7 ms·

The Platform vs Publisher debate. https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15

The Platform vs Publisher debate. https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588... Note this article is more about speech but you get the idea. I don't think it's entitlement but the creators want to know the "rules".

hitpointdrew 7y ago
> The Platform vs Publisher debate. Not really. If the discussion was about weather a video should be allowed to exist, or be taken down, then yes it would be publisher vs platform. But this is a case of monetization vs non-monetization. I think YouTube, Twitter, ect. should be treated as "Platforms" and that nothing should ever be deleted/banned/taken down unless it is strictly illegal. That said, monetization is entirely a different beast, YouTube as a business can pick and choose which videos to monetize and which ones not to. Restricting content is a violation of the 1st amendment, refusing to pay creators is a business decision.
- fareesh 7y ago
  Let's say YouTube's parent company invests in a new cosmetics company that's doing make-up tutorials on YouTube. Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize the independent content creators who are creating make-up tutorials and therefore hurt their revenue stream? Let's say their algorithm does it by "mistake" all the time, what can be done about it? Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share. Their competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given higher search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well. What happens to the independent content creators over time? What is the legal remedy for the above scenario? How would one even prove this case in court?
  - hitpointdrew 7y ago
    >Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize the independent content creators who are creating make-up tutorials Fair, no. Legal? Yes. > Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share. OK, and? There is no fundamental right to YouTube monetization. >Their competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given higher search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well. Ranking is a problem, if you are platform then everyone has equal voice then the ranking system needs to be 100% equal and transparent, which it is current neither. > What happens to the independent content creators over time? They find other ways to make $$ or they find another career. Lots of YT's are now pushing things like pateron membership. There is also nothing stopping any YT from going out and securing their own advertisers and doing their own ads in their videos. >What is the legal remedy for the above scenario? Legal remedy is simple, YT can't ban/restrict/bury content. YT can decide who, if anyone, they want to monetize. >How would one even prove this case in court? It is obvious when a video is taken down, and if the ranking system was 100% transparent it would also be easy to verify if there was tampering ("My video had 1mil views in the first 24 hours, this other video had 200k views the first 24 hours, the other video was trending, mine wasn't.")
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  There should be a box you can tick as a YouTube creator for "monetized views only". Meaning, if this video gets demonetized, take it down while I dispute that, and show my viewers a notice instead. This isn't a rights thing, it's just a sane business decision thing, to not alienate creators. Can you imagine if cable companies could just arbitrarily decide to "demonetize" a football game, and then show it for free with no ads?
malnourish 7y ago
That article links to a better sourced and more reasoned argument which seems to disagree with the premise of the article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no... The article you linked does not refute the claims in the eff article, but the eff article does refute the claims in the city-journal article.

hitpointdrew 7y ago

> The Platform vs Publisher debate. Not really. If the discussion was about weather a video should be allowed to exist, or be taken down, then yes it would be publisher vs platform. But this is a case of monetization vs non-monetization. I think YouTube, Twitter, ect. should be treated as "Platforms" and that nothing should ever be deleted/banned/taken down unless it is strictly illegal. That said, monetization is entirely a different beast, YouTube as a business can pick and choose which videos to monetize and which ones not to. Restricting content is a violation of the 1st amendment, refusing to pay creators is a business decision.

fareesh 7y ago
Let's say YouTube's parent company invests in a new cosmetics company that's doing make-up tutorials on YouTube. Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize the independent content creators who are creating make-up tutorials and therefore hurt their revenue stream? Let's say their algorithm does it by "mistake" all the time, what can be done about it? Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share. Their competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given higher search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well. What happens to the independent content creators over time? What is the legal remedy for the above scenario? How would one even prove this case in court?
- hitpointdrew 7y ago
  >Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize the independent content creators who are creating make-up tutorials Fair, no. Legal? Yes. > Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share. OK, and? There is no fundamental right to YouTube monetization. >Their competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given higher search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well. Ranking is a problem, if you are platform then everyone has equal voice then the ranking system needs to be 100% equal and transparent, which it is current neither. > What happens to the independent content creators over time? They find other ways to make $$ or they find another career. Lots of YT's are now pushing things like pateron membership. There is also nothing stopping any YT from going out and securing their own advertisers and doing their own ads in their videos. >What is the legal remedy for the above scenario? Legal remedy is simple, YT can't ban/restrict/bury content. YT can decide who, if anyone, they want to monetize. >How would one even prove this case in court? It is obvious when a video is taken down, and if the ranking system was 100% transparent it would also be easy to verify if there was tampering ("My video had 1mil views in the first 24 hours, this other video had 200k views the first 24 hours, the other video was trending, mine wasn't.")
mikepurvis 7y ago
There should be a box you can tick as a YouTube creator for "monetized views only". Meaning, if this video gets demonetized, take it down while I dispute that, and show my viewers a notice instead. This isn't a rights thing, it's just a sane business decision thing, to not alienate creators. Can you imagine if cable companies could just arbitrarily decide to "demonetize" a football game, and then show it for free with no ads?

malnourish 7y ago

That article links to a better sourced and more reasoned argument which seems to disagree with the premise of the article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no... The article you linked does not refute the claims in the eff article, but the eff article does refute the claims in the city-journal article.