5 ms·
If that was truly their primary concern, why wouldn't they limit the scope of the change to smaller creators? Could it be that they were looking for a post-hoc
by scoopertrooper 5y ago
If that was truly their primary concern, why wouldn't they limit the scope of the change to smaller creators? Could it be that they were looking for a post-hoc justification for a desired policy change?
- jedimastert 5y agoWould you trust YT to define what a "small creator" is? It opens the door to other policies being applied only to "small creators" as well, and I don't personally like that thought
- weberer 5y agoThey already do that. They don't pay creators at all who have less than 1000 subscribers and 4000 watch hours in the past year.
- ridaj 5y agoYou also cannot have comments on videos that feature or target children
- jedimastert 5y agoThat's a response to a legal requirement
- scoopertrooper 5y agoThey already apply different rules to small creators. For instance, you must have 1000 subscribers and 4000 hours of watch time per a year in order to monetise videos.
- jedimastert 5y agoThat's not even close to what "small creator" would mean on YT
- scoopertrooper 5y agoMy point was that your slippery slope argument was a bit bonkers because YouTube already has a mechanism to impose varying rules on channels based on size.