6 ms·

If that's the case, 99% will be booted off the platform and they will have to meet certain numbers of visitors and engagement every month, or lose their job..wh

If that's the case, 99% will be booted off the platform and they will have to meet certain numbers of visitors and engagement every month, or lose their job..which is what unionizing means. If I were google, I would also get control of their users (they would now be the companys) and youtubers will no longer be able move to any other platform while working for Google. You can't expect the freedom of running your own business with none of the restrictions of a job. I never understood the need to take away the ability for someone to truly run their own business and have freedoms and restrict it down to a corporate job, by law.

randolando 7y ago
> If that's the case, 99% will be booted off the platform and they will have to meet certain numbers of visitors and engagement every month, or lose their job..which is what unionizing means. Youtube already does this to some degree in the form of changing their monetization requirements over time. I'm all for giving more collective bargaining power to the creators. Youtube provides the infrastructure to connect creators to users, but I think over time we've seen them begin to take advantage of this in a way that is not fair to individual creators.
ziddoap 7y ago
>I never understood the need to take away the ability for someone to truly run their own business and have freedoms and restrict it down to a corporate job, by law. They obviously feel that it balances in their favor, in the sense that as of right now they are unable to "truly run their own business" while they are at the whims of monetization and censorship policies that seemingly change on a dime, with no recourse. On top of the copyright issues plaguing creators - they must think that unionizing will give them bargaining power to start to rectify these issues.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The important question, which according to the article the union won't disclose, is how many people are included in "they". Is this something that Youtubers in general are rallying behind, or is IG Metall just trying to bully Youtube and advance its own interests?
  - cheeky78 7y ago
    All unions bully large corporations to advance their own interests. The auto unions, for instance, had leaders that were getting multi-million dollar bonuses for decades..and probably still to this day.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I would rather liken this to running a soap making company, but the governmental society where you do your soap making keeps changing what ingredients are legal on an arbitrary basis, causing you to need to recreate your product constantly, much to the chagrin of your customers. It makes much more sense for you and your fellow bath products producers to bind together and have a sit down with the government on everyone's behalf.
perfmode 7y ago
your statements are somewhat reductive. collective action is possible outside of employment.
MrLeap 7y ago
If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another, larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner' alludes. How many HN posts have we seen over the years of businesses based on Amazon, Twitter, Apple getting blown the fuck up because the mothership restricted an API, copied their project or changed a ToS? I'm not putting in an opinion on anything else in your post except the supposed 'freedom' of youtubers et al. Okay maybe one more thing. I like seeing alternative viewpoints, and yours is a rare one on HN. I like to champion alternative viewpoints whenever I see them, especially when they're voted white for no reason. It's hard to go to bat for you on this though, since you're for retaliation against a bunch of people who dare try and organize around their shared pain points. I just can't do it this time! Unionizing is like a mini revolution. I was always confused about anti unionism when I was in school, because unions seem as american as it gets (in the 7th grade social studies definition of 'America). Democracy in the workplace? Hell yeah! Fighting against a power that exploits you without representation? That's boston-tea-party as shit. Shame there's no way to talk about things like this with someone who disagrees without it devolving into 'modern discourse'.
- vkou 7y ago
  > If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another, larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner' alludes. 99.9% of businesses in the United States depend on the existence of their power utility to operate. I guess they aren't independent businesses, either. But the rest of your point is salient. I too, am baffled by how many of the greatest advocates of democracy seem to have been brainwashed into resisting democracy in the workplace.
  - munificent 7y ago
    That's one of the reasons power utilities are regulated by the government. Yes, every organization is dependent on other organizations. That's why it's so important to be thoughtful about how those organizations are structured and what their incentives are. It's not the being dependent on an organization that's a problem, it's being dependent on an organization that has little regulation, whose goal is to make as much money as possible, and who thinks of your organization as a cost sink. People tend to get into this mindset that businesses and government are fundamentally different, but their both just social institutions with their sometimes different sometimes similar rules and incentives. > I too, am baffled by how many of the greatest advocates of democracy seem to have been brainwashed into resisting democracy in the workplace. The owners of those workplaces have spent decades and millions of dollars creating propandanda to do that brainwashing.
pjc50 7y ago
Google always already had the users. They're on Google's platform and won't move. That's why the YouTubers have to fight Google rather than just move.

