4 ms·

That's an odd pet peeve, and while you're probably right in most places, I wouldn't be surprised if some countries define employee differently. Atleast in regar

That's an odd pet peeve, and while you're probably right in most places, I wouldn't be surprised if some countries define employee differently. Atleast in regards to wether or not certain practices or fine print is legal.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>That's an odd pet peeve Everytime there is a YT Change (like happen recently) there is all these videos where YT often try to compare their experience with employment, how their "boss" Susan did something, or how they are being "Fired" if they get banned, or other such non-sense. That is my peeve. >>I wouldn't be surprised if some countries define employee differently. I would be surprised if any nation classified a person uploading videos on to a platform with the hopes of having a revenue share on ads the 3rd party sells on those videos is in anyway an "employee" of any kind. I would also be surprised if any country has laws where 2 parties could not agree to non-disclosure of the terms of their business contract (which is the basis for this comment thread). that is pretty standard really I would also be surprised since most of the time when you upload a video you have to agree you will be governed under the Laws of the US, and even more specific the laws of California
- coldtea 4y ago
  >I would be surprised if any nation classified a person uploading videos on to a platform with the hopes of having a revenue share on ads the 3rd party sells on those videos is in anyway an "employee" of any kind. I would be surprised in some countries dont change their laws at some time to account for this digital sharecropping (from Youtube and iOS App Store to Uber, etc), and set some rules (like with employment) to this wild west of making a living that affects millions...
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Digital sharecropping? Any country or group of people is welcome to spin up their own data centers and content moderations teams to make their own YouTube.
    - smadge 4y ago
      The digital sharecropper analogy is less about the monopoly position of platforms but about the content creator and platform relationship. More platforms wouldn’t change that relationship.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        The platform owner can change the relationship, for example if it’s is publicly owned. The point is is no one else in the world wants to make the enormous investment required to create a YouTube, so why should they get to make the rules? It is not technically hard to make a YouTube alternative, just expensive.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Isn't buying your own farm easier then spinning up your own data center? I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        For an individual, yes. For a country? It is just a matter of the country not wanting to spend the money to buy servers, bandwidth, and labor to moderate.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Why are countries coming up now? I thought you were arguing against the sharecropping analogy, and the people that do sharecropping are all low-power individuals. "Someone rich could make a new ecosystem" is unrelated to whether the current ecosystem resembles sharecropping.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Because coldtea’s response involved using the power of a country’s legal system to force a business to share its revenue.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    > digital sharecropping This has to stop. People are making products which one company uses to profit. This company is buying their labor—albeit in a really roundabout way. We’ve heard this gaslighting from e.g. Uber, where their workers weren’t employees but “gig workers”, or some other thing. The only reason companies do this is to get their labor for cheaper. No, these are YouTube workers, their labor is bought by YouTube, and YouTube should obey all labor laws when they buy their labor and profit from their work.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      the analogy doesn't work here, the videos are owned by their creators so they can monetise that content in other available ways, once an Uber driver has given someone a ride they can't find new ways to profit off of that (at least legally, or unless the passenger was a celebrity)
      - coldtea 4y ago
        The farm products were owned by the sharecroppers too, to eat or sell as they see fit. They just had to pay their tax to the landowner and be at their mercy regarding the property and changes in demands.
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        the farm products when used once are used up, videos, texts, "content" can be reused theoretically infinitely. furthermore you paid for the right to work the land what the landowner asked, nobody pays a minimum rate to have a YouTube channel that I am aware of. I understand it is a rhetorically powerful phrase, digital sharecropper, but unfortunately as often happens with analogies it falls apart with all the ways it does not fit.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >the farm products when used once are used up, videos, texts, "content" can be reused theoretically infinitely. How is this a useful distinction? It's about how you can sell the product, but doesn't change the fact that you don't own your lot, that you pay a percentage share to the owner of the place, that they can change the terms or even crush you anytime they like, and so on. >furthermore you paid for the right to work the land what the landowner asked, nobody pays a minimum rate to have a YouTube channel that I am aware of. What you paid to the landowner was a percentage of your lot's production, same as with YouTube.

