3 ms·

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

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.")

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.")