3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - autoexec 7y ago
      monetization is the payment scheme at issue. Some creators get paid, some of the time, and a lot of content creators on youtube feel the whole system is unfair. That's why they are unionizing. For what it's worth I'm not a big fan of monetization on youtube in general. I prefer content to be posted out of a passion to share than a profit motive and for supporters to support content creators directly, but I also object to the idea that Google owes nothing to youtubers who are simply mooching off of youtube, a company that is graciously providing youtubers a free platform, or that google doesn't gain anything from hosting videos that don't have ads all over them. Without the content creators youtube is worthless and google has an interest in keeping them happy and using youtube. If creators have grievances with how google handles things, they are free to organize and try to apply pressure collectively.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Without the content creators youtube is worthless Without ads YouTube is worthless to Google. Nonmonetized content isn't bringing revenue to Google. Sure, it has an indirect benefit in making YouTube a more attractive place to post monetized content, by it's not like creators get nothing out of it (which is why they post to YouTube rather than arranging other hosting, which is certainly valuable if less likely to be free and also likely to have less reach.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

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.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    monetization is the payment scheme at issue. Some creators get paid, some of the time, and a lot of content creators on youtube feel the whole system is unfair. That's why they are unionizing. For what it's worth I'm not a big fan of monetization on youtube in general. I prefer content to be posted out of a passion to share than a profit motive and for supporters to support content creators directly, but I also object to the idea that Google owes nothing to youtubers who are simply mooching off of youtube, a company that is graciously providing youtubers a free platform, or that google doesn't gain anything from hosting videos that don't have ads all over them. Without the content creators youtube is worthless and google has an interest in keeping them happy and using youtube. If creators have grievances with how google handles things, they are free to organize and try to apply pressure collectively.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Without the content creators youtube is worthless Without ads YouTube is worthless to Google. Nonmonetized content isn't bringing revenue to Google. Sure, it has an indirect benefit in making YouTube a more attractive place to post monetized content, by it's not like creators get nothing out of it (which is why they post to YouTube rather than arranging other hosting, which is certainly valuable if less likely to be free and also likely to have less reach.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]