4 ms·
> but then it might not be economically viable at their scale either. Google has a net income of well over 20% of revenue in their last quarterly earnings, eve
by ascar 5y ago
> but then it might not be economically viable at their scale either.
Google has a net income of well over 20% of revenue in their last quarterly earnings, even over 30% last March. This is ridiculously profitable. So I don't buy that argument at all.
And even if it's not economically viable to have customer support (or just a proper and timely process for appeals of AI decisions), then their business model probably shouldn't exist in its current form to begin with.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoViability isn't whether they can afford it, sadly. It's whether they consider the negative effects of not doing it to overwhelm the cost of doing it. In this case they won't lose much income from a small channel and people will continue to use their service so purely financially it's a sound decision. It's also a dick move to their users but big corporations don't have morals. Just shareholders. Remember both the content creators and consumers aren't their customers. We're just assets for the real customers, the advertisers. Google is the farmer and we're the cattle.
- ascar 5y agoI mean I don't disagree with your reasoning, but the economic viability was brought up as an argument against legislation forcing them to do it. So in that context it's certainly about affordability.