4 ms·

It's a two-sided coin actually. You cannot blame Youtube for people's choices to go fully dependent on viewer count revenues, it's irresponsible to say the leas

It's a two-sided coin actually. You cannot blame Youtube for people's choices to go fully dependent on viewer count revenues, it's irresponsible to say the least. But, you can blame Youtube for changing the rules whenever and however they sit fit without considering such grave consequences. This thing with Youtube demonetization is pretty messed up. In any case, would you rather invest in a Ponzi scheme? No, who would be that stupid, right? Right?

manicdee 9y ago
I am fully dependent on my employer’s ability to find repeat business. I have personally suffered when one of the principals of a business that employed me upset one of their main suppliers/licensors and our ability to run the business was withdrawn overnight. The same holds true for retailers in malls, or property managers. There are many lines of work where you are entirely reliant on things that you can’t reasonably have second sources for. Blaming people for deriving significant income from YouTube is putting the cart well and truly before the horse.
- dschuetz 9y ago
  You cannot compare "content creation" on Youtube with entrepreneurship. There are different sets of rules. Youtube does not employ "creators". Creators suffering from anxiety because of endangered income should first get help and then get a real job. Youtube is just another "get rich quick" scheme if done irresponsibly.
  - iforgotpassword 9y ago
    What!? How the heck do you think YouTube even makes money? It's exclusively through the content their users create, so they should treat them with some fucking decency. Not communicating with your users, or sending some canned responses at best is not. Just because they don't sign a formal work contract doesn't mean they can treat the users like complete shit.
  - onion2k 9y ago
    Youtube is just another "get rich quick" scheme if done irresponsibly. Most non-professional YouTube channels start as a side project. Someone thinks of something they'd like to make videos about, starts in their spare time, and grows a following. Then the money starts to come in, and eventually it's enough for them to quit their day job and work on their YouTube channel full time. Sometimes they start a business and employ people to help along the way. If that was a SaaS app instead of a video channel there'd be no question about whether or not it's entrepreneurial. The fact they're making videos instead of code doesn't change anything.
    - dschuetz 9y ago
      I agree that if your hobby starts making more money than your actual job it's really attractive to think of a media startup then. It doesn't mean though that you just switch. You have to know how volatile it might be. You have to consider possibilities of outcomes. You have to calculate risks. If you want to let your hobby make money for you then you have to do it professionally. And for that you need major investments and a business model. Completely relying on views count is a bad business model. Being paid for writing actual code is different to talking about writing code in videos and being paid eventually.
      - onion2k 9y ago
        I don't think you understand the amount of money we're talking about here. There are YouTube channels that started as side projects that have grown in to multi-million dollar profit businesses. Keeping that as a side project because "views count is a bad business model" would be completely crazy. Relying on YouTube is no different to relying on Google, or Amazon, or any service that people build successful businesses on. Yes, there's a risk having a single critical factor, but that doesn't automatically mean the risk is too great to still be worthwhile. The real problem here is that YouTube has an effective monopoly as the only working platform for monetized online video. If that's the business you're in then you have to use YouTube.
        unicornporn 9y ago
  - manicdee 9y ago
    What are “the rules”? Who employs entrepreneurs?
pluma 9y ago
You absolutely can blame YouTube for encouraging content creators to go "all in". They are absolutely aware of this and the design of YouTube highly emphasises these metrics (which in turn translate to financial success). They allowed the formation of networks (few successful channels are "independent", finding a network is usually one of the first steps creators take when seeking to become "professional"). Their promos (e.g. Rewind) routinely feature content with high production values that are only possible with financial investment and they actively promote the idea of having YouTube "celebrities" (although lately there has been a shift towards "importing" TV personalities). What YouTube did was create a culture around their platform that encourages people to go full time and earn money by producing content for YouTube for free and get a cut of the ad revenue in return. In order to fight creators who gamed the system they then went and created an air of mystery around what content they actively promote (just listen to YouTubers talk about "the algorithm"), leading to various superstitions and conspiracy theories while intentionally driving creators to change the kind of content they create in order to adapt. Then they pulled the rug underneath creators by secretly demonetising videos, resulting in revenue to drop for seemingly no reason until they made the monetisation status more visible (which sparked the "adpocalypse" drama). At that point many creators diversified their income via patreon but this relied on viewers to actually part with their money, which only worked for channels with very dedicated fans or a consistent level of quality (further adding to the pressure to churn out new content and reach a wider audience). Meanwhile YouTube has been abandoning the independent creators that drove the site's initial success in favor of big name production studios moving content from TV over to YouTube or creating tie-ins. The independent creators that still do well are mostly the ones heavily relying on clickbait to drive fews and churning out short and shallow content that allows them to feed the algorithm and stay relevant (although even these now often rely on product placement and sponsorship deals). On the one hand this is a classical story of a startup pivoting as it adapts to market changes and hits problems of scale. On the other hand there is a massive social cost YouTube is all but neglecting to take responsibility for. YouTube doesn't care how their changes affect the livelihoods of creators. Free market libertarians will say they shouldn't have to care about this and they are absolutely right legally speaking. But let's not pretend the effects those decisions have on real people's lives weren't predictable. There's the old Web 2.0 joke that "there's nothing social about social media" but YouTube certainly lives up to that. Note that all of this wouldn't be half as bad if YouTube were at all approachable to its creators. Instead, by using an unpredictable "algorithm" to hand out punishments (demonetisation, content claims, strikes) and rewards ("trending", "watch next", etc), YouTube creates a victim mindset which naturally breeds resentment. EDIT: If anything, YouTube is a high-risk high-reward precursor to other "sharing economy" companies like Uber, except Uber's playing field is much more level.

