 on our own servers. An alternative to traditional media, with our rules, our voices, our style. But very quickly, I had to put House Station Live on hold. YouTube was too demanding. And paradoxically, it was the only way not to end up in debt.
¯
_
JOSÉ, DINOH, KÉVIN
I worked with several presenters:
- José, charismatic but without his own following,
- Dinoh, competent but limited by lack of visibility,
- And Kévin, a freelance editor I hired for some episodes.
I spent a tremendous amount of time organizing castings, looking for hosts, trying to convince people. But how do you persuade someone to represent a channel that gets 20 views—even with decent pay? Even "generous" payments weren’t enough to keep people motivated. Eventually, candidates dropped out.
¯
_
THE TRAP OF FULL-TIME COMMITMENT
I no longer had the means to produce both House Station Live and YouTube content in parallel. So I bet everything on the platform. YouTube consumed me. Managing production, editing, recruitment, technical direction, scheduling, testing formats, durations, themes, hosts—I tried it all:
- Videos from 1 to 50 minutes,
- On all kinds of topics: video games, Formula 1, news, reviews, let’s plays.
But convincing a freelancer to commit long-term at a low rate is a nightmare. I couldn’t afford to pay for many hours or high rates. My channel brought in zero revenue. I had nothing to reinvest.
¯
_
A TEAM SACRIFICED
And yet, I tried. House Station Live wasn’t just a personal project. It was a collective hope. A launchpad. Momentum. We wanted to build an audience ahead of time, so that once the set was ready, we could immediately produce, publish, and exist. But in reality, YouTube swiped us away with a single gesture—like a Tinder match rejected with a left swipe. And it cost them nothing. No time. No money. No emotional weight.
¯
_
A CHANNEL, A GRINDER
YouTube contributes nothing to the creation of videos. It has no personal interest in whether your content finds its audience. The algorithm sorts, tests, eliminates. It's math-driven, disembodied, dehumanized. And the creator falls alone. On TV, you don’t air a million-euro show at 4 a.m. There’s programming, a respect for what’s been produced. On YouTube, no distinction: whether your video cost €10,000 or €0, it’s treated the same.
¯
_
A FRUSTRATED AUDIENCE, A BROKEN CREATOR
13-year-old trolls watch your content for 5 seconds, dislike your face, and move on. The algorithm knows this—and exploits it. It drives hatred and constant frustration, so you keep trying harder. For nothing. And if you dare believe your freshness, creativity, and sincerity will resonate... you crash into a machine that despises who you are.
¯
#IndieCreators #CollectiveMedia #YouTubeStruggles #DigitalBurnout #PlatformExploitation #SmallCreators #CreatorEconomy #HopeSabotaged
