BSVUSDT
Bitcoin SV / Tether USD
crypto Composite

The fact you think I *must* form my opinions based on what youtubers tell me is why im saying youre projecting your ignorance.
Ok lets rewind to the bch fork
Some people think (incorrectly) that blocks need to be bigger. They do what they can to convince others of the same, as you say. So they change some code and fork. Now I own both btc and bch. If there was some big miner/exchange/whale effort to crash the value of one I still have the other, so i havnt really lost any value. Same with BTG, BSV, etc.
Also, notice that every hardfork is a sloppy fix for an issue bitcoin faces, it tries to fix a problem but introduces tradeoffs that arent worth it, or are at the very least, not obviously worth it. These hardforks are usually pushed by some personality. All hardforks are otp-in, which means it everyone who is pro-fork vs every who is anti, neutral, hesitant, and simply uninformed.
Objective upgrades like segwit, taproot are soft-forks because 
1. They upgrade with network with little to no tradeoffs
2. They are backwards compatable. Back in august 2017 chosing BCH could cost you everything (if you decided to sell btc, thinking its inferior) choosing to use segwit or not cost nothing, if you like it you can keep it, if not go back to pre-segwit addresses
Same with taproot
Good bitcoin upgrades take time, lots of smart people try to figure out how to upgrade the network in the most effecient, backwards compatible way possible.
Hardforks are simple ideas pushed by people with egos that blind them from the reality that their idea sucks and only "narrative followers" instead of people that think for themselves will join them. 

The fact you think I *must* form my opinions based on what youtubers tell me is why im saying youre projecting your ignorance.
Ok lets rewind to the bch fork
Some people think (incorrectly) that blocks need to be bigger. They do what they can to convince others of the same, as you say. So they change some code and fork. Now I own both btc and bch. If there was some big miner/exchange/whale effort to crash the value of one I still have the other, so i havnt really lost any value. Same with BTG, BSV, etc.
Also, notice that every hardfork is a sloppy fix for an issue bitcoin faces, it tries to fix a problem but introduces tradeoffs that arent worth it, or are at the very least, not obviously worth it. These hardforks are usually pushed by some personality. All hardforks are otp-in, which means it everyone who is pro-fork vs every who is anti, neutral, hesitant, and simply uninformed.
Objective upgrades like segwit, taproot are soft-forks because 
1. They upgrade with network with little to no tradeoffs
2. They are backwards compatable. Back in august 2017 chosing BCH could cost you everything (if you decided to sell btc, thinking its inferior) choosing to use segwit or not cost nothing, if you like it you can keep it, if not go back to pre-segwit addresses
Same with taproot
Good bitcoin upgrades take time, lots of smart people try to figure out how to upgrade the network in the most effecient, backwards compatible way possible.
Hardforks are simple ideas pushed by people with egos that blind them from the reality that their idea sucks and only "narrative followers" instead of people that think for themselves will join them. 

Mining is not very decentralized. Statistically, there are 7-9 equally powerful miners on both BTC and BCH (BSV was at 4). Long, Sishan, Soumya Basu, and Emin Gün Sirer. "Measuring miner decentralization in proof-of-work blockchains."*arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16058* (2022). This is a real issue, but the solution is not to ignore it and implement work arounds like a democratic vote of non-mining nodes. The solution is to decentralize mining & then make changes to bitcoin as the white paper laid out.