manicdee 9y ago

I am fully dependent on my employer’s ability to find repeat business. I have personally suffered when one of the principals of a business that employed me upset one of their main suppliers/licensors and our ability to run the business was withdrawn overnight. The same holds true for retailers in malls, or property managers. There are many lines of work where you are entirely reliant on things that you can’t reasonably have second sources for. Blaming people for deriving significant income from YouTube is putting the cart well and truly before the horse.

dschuetz 9y ago
You cannot compare "content creation" on Youtube with entrepreneurship. There are different sets of rules. Youtube does not employ "creators". Creators suffering from anxiety because of endangered income should first get help and then get a real job. Youtube is just another "get rich quick" scheme if done irresponsibly.
- iforgotpassword 9y ago
  What!? How the heck do you think YouTube even makes money? It's exclusively through the content their users create, so they should treat them with some fucking decency. Not communicating with your users, or sending some canned responses at best is not. Just because they don't sign a formal work contract doesn't mean they can treat the users like complete shit.
- onion2k 9y ago
  Youtube is just another "get rich quick" scheme if done irresponsibly. Most non-professional YouTube channels start as a side project. Someone thinks of something they'd like to make videos about, starts in their spare time, and grows a following. Then the money starts to come in, and eventually it's enough for them to quit their day job and work on their YouTube channel full time. Sometimes they start a business and employ people to help along the way. If that was a SaaS app instead of a video channel there'd be no question about whether or not it's entrepreneurial. The fact they're making videos instead of code doesn't change anything.
  - dschuetz 9y ago
    I agree that if your hobby starts making more money than your actual job it's really attractive to think of a media startup then. It doesn't mean though that you just switch. You have to know how volatile it might be. You have to consider possibilities of outcomes. You have to calculate risks. If you want to let your hobby make money for you then you have to do it professionally. And for that you need major investments and a business model. Completely relying on views count is a bad business model. Being paid for writing actual code is different to talking about writing code in videos and being paid eventually.
    - onion2k 9y ago
      I don't think you understand the amount of money we're talking about here. There are YouTube channels that started as side projects that have grown in to multi-million dollar profit businesses. Keeping that as a side project because "views count is a bad business model" would be completely crazy. Relying on YouTube is no different to relying on Google, or Amazon, or any service that people build successful businesses on. Yes, there's a risk having a single critical factor, but that doesn't automatically mean the risk is too great to still be worthwhile. The real problem here is that YouTube has an effective monopoly as the only working platform for monetized online video. If that's the business you're in then you have to use YouTube.
      - unicornporn 9y ago
- manicdee 9y ago
  What are “the rules”? Who employs entrepreneurs?

pluma 9y ago

You absolutely can blame YouTube for encouraging content creators to go "all in". They are absolutely aware of this and the design of YouTube highly emphasises these metrics (which in turn translate to financial success). They allowed the formation of networks (few successful channels are "independent", finding a network is usually one of the first steps creators take when seeking to become "professional"). Their promos (e.g. Rewind) routinely feature content with high production values that are only possible with financial investment and they actively promote the idea of having YouTube "celebrities" (although lately there has been a shift towards "importing" TV personalities). What YouTube did was create a culture around their platform that encourages people to go full time and earn money by producing content for YouTube for free and get a cut of the ad revenue in return. In order to fight creators who gamed the system they then went and created an air of mystery around what content they actively promote (just listen to YouTubers talk about "the algorithm"), leading to various superstitions and conspiracy theories while intentionally driving creators to change the kind of content they create in order to adapt. Then they pulled the rug underneath creators by secretly demonetising videos, resulting in revenue to drop for seemingly no reason until they made the monetisation status more visible (which sparked the "adpocalypse" drama). At that point many creators diversified their income via patreon but this relied on viewers to actually part with their money, which only worked for channels with very dedicated fans or a consistent level of quality (further adding to the pressure to churn out new content and reach a wider audience). Meanwhile YouTube has been abandoning the independent creators that drove the site's initial success in favor of big name production studios moving content from TV over to YouTube or creating tie-ins. The independent creators that still do well are mostly the ones heavily relying on clickbait to drive fews and churning out short and shallow content that allows them to feed the algorithm and stay relevant (although even these now often rely on product placement and sponsorship deals). On the one hand this is a classical story of a startup pivoting as it adapts to market changes and hits problems of scale. On the other hand there is a massive social cost YouTube is all but neglecting to take responsibility for. YouTube doesn't care how their changes affect the livelihoods of creators. Free market libertarians will say they shouldn't have to care about this and they are absolutely right legally speaking. But let's not pretend the effects those decisions have on real people's lives weren't predictable. There's the old Web 2.0 joke that "there's nothing social about social media" but YouTube certainly lives up to that. Note that all of this wouldn't be half as bad if YouTube were at all approachable to its creators. Instead, by using an unpredictable "algorithm" to hand out punishments (demonetisation, content claims, strikes) and rewards ("trending", "watch next", etc), YouTube creates a victim mindset which naturally breeds resentment. EDIT: If anything, YouTube is a high-risk high-reward precursor to other "sharing economy" companies like Uber, except Uber's playing field is much more level.