randolando 7y ago

> If that's the case, 99% will be booted off the platform and they will have to meet certain numbers of visitors and engagement every month, or lose their job..which is what unionizing means. Youtube already does this to some degree in the form of changing their monetization requirements over time. I'm all for giving more collective bargaining power to the creators. Youtube provides the infrastructure to connect creators to users, but I think over time we've seen them begin to take advantage of this in a way that is not fair to individual creators.

ziddoap 7y ago

>I never understood the need to take away the ability for someone to truly run their own business and have freedoms and restrict it down to a corporate job, by law. They obviously feel that it balances in their favor, in the sense that as of right now they are unable to "truly run their own business" while they are at the whims of monetization and censorship policies that seemingly change on a dime, with no recourse. On top of the copyright issues plaguing creators - they must think that unionizing will give them bargaining power to start to rectify these issues.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The important question, which according to the article the union won't disclose, is how many people are included in "they". Is this something that Youtubers in general are rallying behind, or is IG Metall just trying to bully Youtube and advance its own interests?
- cheeky78 7y ago
  All unions bully large corporations to advance their own interests. The auto unions, for instance, had leaders that were getting multi-million dollar bonuses for decades..and probably still to this day.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

I would rather liken this to running a soap making company, but the governmental society where you do your soap making keeps changing what ingredients are legal on an arbitrary basis, causing you to need to recreate your product constantly, much to the chagrin of your customers. It makes much more sense for you and your fellow bath products producers to bind together and have a sit down with the government on everyone's behalf.

perfmode 7y ago

your statements are somewhat reductive. collective action is possible outside of employment.

MrLeap 7y ago

If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another, larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner' alludes. How many HN posts have we seen over the years of businesses based on Amazon, Twitter, Apple getting blown the fuck up because the mothership restricted an API, copied their project or changed a ToS? I'm not putting in an opinion on anything else in your post except the supposed 'freedom' of youtubers et al. Okay maybe one more thing. I like seeing alternative viewpoints, and yours is a rare one on HN. I like to champion alternative viewpoints whenever I see them, especially when they're voted white for no reason. It's hard to go to bat for you on this though, since you're for retaliation against a bunch of people who dare try and organize around their shared pain points. I just can't do it this time! Unionizing is like a mini revolution. I was always confused about anti unionism when I was in school, because unions seem as american as it gets (in the 7th grade social studies definition of 'America). Democracy in the workplace? Hell yeah! Fighting against a power that exploits you without representation? That's boston-tea-party as shit. Shame there's no way to talk about things like this with someone who disagrees without it devolving into 'modern discourse'.

vkou 7y ago
> If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another, larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner' alludes. 99.9% of businesses in the United States depend on the existence of their power utility to operate. I guess they aren't independent businesses, either. But the rest of your point is salient. I too, am baffled by how many of the greatest advocates of democracy seem to have been brainwashed into resisting democracy in the workplace.
- munificent 7y ago
  That's one of the reasons power utilities are regulated by the government. Yes, every organization is dependent on other organizations. That's why it's so important to be thoughtful about how those organizations are structured and what their incentives are. It's not the being dependent on an organization that's a problem, it's being dependent on an organization that has little regulation, whose goal is to make as much money as possible, and who thinks of your organization as a cost sink. People tend to get into this mindset that businesses and government are fundamentally different, but their both just social institutions with their sometimes different sometimes similar rules and incentives. > I too, am baffled by how many of the greatest advocates of democracy seem to have been brainwashed into resisting democracy in the workplace. The owners of those workplaces have spent decades and millions of dollars creating propandanda to do that brainwashing.

pjc50 7y ago

Google always already had the users. They're on Google's platform and won't move. That's why the YouTubers have to fight Google rather than just move.