3 ms·
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 m
by 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 agoJust 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 agoPoint 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
- root_axis 7y agoPerhaps. I'm curious how you might envision a future definition of "employee" that would cause YouTube creators to be considered employees of YouTube.
- egypturnash 7y agoI feel like there is a line to be drawn somewhere around the points where you start referring to yourself as a "YouTuber" and where other people regularly describe you as one. More broadly, this same line may exist for any site/company somewhere around the point where whatever awkward construction for "person who regularly posts on site X" or "person who regularly does gig work for company X" starts getting applied to you a lot. I have no idea how to even begin to define this in legal terms. :)
- root_axis 7y ago> I feel like there is a line to be drawn somewhere around the points where you start referring to yourself as a "YouTuber" and where other people regularly describe you as one. This seems pretty subjective, difficult to measure, and impractical to enforce.
- egypturnash 7y agoWhich is why I said "I have no idea how to define this in legal terms". I would bet money that something can be nailed down in terms of what percentage of time goes into it, what percentage of total income comes from it, and other hard measures like that, if you feel like surveying a few hundred self-described You-Tubers and a few hundred non-You-Tubers. That sure sounds like work I don't feel like doing, though.
- root_axis 7y ago> what percentage of time goes into it Who would verify the amount of time spent by private individuals recording videos using their own equipment in their own homes? > what percentage of total income comes from it Why would that matter? It seems odd that YouTube's employer status would depend on whether or not the would-be employee has other sources of income. >other hard measures like that This doesn't seem like a realistic "evolution" of employer status. I'm not saying the definition won't ever evolve but it just doesn't seem practical that a private business which offers a free service to consumers would suddenly become an employer of those consumers based on how they use the service. I'll also add that turning YouTube into an employer would have problematic consequences for creators, e.g. as an employer, YouTube would be in a position to make editorial demands of creators which would put them right back where they started (create advertiser friendly videos or you don't get paid).
- jonas21 7y ago> YouTube sets the rates it pays creators not the advertisers. Isn't the price the creator gets paid determined by advertisers bidding in an auction?