6 ms·

YouTube does not employ creators; creators are utilizing YouTube's free service in order to broadcast their own content. Google demonetizes videos in order to b

YouTube does not employ creators; creators are utilizing YouTube's free service in order to broadcast their own content. Google demonetizes videos in order to be more appealing to advertisers, ultimately the problem these creators have is that advertisers are not willing to pay for their content. YouTube only makes money when the content creator does, so naturally they'd be happy to monetize anything they could.

m463 7y ago
The decision to demonetize is Google's. Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would make the choice?
- root_axis 7y ago
  > The decision to demonetize is Google's. Yes, but the decision is based on feedback from advertisers. In YouTube's ideal world, every single video on the site would be monetized, but this isn't possible because advertisers do not want their brand associated with controversial topics, especially those that concern very heated political debates. > Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would make the choice? The creators and advertisers have no obligation to work through YouTube. In fact, all of the big creators work directly with advertisers that are friendly to their content by editing sponsored content directly into the video.
  - AcerbicZero 7y ago
    I don't believe there is enough evidence available to state what Google is making its decisions based on. I think its somewhat safe to assume the first major round of demonitization (the original adpocolypse) was likely based on advertiser feedback, since the major complaints being made involved extremely inappropriate ad placement/tone for the videos they were being played on. The more recent demonitizations have appeared more and more "proactive" in protecting Google, but due to the comments being made by the CEO of youtube, and by the patterns in the demonitizations its not unreasonable to suspect there maybe other factors outside of keeping advertisers happy.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      Perhaps, but as I already noted, every popular video that is demonetized costs YouTube a lot of money because they stream the video to millions of viewers but get no revenue to offset the costs of hosting and streaming. We all know the most important thing to every corporation, including YouTube, is to make as much money as possible, so barring some strong evidence to suggest otherwise, we need no other explanation than the obvious one: advertisers don't want to pay for ads in controversial videos.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Advertisers pay Google for the service of making sure their ads are next to content that maximizes sales and minimizes controversy. Whether or not Google achieves that is up for debate. Advertisers can/do choose to bypass Google and just straight sponsor videos.
debt 7y ago
YouTube sets the rates it pays creators not the advertisers. A union would require YouTube doesn't arbitrarily change the rates it pays it's creators and also might be able to prevent them from instantly demonetizing videos. A union would create stability in the marketplace. For example, if you're contracted to do a job, the client doesn't usually arbitrarily change the rates it's paying you unless you have some contractual agreement to do so(overtime, paid leave, etc.). But that's built into the original contract during negotiations. YouTube is just "here read this shit and do what we say and we can pay you or choose not to pay you or change what we pay you whenever we feel like it whether you like it or not"
- root_axis 7y ago
  Just to be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of creators banding together to negotiate collectively in order to get better terms from YouTube - I think if they can build a coalition powerful enough to accomplish this it'd be a good thing and I'd say more power to them! My point is that YouTube does not employ creators, they offer a free service to creators without any guarantees. I'm also pointing out that YouTube does not want to demonetize videos because demonetizing a video costs YouTube money (they host and stream the video for free, but get no revenue in return) and any changes to YouTube's business operations that would reduce the amount of videos that get demonetized would very obviously benefit YouTube. > if you're contracted to do a job, the client doesn't usually arbitrarily change the rates it's paying you unless you have some contractual agreement to do so(overtime, paid leave, etc.). YouTube is not contracting creators to do a job, creators are uploading their content to YouTube at no cost to them, and in exchange, YouTube offers a cut of the ad revenue to the creators if YouTube can successfully monetize the video. Whenever a video is demonetized YouTube loses.
  - sakekasi 7y ago
    Point taken on that definition, but as tech companies create new markets (e.g. YouTube, Uber, etc.) I think the definition of employee will evolve as well
    - 7y ago
autoexec 7y ago
> YouTube does not employ creators; creators are utilizing YouTube's free service in order to broadcast their own content. Youtube doesn't create content. They utilize content provided to google for free by creators to drive traffic to their website. Google monetizes videos in order to be more appealing to content creators. The problem these creators have is that advertisers, corporations, competitors, and copyright trolls are easily able to game google's automated systems to get channels demonetized and content censored. It doesn't matter to youtube if a channel is demonetized because it still drives traffic to their website, it still provides google with a trove of user data (both from the person visiting youtube and the content creator's own content and usage of the site) and they will happily autoplay/suggest videos full of ads to get visitors away from the demonetized channels. aggressive demonetization/censoring is far less expensive for google than properly moderating content, and it lets them show they are "doing something" which keeps advertisers happy and the copyright cartels at bay.
- plicense 7y ago
  > Youtube doesn't create content. They utilize content provided to google for free by creators to drive traffic to their website. This is a popular sentiment, but its not "for free". There's cost involved in storing, transcoding and service videos to millions/billions of users and in the development of those technologies.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    User generated content is acquired 100% for free, but Google has costs to store/distribute that content. Google's expenses aren't trivial, but they also aren't paying creators whose content is the only reason anyone ever goes to youube.com Imagine netflix telling movie/TV studios that they can let them stream their content for free because it's costing them money to store and distribute those works after all...
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Google's expenses aren't trivial, but they also aren't paying creators Yes, they are, if the creators choose monetization. (If the creators choose to make content free, including choosing to supply content ineligible for monetization, sure, Google isn't paying for it, but they also aren't getting direct revenue from it.) Now, the payment is contingent on the revenue Google receives tied to the content, so it's a low-risk/low-cost consignment model (because low-cost because the unit cost of nonproductive inventory is low) rather than a “buy and try to sell” model where content that Google couldn't monetize would leave Google out piles of money that they speculatively paid for the content, but they absolutely are paying creators.
alexashka 7y ago
The issue is not demonetization. It's that Google are twats that arrogantly think they can do as they please and offer no explanation for their actions. You know, like any monopoly entity that is filled with people who depend on a paycheque to live their life.

