Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 259 posts

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#171

Post by wisty »

username90 wrote: post #131
dmoy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So for a few million views (==3m?), that translates to $600-$12,000? huh, I would not have guessed that. But I also have no concept of how much a few million views is for a typical content creator.

A typical full time content creator creates a new video per day. To go full time you'd need a couple of thousand per month, lets say $2,000. With these numbers that is 500k to 8 million views a month, or around 15k to 350k views a video. That might not sound like a lot, but given that it is for the entire world you can fit basically any niche within those numbers. Go full time crushing things with an hydraulic press?…

> That might not sound like a lot, but given that it is for the entire world you can fit basically any niche within those numbers.

A common fallacy in business.

> Go full time crushing things with an hydraulic press? Yes! Go full time discussing medieval weapons? Yes! Go full time building things with no tools from scratch in the woods? Yes! Go full time trying to beat Super Mario as fast as possible? Double yes! And so on.

They're not that much a weird niche really. Go to any large university and there's probably a club full of people who discuss medieval weapons full time. Actually there's probably at least two (one that's more purist in terms of historical accuracy, and another that's more focused on fun), then there's probably also a fencing club, a kendo club, maybe a HEMA club, dozens of gaming groups.

And it's not like it's not niche that isn't served by TV. There's plenty of documentary / infotainment series on medieval weapons and combat. There's serious series. There's Deadliest Warrior. Youtube often gets viewers because it's a different format, not because it's serving a very weird niche. Cheap, regular content (and often the comment box keeps creators a bit more honest), suggested next episode, more talky, short episodes.

As for those other examples, there's Mythbusters (smash stuff!), survival shows (primitive technology in a different format). Gaming is the only really odd one - it just isn't shown on TV much.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#172

Post by root_axis »

YouTube does not employ creators; creators are utilizing YouTube's free service in order to broadcast their own content. Google demonetizes videos in order to be more appealing to advertisers, ultimately the problem these creators have is that advertisers are not willing to pay for their content. YouTube only makes money when the content creator does, so naturally they'd be happy to monetize anything they could.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#173

Post by rhcom2 »

40acres wrote: post #72

Fundamentally I think the problem is that these platforms are not neutral, when YouTube's algorithm hoists your video to the front page they are "manipulating" the system. Personally, I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion and it as the basis for other challenges. Internet providers just serve bits, any effort to "manipulate" those bits based on who is…

The Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes no guarantee of "neutrality" nor does it prevent sites from "manipulating" the things they display.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#174

Post by root_axis »

40acres wrote: post #72

Fundamentally I think the problem is that these platforms are not neutral, when YouTube's algorithm hoists your video to the front page they are "manipulating" the system. Personally, I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion and it as the basis for other challenges. Internet providers just serve bits, any effort to "manipulate" those bits based on who is…

> Fundamentally I think the problem is that these platforms are not neutral

Why should these companies have an obligation to be neutral?

> I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion

Could you elaborate a little more on the details of the challenge? What aspects of section 230 would the challenger suggest are unconstitutional?

> Internet providers just serve bits, any effort to "manipulate" those bits based on who is providing them is looked at with great aversion (net neutrality)

Internet providers are not legally obligated to adhere to net neutrality, so why should website operators be obligated to do so?

> I believe we are all awakening to the power that these obtuse algorithms have on us.

Could you give some examples of the power they have over us, I don't believe any of google's algorithms have any power over me and I think that is true of most people, unlike, e.g. algorithms used by banks, credit bureaus and insurance companies to calculate risk with literal life and death consequences.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#175

Post by imbored »

rhcom2 wrote: post #173
40acres wrote: post #72

Fundamentally I think the problem is that these platforms are not neutral, when YouTube's algorithm hoists your video to the front page they are "manipulating" the system. Personally, I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion and it as the basis for other challenges. Internet providers just serve bits, any effort to "manipulate" those bits based on who is…

The Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes no guarantee of "neutrality" nor does it prevent sites from "manipulating" the things they display.

It would just force Youtube to be extremely aggressive in their censorship and fully embrace the role of editors, or shutdown.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#176

Post by imbored »

fromthestart wrote: post #155
solotronics wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty obvious that things like search results are manipulated to fit an agenda. Search Google Images for "white american family" and "black american family" and compare the results. You can replace "black american family" with indian or any other group and the results are similar. There are many interracial couples under "white american family" and none under "black american family". The only way I can explain…

Project veritas leaked a candid, hidden camera chat with Google's Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai, where, essentially, she and an engineer shamelessly describe using ML to manipulate search results to better align them with the reality that they would like society to adopt, i.e., a strongly left leaning agenda. Among other topics, she specifically mentioned that Google is working against "another 2016 situ…

Project veritas routinely edits videos.

