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

221–230 of 259 posts

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#221

Post by solotronics »

arkades wrote: post #146
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…

Out of curiousity I did just that. And aside from skin tone, I got identical sets of people in khakis and button-downs hugging in front of houses, white picket fences, and couches. And found interracial families under black, but not white. Something something anecdote not data.

This is weird also, why would you be shown different results than me? If search was unbiased wouldn't we all be getting the same results?

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#222

Post by autoexec »

dragonwriter wrote: post #213
autoexec wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User generated content is acquired 100% for free, but Google has costs to store/distribute that content. Google's expenses aren't trivial, but they also aren't paying creators whose content is the only reason anyone ever goes to youube.com Imagine netflix telling movie/TV studios that they can let them stream their content for free because it's costing them money to store and distribute those works after all...

> Google's expenses aren't trivial, but they also aren't paying creators Yes, they are, if the creators choose monetization. (If the creators choose to make content free, including choosing to supply content ineligible for monetization, sure, Google isn't paying for it, but they also aren't getting direct revenue from it.) Now, the payment is contingent on the revenue Google receives tied to the content, so it's a lo…

monetization is the payment scheme at issue. Some creators get paid, some of the time, and a lot of content creators on youtube feel the whole system is unfair. That's why they are unionizing.

For what it's worth I'm not a big fan of monetization on youtube in general. I prefer content to be posted out of a passion to share than a profit motive and for supporters to support content creators directly, but I also object to the idea that Google owes nothing to youtubers who are simply mooching off of youtube, a company that is graciously providing youtubers a free platform, or that google doesn't gain anything from hosting videos that don't have ads all over them.

Without the content creators youtube is worthless and google has an interest in keeping them happy and using youtube. If creators have grievances with how google handles things, they are free to organize and try to apply pressure collectively.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#223

Post by eclipxe »

derefr wrote: post #191
GhostVII wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

In such an alternative approach, YouTube would still be taking a cut of the fees as the payment-processor interceding between advertisers and content-creators. Their business model would be equivalent to that of Patreon's, in the sense that when the content-creator gets paid, they get paid. With current YouTube, any fees paid in by advertisers are theirs to do with as they like, and payment-of-content-creators is jus…

But...why?

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#224

Post by root_axis »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #220
root_axis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The decision to demonetize is Google's. Yes, but the decision is based on feedback from advertisers. In YouTube's ideal world, every single video on the site would be monetized, but this isn't possible because advertisers do not want their brand associated with controversial topics, especially those that concern very heated political debates. > Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers…

I don't believe there is enough evidence available to state what Google is making its decisions based on. I think its somewhat safe to assume the first major round of demonitization (the original adpocolypse) was likely based on advertiser feedback, since the major complaints being made involved extremely inappropriate ad placement/tone for the videos they were being played on. The more recent demonitizations have ap…

Perhaps, but as I already noted, every popular video that is demonetized costs YouTube a lot of money because they stream the video to millions of viewers but get no revenue to offset the costs of hosting and streaming. We all know the most important thing to every corporation, including YouTube, is to make as much money as possible, so barring some strong evidence to suggest otherwise, we need no other explanation than the obvious one: advertisers don't want to pay for ads in controversial videos.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#225

Post by dragonwriter »

autoexec wrote: post #222
dragonwriter wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google's expenses aren't trivial, but they also aren't paying creators Yes, they are, if the creators choose monetization. (If the creators choose to make content free, including choosing to supply content ineligible for monetization, sure, Google isn't paying for it, but they also aren't getting direct revenue from it.) Now, the payment is contingent on the revenue Google receives tied to the content, so it's a lo…

monetization is the payment scheme at issue. Some creators get paid, some of the time, and a lot of content creators on youtube feel the whole system is unfair. That's why they are unionizing. For what it's worth I'm not a big fan of monetization on youtube in general. I prefer content to be posted out of a passion to share than a profit motive and for supporters to support content creators directly, but I also objec…

> Without the content creators youtube is worthless

Without ads YouTube is worthless to Google. Nonmonetized content isn't bringing revenue to Google. Sure, it has an indirect benefit in making YouTube a more attractive place to post monetized content, by it's not like creators get nothing out of it (which is why they post to YouTube rather than arranging other hosting, which is certainly valuable if less likely to be free and also likely to have less reach.)

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#226

Post by cheese4242 »

untog wrote: post #215
cheese4242 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not related to OP's specific example, but very recently a Google employee came forward and blew the whistle on Google intentionally biasing their algorithms to sway public opinion : https://www.theblaze.com/newsletters/wtf-msm-google-whistleb...

He hasn't actually presented any meaningful evidence and is a kook that believes in QAnon. So excuse me if I'm more than a little dubious of his claims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-okeefes-google-whistlebl...

Well he handed over 950 pages of docs and a laptop to the Department of Justice so we just might find out.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#227

Post by ptx »

solotronics wrote: post #82
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…

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…

Another subtle manipulation you might unknowingly be exposed to is the word "interracial" itself and the notion of using it to classify people. Growing up in Europe, I have only ever heard of this concept from Americans and it continues to baffle me why it would be a useful distinction to make. The word seems to imply the segregation of people of different "races".

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#228

Post by DoreenMichele »

ptx wrote: post #227
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…

Another subtle manipulation you might unknowingly be exposed to is the word "interracial" itself and the notion of using it to classify people. Growing up in Europe, I have only ever heard of this concept from Americans and it continues to baffle me why it would be a useful distinction to make. The word seems to imply the segregation of people of different "races".

America has a history of defining "black" as being as little as 1/8 African blood. You can be 7/8 white European heritage and be "black" in America.

Historically, it was illegal in much of the US for a white person and black person to marry.

It's just a raft load of nonsense rooted in the detail that America imported slaves from Africa, then used skin color to distinguish free from slave. It hasn't really fully died. We are still living with a lot of those mental models in new guises.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#229

Post by eclipxe »

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…

You fundamentally misunderstand Section 230.

Also, as a private company, Google/Youtube should be free to moderate what content is on their platform, and I am free to use it or use a competitor. Freedom of speech includes freedom of association.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#230

Post by eclipxe »

root_axis wrote: post #202
stcredzero wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Sure, and when someone puts weights on both sides of a scale, operating it correctly, they are still "manipulating" the scale. That's not what people get mad about. It's when someone puts their thumb on the scale, because they want it to read a cer…

> It's not fine when it gets to the level of pushing or squashing a political agenda Why not? What's wrong with pushing a political agenda?

Exactly - Freedom of Association - its a private company, why should the government regulate that they need to be politically neutral.
Post reply on HN