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>That's an odd pet peeve Everytime there is a YT Change (like happen recently) there is all these videos where YT often try to compare their experience with employment, how their "boss" Susan did something, or how they are being "Fired" if they get banned, or other such non-sense. That is my peeve. >>I wouldn't be surprised if some countries define employee differently. I would be surprised if any nation classified a person uploading videos on to a platform with the hopes of having a revenue share on ads the 3rd party sells on those videos is in anyway an "employee" of any kind. I would also be surprised if any country has laws where 2 parties could not agree to non-disclosure of the terms of their business contract (which is the basis for this comment thread). that is pretty standard really I would also be surprised since most of the time when you upload a video you have to agree you will be governed under the Laws of the US, and even more specific the laws of California

coldtea 4y ago
>I would be surprised if any nation classified a person uploading videos on to a platform with the hopes of having a revenue share on ads the 3rd party sells on those videos is in anyway an "employee" of any kind. I would be surprised in some countries dont change their laws at some time to account for this digital sharecropping (from Youtube and iOS App Store to Uber, etc), and set some rules (like with employment) to this wild west of making a living that affects millions...
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Digital sharecropping? Any country or group of people is welcome to spin up their own data centers and content moderations teams to make their own YouTube.
  - smadge 4y ago
    The digital sharecropper analogy is less about the monopoly position of platforms but about the content creator and platform relationship. More platforms wouldn’t change that relationship.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      The platform owner can change the relationship, for example if it’s is publicly owned. The point is is no one else in the world wants to make the enormous investment required to create a YouTube, so why should they get to make the rules? It is not technically hard to make a YouTube alternative, just expensive.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Isn't buying your own farm easier then spinning up your own data center? I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      For an individual, yes. For a country? It is just a matter of the country not wanting to spend the money to buy servers, bandwidth, and labor to moderate.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Why are countries coming up now? I thought you were arguing against the sharecropping analogy, and the people that do sharecropping are all low-power individuals. "Someone rich could make a new ecosystem" is unrelated to whether the current ecosystem resembles sharecropping.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Because coldtea’s response involved using the power of a country’s legal system to force a business to share its revenue.
- runarberg 4y ago
  > digital sharecropping This has to stop. People are making products which one company uses to profit. This company is buying their labor—albeit in a really roundabout way. We’ve heard this gaslighting from e.g. Uber, where their workers weren’t employees but “gig workers”, or some other thing. The only reason companies do this is to get their labor for cheaper. No, these are YouTube workers, their labor is bought by YouTube, and YouTube should obey all labor laws when they buy their labor and profit from their work.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    the analogy doesn't work here, the videos are owned by their creators so they can monetise that content in other available ways, once an Uber driver has given someone a ride they can't find new ways to profit off of that (at least legally, or unless the passenger was a celebrity)
    - coldtea 4y ago
      The farm products were owned by the sharecroppers too, to eat or sell as they see fit. They just had to pay their tax to the landowner and be at their mercy regarding the property and changes in demands.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        the farm products when used once are used up, videos, texts, "content" can be reused theoretically infinitely. furthermore you paid for the right to work the land what the landowner asked, nobody pays a minimum rate to have a YouTube channel that I am aware of. I understand it is a rhetorically powerful phrase, digital sharecropper, but unfortunately as often happens with analogies it falls apart with all the ways it does not fit.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >the farm products when used once are used up, videos, texts, "content" can be reused theoretically infinitely. How is this a useful distinction? It's about how you can sell the product, but doesn't change the fact that you don't own your lot, that you pay a percentage share to the owner of the place, that they can change the terms or even crush you anytime they like, and so on. >furthermore you paid for the right to work the land what the landowner asked, nobody pays a minimum rate to have a YouTube channel that I am aware of. What you paid to the landowner was a percentage of your lot's production, same as with YouTube.