3 ms·

Your point is appreciated, but keep in mind that these are people's livelihoods. They're in a vulnerable position, and change is a big deal for them. Fairly sma

Your point is appreciated, but keep in mind that these are people's livelihoods. They're in a vulnerable position, and change is a big deal for them. Fairly small changes to the YouTube landscape could mean major changes to their income and business viability. Change a few bits of a suggestion algorithm and the kid making $11 million per year playing with toys could be out of business overnight. It's the same reason people freak out when Apple does anything to the app store. It's life or death for a bunch of small companies and they have no power over the situation.

kw71 9y ago
The fact that those people chose or happened to make a living off someone else's website doesn't give them employment rights. Unfortunately the platform is property of YouTube and while I think it would be nice for them to explain their rules when they invite the public to engage and participate, they are allowed to hold these as trade secrets :(
- SerLava 9y ago
  You misunderstand. They all know there's no right to use YouTube. It's just that if they can't make money, people will stop making good shit and it will hamper or kill the whole platform.
  - evgen 9y ago
    You mean that if there is no direct economic incentive people will stop contributing to a generally available pool of content/IP? That does explain why open source software died off when no one could figure out how to make money from it...
    - vetinari 9y ago
      Open Source, and Free Software paid a lot of attention to foundation, on which their software was being built. You can think whatever you want about RMS rants about Java, but he and FSF sure did paid attention to the fact, that they must control everything, turtles all the way down, as much as possible. Otherwise, just one proprietary, non-replaceable layer in the stack, and the layer owner can control you.
- nailer 9y ago
  That's exactly it: YouTube is 'sharing economy' - privatise the profits, socialise the expenses, in this case the costs of videos which are controversial.
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  As a YouTube partner, I completely agree with this assessment. youTube doesn't give a damn about its creators. Caveat emptor.
romanovcode 9y ago
> They're in a vulnerable position, Making shitty videos for pre-teens and racking millions per year. Yeah, please tell me more how vulnerable they are.
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  There are lots of YouTubers who make "just" thousands a year making helpful videos like recipes, tech how tos, workout videos, etc. not just shitty videos for preteens. People who've built up a following on the platform are at risk. Quit trying to demonize them.

kw71 9y ago

The fact that those people chose or happened to make a living off someone else's website doesn't give them employment rights. Unfortunately the platform is property of YouTube and while I think it would be nice for them to explain their rules when they invite the public to engage and participate, they are allowed to hold these as trade secrets :(

SerLava 9y ago
You misunderstand. They all know there's no right to use YouTube. It's just that if they can't make money, people will stop making good shit and it will hamper or kill the whole platform.
- evgen 9y ago
  You mean that if there is no direct economic incentive people will stop contributing to a generally available pool of content/IP? That does explain why open source software died off when no one could figure out how to make money from it...
  - vetinari 9y ago
    Open Source, and Free Software paid a lot of attention to foundation, on which their software was being built. You can think whatever you want about RMS rants about Java, but he and FSF sure did paid attention to the fact, that they must control everything, turtles all the way down, as much as possible. Otherwise, just one proprietary, non-replaceable layer in the stack, and the layer owner can control you.
nailer 9y ago
That's exactly it: YouTube is 'sharing economy' - privatise the profits, socialise the expenses, in this case the costs of videos which are controversial.
kthejoker2 9y ago
As a YouTube partner, I completely agree with this assessment. youTube doesn't give a damn about its creators. Caveat emptor.

romanovcode 9y ago

> They're in a vulnerable position, Making shitty videos for pre-teens and racking millions per year. Yeah, please tell me more how vulnerable they are.

kthejoker2 9y ago
There are lots of YouTubers who make "just" thousands a year making helpful videos like recipes, tech how tos, workout videos, etc. not just shitty videos for preteens. People who've built up a following on the platform are at risk. Quit trying to demonize them.