4 ms·
paid for by their time and watching ads The ads pay for the content you watch at the time. It doesn't pay for your right to dictate the terms of their service
by crusso 9y ago
paid for by their time and watching ads
The ads pay for the content you watch at the time. It doesn't pay for your right to dictate the terms of their service in perpetuity. Thus, this whole line of thinking is a non-starter. Further, YT is not required to support whatever business model you build on top of theirs unless they've agreed to a contract of some sort. Do you know of such a contract?
destroying shareholder value
Maybe so, but their rationale at the moment is that extremist videos create a hostile environment for their users. They would rather not perpetually expose their preferred users to the toxicity of extremism. It's arguably a move to increase shareholder value. If you think they're wrong, don't be a shareholder.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y agoThe content policy has changed following political ideology. Now content that does not violate any terms of conditions if also getting removed/demonetized, again following political ideology. You are focused on Google being able to do what they are doing, I agree, they are quite within their rights to do so. But, I see this situation same as a Github project uses Apache license to begin, to get adopters, to get eyes that find and resolve bugs, eyes that ask for much wanted features, after being successful the project changes to AGPL or Propitiatory closed-source license selling Enterprise Edition. This is slap in the face of people who gave time to the project. Anyone who spends time in modern software industry, like an user on hacker news, would clearly see the similarities between the YouTube situation and bait-and-switch on license for successful open source software.