3 ms·

This is not just an information preservation problem. It's a problem with the creators who depend on YouTube ad revenue to fund to create content like this sudd

This is not just an information preservation problem. It's a problem with the creators who depend on YouTube ad revenue to fund to create content like this suddenly and unpredictably losing that revenue stream.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
You cannot depend on Youtube ad revenue to survive, as it can be taken away at any time.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  You can’t depend on any particular job to survive either. Does that imply OSHA is useless?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Are you comparing a federal labor regulatory agency to ad payments that exist at the whim of a commercial entity?
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      This makes it sound like this is an overt decision by YouTube to stop monetizing a 3B1B video rather than an abuse of automated systems. The difference is important. Whether creators should depend on YouTube as a practical matter is different from whether they should be able to. As a practical matter, yes, diversifying is safer. But creators and YouTube probably agree that diversifying shouldn’t be necessary. Of course creators do not know how much money any particular video will make, but the implied social contract has always been that good videos will do well, for some definition of “good”. And no part of that definition of good has anything to do with bots abusing copyright systems.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        > This makes it sound like this is an overt decision by YouTube to stop monetizing a 3B1B video rather than an abuse of automated systems. The difference is important. There is no difference. Google's overt decision to continue operating automated systems that enable this abuse is the cause, and that is unlikely to change because Google does not care. It is cheaper to allow abuse than to change their system (more human intervention and effort). "The purpose of the system is what it does." If you as a creator decide to operate on a platform where the owner has no intention of changing their automated systems, and therefore this is a potential outcome, you are playing Russian roulette with your income stream (if any). That is a choice. Your income could disappear at any time with no recourse. There is no social contract at play between creators and Google, only Google optimizing for its shareholders.
- bunderbunder 2y ago
  Restating that the arrangement is crap doesn't make it not crap.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

You cannot depend on Youtube ad revenue to survive, as it can be taken away at any time.

janalsncm 2y ago
You can’t depend on any particular job to survive either. Does that imply OSHA is useless?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Are you comparing a federal labor regulatory agency to ad payments that exist at the whim of a commercial entity?
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    This makes it sound like this is an overt decision by YouTube to stop monetizing a 3B1B video rather than an abuse of automated systems. The difference is important. Whether creators should depend on YouTube as a practical matter is different from whether they should be able to. As a practical matter, yes, diversifying is safer. But creators and YouTube probably agree that diversifying shouldn’t be necessary. Of course creators do not know how much money any particular video will make, but the implied social contract has always been that good videos will do well, for some definition of “good”. And no part of that definition of good has anything to do with bots abusing copyright systems.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      > This makes it sound like this is an overt decision by YouTube to stop monetizing a 3B1B video rather than an abuse of automated systems. The difference is important. There is no difference. Google's overt decision to continue operating automated systems that enable this abuse is the cause, and that is unlikely to change because Google does not care. It is cheaper to allow abuse than to change their system (more human intervention and effort). "The purpose of the system is what it does." If you as a creator decide to operate on a platform where the owner has no intention of changing their automated systems, and therefore this is a potential outcome, you are playing Russian roulette with your income stream (if any). That is a choice. Your income could disappear at any time with no recourse. There is no social contract at play between creators and Google, only Google optimizing for its shareholders.
bunderbunder 2y ago
Restating that the arrangement is crap doesn't make it not crap.