4 ms·

> 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 ro

> 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.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    So if people insist YouTube does not employ the creators of the products that make them money, then at best YouTube is their land lords. I don’t know if that is any better, particularly if this land lord is not asking for rent, but rather, is asking their creators to work for them. No, this is an even further stretch.
midasuni 4y ago
Does YouTube stop people from uploading the videos to other platforms? Do they require a set commitment of work? There are various tests that apply to contractors in the U.K. to work out if you’re an employee or a Lego mate contracting company, as it makes a difference to how taxes and benefits are calculated. Fro my understanding YouTube nowhere near meets that criteria of employee/employer. Companies like Uber and deliveroo are far closer.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >There are various tests that apply to contractors in the U.K. As there are in most of the world. Most of them were made for the factory and office era, and despite "updates" still within the old spirit, are antiquated in 2023 when it comes to addressing many new work scenarios...
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I actually wonder if they are really that antiquated, but rather that these schemes to bypass labor laws used to be called out and stopped, either by the unions in the 1890s or 1920s, or by the government in the 1950s. That is, I wonder if the the deregulation era of the 1980s also deregulated labor practices to the extent that companies can now jump through these hoops in order to avoid labor laws.

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.
- runarberg 4y ago
  So if people insist YouTube does not employ the creators of the products that make them money, then at best YouTube is their land lords. I don’t know if that is any better, particularly if this land lord is not asking for rent, but rather, is asking their creators to work for them. No, this is an even further stretch.

midasuni 4y ago

Does YouTube stop people from uploading the videos to other platforms? Do they require a set commitment of work? There are various tests that apply to contractors in the U.K. to work out if you’re an employee or a Lego mate contracting company, as it makes a difference to how taxes and benefits are calculated. Fro my understanding YouTube nowhere near meets that criteria of employee/employer. Companies like Uber and deliveroo are far closer.

coldtea 4y ago
>There are various tests that apply to contractors in the U.K. As there are in most of the world. Most of them were made for the factory and office era, and despite "updates" still within the old spirit, are antiquated in 2023 when it comes to addressing many new work scenarios...
- runarberg 4y ago
  I actually wonder if they are really that antiquated, but rather that these schemes to bypass labor laws used to be called out and stopped, either by the unions in the 1890s or 1920s, or by the government in the 1950s. That is, I wonder if the the deregulation era of the 1980s also deregulated labor practices to the extent that companies can now jump through these hoops in order to avoid labor laws.