Don't fall for fascist propaganda.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#177

Post by GhostVII »

derefr wrote: post #118
asperous wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they should do is collectively take their content somewhere else. The problem is the economics won't be any better anywhere else. Youtube is the way it is because of all the many stakeholders (viewers responding to clickbait, politicians, copyright holders, bad actors etc). Any other platform would eventually have the same problems and either cave into them, or be sued into oblivion. As for the ad-related issu…

It's the particular revenue model of the marketplace that causes the problem—the one where cashflow all fans-in from advertisers to YouTube itself, and then from there back out to content creators according to view metrics. YouTube content creators have responded to the flaws in this model by choosing a better one: one where advertisers pay them directly; they put the ad directly into the video; and YouTube isn't inv…

Who pays for the hosting costs then? It is very expensive for YouTube to host all of the videos that they do, and they way they pay for that is taking a portion of advertising revenue. Small YouTubers are subsidized by larger ones, since larger creators give YouTube the ad revenue they need to pay for the costs of hosting all of the videos that don't get much ad revenue. If YouTubers stop using YouTube ads entirely, I think it will be increasingly unprofitable for YouTube to allow smaller YouTubers, and casual people, to post videos on the platform.

And I don't see how this middle way is any better for most YouTubers anyways. The reason some YouTubers get demonetized is that advertisers don't want to show ads on certain types of content. If advertisers don't want to show ads on a video through YouTube, they probably won't want to do that through this third party service either. For large YouTubers it can certainly help (which is why they are already doing it) since advertisers can seek out large YouTubers who have a fanbase matching their requirements, but I don't see how it helps in general.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#178

Post by pwinnski »

patrioticaction wrote: post #143
pwinnski wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't match the original statement, and doesn't reflect reality. People leave YouTube all the time, and crowds don't tend to follow them anywhere. They just watch different YouTubers who fill a similar niche. It's as if the cloud you were really enjoying blew away, but there were plenty of new clouds, so you didn't get into a car to follow the old ones.

You are arguing that there is anything resembling a perfect market for YouTube video content. Talk about a departure from reality.

I'm not sure why this is hard for you to understand. Is your contention that nobody popular has ever stopped making videos on YouTube? Or that YouTube has already lost a large chunk of viewers due to popular former-YouTubers no longer making videos?

Neither of those statements are true, but you seem to be commenting as if one or the other are.

I'm not arguing that the YouTube market is perfect, but that the gap between the average and most popular channels isn't so wide that the loss of some of the latter has a dramatic impact on their viewership. This is so manifestly and obviously true that I'm puzzled about any counter-examples you're envisioning.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#179

Post by chrshawkes »

nordsieck wrote: post #170
La-ang wrote: post #162

Can youtubers go on strike and take the content down for a limited time? If such an option is available and they do it, it would be a relevant strike. But since those who are joining the Union are the one demonetized provides that Youtube isn't making as much profit from their presence as those who are still running ads. In such case, the former ones will need a way to engage those who make profit align with their do…

> Can youtubers go on strike and take the content down for a limited time? In order for that to be effective, a strike needs to remove enough capability from the other party to materially affect them. In this case, with so many videos online, I'd bet creators would need to get perhaps 95%-99% of recent videos taken down. They won't get anywhere close. Right out of the gate, news and music won't join in the strike. Al…

You can easily make your videos private for the duration of the strike.

Lets be honest about the problem. If 20 million people watch me, how much did I make off Google? Depending on the market you're in this fluctuates but typically at most, maybe 50k. That's a lot of views and people watching for such chump change. Viral videos are something most creators will never experience and viral does not pay nearly as well as a specific niche. How many people watch the Super Bowl and how much is spent on ads? YouTubers with millions of views are wickedly underpaid. My children have cared more about YouTube than Hulu, Netflix and Cable combined. They will be devastated with a large scale strike. Google should be worried since they do whatever they can to screw over the content creators on the regular.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#180

Post by danShumway »

40acres wrote: post #72

Fundamentally I think the problem is that these platforms are not neutral, when YouTube's algorithm hoists your video to the front page they are "manipulating" the system. Personally, I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion and it as the basis for other challenges. Internet providers just serve bits, any effort to "manipulate" those bits based on who is…

> I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion

I would also not be surprised, but I think it would be a mistake.

If YouTube's algorithm makes them ineligible for 230 protections, then it seems like the same rules should apply to DuckDuckGo -- after all, they're using algorithms to rank sites.

Not everything is a slippery slope of course, but absent some kind of consistent line it's not clear to me that the removal of 230 wouldn't very quickly lead to a world where very little user content was allowed online at all. The definition of an algorithm will be constantly evolving, and few small companies will want to risk running afoul of the law. This is probably not what people want when they talk about neutrality -- content gatekeepers aren't neutral.

I'd give the same warning to people coming from the opposite perspective -- that YouTube shouldn't get 230 protections because it's not moderating enough. If 230 goes away, there's another way that YouTube can avoid liability, and it's to stop moderating anything at all, regardless of how foul it is. This is also probably not what people want when they talk about moderation -- Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are pretty bad about removing hate speech, but at least they're not 8chan. They at least do some moderation.

The purpose of Section 230 is to avoid punishing platforms for moderation/curation attempts, and to let companies accept user content from diverse sources without needing to pre-vet all of it. Get rid of 230, and we'll end up with a smaller selection of services that are less eager to let users upload content; and the services we're left with won't be in a hurry to moderate or curate any of the content that users do upload.

Post reply on HN