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

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#241

Post by patrioticaction »

munificent wrote: post #209
patrioticaction wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, I'm certainly not. YouTube isn't anything like a conventional market: * Consumers do not pay money for each transaction of content they consume. Instead, they pay with their attention. But that doesn't work like a currency because their goal is not to minimize the attention they spend. It's burning a hole in their pocket and they want to give their time to YouTube. * YouTube spends next to no money on each unit o…

Fair enough. I mean to say that YouTubers have followings that are very strong and they have never had a coalition to test a mass strike or exodus. They have a unique product that can’t just be supplanted with an analog as if they are simply interchangeable.

Like, “oh we don’t have John Oliver anymore but here’s Redacted Tonight with Lee Camp! Everyone’s happy, right?”

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#242

Post by root_axis »

egypturnash wrote: post #236
root_axis wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like there is a line to be drawn somewhere around the points where you start referring to yourself as a "YouTuber" and where other people regularly describe you as one. This seems pretty subjective, difficult to measure, and impractical to enforce.

Which is why I said "I have no idea how to define this in legal terms". I would bet money that something can be nailed down in terms of what percentage of time goes into it, what percentage of total income comes from it, and other hard measures like that, if you feel like surveying a few hundred self-described You-Tubers and a few hundred non-You-Tubers. That sure sounds like work I don't feel like doing, though.

> what percentage of time goes into it

Who would verify the amount of time spent by private individuals recording videos using their own equipment in their own homes?

> what percentage of total income comes from it

Why would that matter? It seems odd that YouTube's employer status would depend on whether or not the would-be employee has other sources of income.

>other hard measures like that

This doesn't seem like a realistic "evolution" of employer status. I'm not saying the definition won't ever evolve but it just doesn't seem practical that a private business which offers a free service to consumers would suddenly become an employer of those consumers based on how they use the service.

I'll also add that turning YouTube into an employer would have problematic consequences for creators, e.g. as an employer, YouTube would be in a position to make editorial demands of creators which would put them right back where they started (create advertiser friendly videos or you don't get paid).

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#243

Post by true_religion »

autoexec wrote: post #239
dragonwriter wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

> Without ads YouTube is worthless to Google. Nonmonetized content isn't bringing revenue to Google. S Google gets huge volumes of valuable data with nearly every video that's uploaded. Google knows things like who the uploader is, what kind of people are in their home and their approximate ages, what clothes they wear, what products they buy, what pets they own, what interests they have. They also get data on every…

Too often, people reach towards some abstract methodology like data collection to explain Googles actions.

Why do it in this case? They directly make money from selling ad space. Any data on watching is used directly to sell more ad space and gain more money.

It’s a closed loop. This is how all Google properties operate. Not having ads would be a death knell for YouTube.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#244

Post by stcredzero »

eclipxe wrote: post #230
root_axis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

1 - They are a platform, not a publisher. Otherwise, they don't merit the safe harbor.

2 - Freedom of Speech is more important than property rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#245

Post by eclipxe »

stcredzero wrote: post #244
eclipxe wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1 - They are a platform, not a publisher. Otherwise, they don't merit the safe harbor. 2 - Freedom of Speech is more important than property rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

The US Government telling Google what to post/recommend on the platform they run and pay for can be a violation of Google's first amendment right to Freedom of Speech.

"[Marsh] iwas raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996).[1] Cyber Promotions wished to send out "mass email advertisements" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied. The federal district court disagreed, thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet service provider level."

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#246

Post by eclipxe »

untog wrote: post #235
cheese4242 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He handed them to Project Veritas, which is maybe even more of a joke than he is. Have you actually read any of the documents are you relying on right wing media to interpret them for you?

I read all of the docs. Every last one of them. There is nothing there. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#247

Post by [deleted] »

plicense wrote: post #205
autoexec wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> YouTube does not employ creators; creators are utilizing YouTube's free service in order to broadcast their own content. Youtube doesn't create content. They utilize content provided to google for free by creators to drive traffic to their website. Google monetizes videos in order to be more appealing to content creators. The problem these creators have is that advertisers, corporations, competitors, and copyright…

> Youtube doesn't create content. They utilize content provided to google for free by creators to drive traffic to their website. This is a popular sentiment, but its not "for free". There's cost involved in storing, transcoding and service videos to millions/billions of users and in the development of those technologies.

[deleted]

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#248

Post by [deleted] »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #84
Mirioron wrote: post #32

I don't see how this would work. Creators are from all across the world and many of them have to deal with wildly different issues due to a differing legal system. Furthermore, being a youtuber isn't something that's clearly defined either, because there are many that create content for a bit and then never create content again.

This is a solved problem, many unions are international. The AFL-CIO is the largest federation of unions in the US and is international.

[deleted]

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#249

Post by Rikaro »

Youtube is like a free Gallery, where anyone can display there artwork. The content which can be supported by advertisement (for benefit of the artist and the gallery management), surely is to be decided by the gallery management, ie, Youtube, as they're not 'employing' content creators - they're just allowing free posting of content and allowing revenue generation through ad as an extra cream.

Content creators 'use' Youtube, they don't 'work for' Youtube... This is what people are confusing these days. (For eg. They can use affiliate marketing with a video, without any intervention from Google, and sharing the video on youtube)

Should Instagram pay for most viral posts? No right? - the user posted it for sharing. If, Instagram paid, as a 'Thank you and win-win' strategy to such posts - people would've lost it if some posts were demonetized.

Also, if anyone wants to showcase in a gallery where they are paid for it, Youtube provides the 'Youtube Premium' option.

Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing

#250

Post by scarejunba »

autoexec wrote: post #239
dragonwriter wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

> Without ads YouTube is worthless to Google. Nonmonetized content isn't bringing revenue to Google. S Google gets huge volumes of valuable data with nearly every video that's uploaded. Google knows things like who the uploader is, what kind of people are in their home and their approximate ages, what clothes they wear, what products they buy, what pets they own, what interests they have. They also get data on every…

You're overestimating the value of this data. It is not worth that much.
Post reply on HN