The headline is misleading - nobody is unionizing.
A German union is maybe going to sue Google, on behalf of some youtubers, based on European laws, that's all.
Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
211–220 of 259 posts
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#212Earlier 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.
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...
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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 low-risk/low-cost consignment model (because low-cost because the unit cost of nonproductive inventory is low) rather than a “buy and try to sell” model where content that Google couldn't monetize would leave Google out piles of money that they speculatively paid for the content, but they absolutely are paying creators.
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#214The headline is misleading - nobody is unionizing. A German union is maybe going to sue Google, on behalf of some youtubers, based on European laws, that's all.
Quote from the article:
> The German union is inviting YouTubers to become members and is running a campaign called FairTube to press for better terms
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taken from a Reddit thread: "If you're talking about this picture, it is tagged as "white" because of the background colour." As usual, Occam's Razor applies here. Just imagine for a second that Google sent out a specific instruction to employees that they wanted to alter the algorithm so that a search for "white american family" returns mixed-race couples. Imagine the number of employees that would see a code commit…
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...
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#216YouTube 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.
The issue is not demonetization.
It's that Google are twats that arrogantly think they can do as they please and offer no explanation for their actions.
You know, like any monopoly entity that is filled with people who depend on a paycheque to live their life.
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#217Earlier 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.
compare these I just did it again
http://i68.tinypic.com/213nty.jpg http://i67.tinypic.com/fnqoib.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/20krl6p.jpg
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#218The headline is misleading - nobody is unionizing. A German union is maybe going to sue Google, on behalf of some youtubers, based on European laws, that's all.
Quote from the article: > The German union is inviting YouTubers to become members and is running a campaign called FairTube to press for better terms
Did we read the same article?
> A strike in the traditional sense would achieve little. Even in the extreme unlikelihood that every YouTuber in Germany boycotts the platform and stops uploading videos, it would have a limited impact on the site’s profitability. While a localized strike by Uber drivers can cripple the ridehailing service for its duration, YouTube has unparalleled cross-border scale – 450 hours of video are uploaded every minute – and an almost bottomless library of existing content.
> So what exactly can IG Metall do? A lawsuit is the most likely next step. The union claims that decisions made to de-monetize a video with no explanation contravene the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.
They clearly admit the traditional power-move of a union to strike would fail and that their only recourse, would be to file a lawsuit.
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#219what is it about collective action that triggers contempt so quickly and automatically for those attempting to organize? many comments in this thread show contempt for the organizers in a way that is readily visible.
Personally I think a lot of it is just because of their choice of the term 'union' for it. It has significant negative connotations at least in the US and they would do well to use different terminology (eg. guild or like).
Re: Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decision to demonetize is Google's. Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would make the choice?
> 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 appeared more and more "proactive" in protecting Google, but due to the comments being made by the CEO of youtube, and by the patterns in the demonitizations its not unreasonable to suspect there maybe other factors outside of keeping advertisers happy.