3 ms·
Minor point of irritation here. Apparently, there's no C-Level execs, just... The humans who run YouTube and The people who run YouTube and th
by charlesism 8y ago
Minor point of irritation here. Apparently, there's no C-Level execs, just...
The humans who run YouTube
and
The people who run YouTube
and
the people in charge of YouTube
I always search the page for "Susan Wojcicki" when there's a new article critical of Youtube. No dice.
Is there any mention of "Wojcicki" in the Vox article behind this? Nope.
How about the NYT article from March that they link to? Nope. No "Wojcicki" there either.
Youtube remains a CEO-less company.
- ucaetano 8y agoYouTube isn't an independent "company" in the strict sense of the word (even if it has its own legal entities), it is just a division/product of Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet.
- deogeo 8y agoIt's impolite to demand personal responsibility from corporations. It was the 'United Fruit Company' that funded dictatorships, and 'Comcast' and 'Disney' that bribed for favorable net-neutrality/copyright laws, and 'Monsanto' and 'Big Pharma' that extort people by abusing and writing in their favor the drug regulatory framework. Not any CEO or major stockholder with a name and address, goodness no.
- monksy 8y agoA few theories. (From the simpliest to the more complicated) 1. The person who wrote this article is very uneducated about this and they're showing their insecurity. 2. They're trying to defer blame of the problem to a pseudo-anonymous group 3. They're trying to avoid putting blame on Mrs. Wojciki due to personal views on identity (identity is a relevant point as that they have a massive bias on what identity and content they want others to find successful) I'm going to go with #1 because they're pretty preachy.