m463 7y ago

The decision to demonetize is Google's. Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would make the choice?

root_axis 7y ago
> The decision to demonetize is Google's. Yes, but the decision is based on feedback from advertisers. In YouTube's ideal world, every single video on the site would be monetized, but this isn't possible because advertisers do not want their brand associated with controversial topics, especially those that concern very heated political debates. > Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would make the choice? The creators and advertisers have no obligation to work through YouTube. In fact, all of the big creators work directly with advertisers that are friendly to their content by editing sponsored content directly into the video.
- AcerbicZero 7y ago
  I don't believe there is enough evidence available to state what Google is making its decisions based on. I think its somewhat safe to assume the first major round of demonitization (the original adpocolypse) was likely based on advertiser feedback, since the major complaints being made involved extremely inappropriate ad placement/tone for the videos they were being played on. The more recent demonitizations have appeared more and more "proactive" in protecting Google, but due to the comments being made by the CEO of youtube, and by the patterns in the demonitizations its not unreasonable to suspect there maybe other factors outside of keeping advertisers happy.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Perhaps, but as I already noted, every popular video that is demonetized costs YouTube a lot of money because they stream the video to millions of viewers but get no revenue to offset the costs of hosting and streaming. We all know the most important thing to every corporation, including YouTube, is to make as much money as possible, so barring some strong evidence to suggest otherwise, we need no other explanation than the obvious one: advertisers don't want to pay for ads in controversial videos.
Consultant32452 7y ago
Advertisers pay Google for the service of making sure their ads are next to content that maximizes sales and minimizes controversy. Whether or not Google achieves that is up for debate. Advertisers can/do choose to bypass Google and just straight sponsor videos.

debt 7y ago

YouTube sets the rates it pays creators not the advertisers. A union would require YouTube doesn't arbitrarily change the rates it pays it's creators and also might be able to prevent them from instantly demonetizing videos. A union would create stability in the marketplace. For example, if you're contracted to do a job, the client doesn't usually arbitrarily change the rates it's paying you unless you have some contractual agreement to do so(overtime, paid leave, etc.). But that's built into the original contract during negotiations. YouTube is just "here read this shit and do what we say and we can pay you or choose not to pay you or change what we pay you whenever we feel like it whether you like it or not"

root_axis 7y ago
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of creators banding together to negotiate collectively in order to get better terms from YouTube - I think if they can build a coalition powerful enough to accomplish this it'd be a good thing and I'd say more power to them! My point is that YouTube does not employ creators, they offer a free service to creators without any guarantees. I'm also pointing out that YouTube does not want to demonetize videos because demonetizing a video costs YouTube money (they host and stream the video for free, but get no revenue in return) and any changes to YouTube's business operations that would reduce the amount of videos that get demonetized would very obviously benefit YouTube. > if you're contracted to do a job, the client doesn't usually arbitrarily change the rates it's paying you unless you have some contractual agreement to do so(overtime, paid leave, etc.). YouTube is not contracting creators to do a job, creators are uploading their content to YouTube at no cost to them, and in exchange, YouTube offers a cut of the ad revenue to the creators if YouTube can successfully monetize the video. Whenever a video is demonetized YouTube loses.
- sakekasi 7y ago
  Point taken on that definition, but as tech companies create new markets (e.g. YouTube, Uber, etc.) I think the definition of employee will evolve as well
  - 7y ago

autoexec 7y ago

> YouTube does not employ creators; creators are utilizing YouTube's free service in order to broadcast their own content. Youtube doesn't create content. They utilize content provided to google for free by creators to drive traffic to their website. Google monetizes videos in order to be more appealing to content creators. The problem these creators have is that advertisers, corporations, competitors, and copyright trolls are easily able to game google's automated systems to get channels demonetized and content censored. It doesn't matter to youtube if a channel is demonetized because it still drives traffic to their website, it still provides google with a trove of user data (both from the person visiting youtube and the content creator's own content and usage of the site) and they will happily autoplay/suggest videos full of ads to get visitors away from the demonetized channels. aggressive demonetization/censoring is far less expensive for google than properly moderating content, and it lets them show they are "doing something" which keeps advertisers happy and the copyright cartels at bay.

plicense 7y ago
> Youtube doesn't create content. They utilize content provided to google for free by creators to drive traffic to their website. This is a popular sentiment, but its not "for free". There's cost involved in storing, transcoding and service videos to millions/billions of users and in the development of those technologies.
- autoexec 7y ago
  User generated content is acquired 100% for free, but Google has costs to store/distribute that content. Google's expenses aren't trivial, but they also aren't paying creators whose content is the only reason anyone ever goes to youube.com Imagine netflix telling movie/TV studios that they can let them stream their content for free because it's costing them money to store and distribute those works after all...
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Google's expenses aren't trivial, but they also aren't paying creators Yes, they are, if the creators choose monetization. (If the creators choose to make content free, including choosing to supply content ineligible for monetization, sure, Google isn't paying for it, but they also aren't getting direct revenue from it.) Now, the payment is contingent on the revenue Google receives tied to the content, so it's a low-risk/low-cost consignment model (because low-cost because the unit cost of nonproductive inventory is low) rather than a “buy and try to sell” model where content that Google couldn't monetize would leave Google out piles of money that they speculatively paid for the content, but they absolutely are paying creators.

alexashka 7y ago

The issue is not demonetization. It's that Google are twats that arrogantly think they can do as they please and offer no explanation for their actions. You know, like any monopoly entity that is filled with people who depend on a paycheque to live their life.