General > General Technical Chat
Is the S**t about to hit the you tube fan
<< < (4/25) > >>
T3sl4co1l:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2019, 11:26:20 pm ---Youtubers aren't employees of Youtube, they aren't even contractors, they are, well, I'm not sure what exactly... but it's like we are users that get a cut of revenue revenue based on something that Youtube enabled as a middle-man...

--- End quote ---

Exactly, that's the point.  What are they?  Even if nothing comes of a court case, the point is:
1. YouTube must respond to it, legally, and truthfully;
2. An action like this is quite large (and slow!) and expensive, and is utterly impossible for a small player to bring.  They must have the support of a large organization, and IG Metall providing that support is huge.
3. Even if the case turns out meritless, YT must hear it, and respond.  We will see a direct -- if court-mediated -- line into YT's upper management.  There has never been such a conversation before, in the entire history of YT as far as I know.  Their normal disregard for transparency and consistency will not suffice in court.
4. It's probably not wholly meritless.  They could very well build the case that, some creators, in some countries, are employees.  It probably wouldn't be comprehensive (would a moderately successful Aussie bloke see any change?  Would a tiny (almost non-)creator like me see change?), but it would be progress nonetheless, and would open the door to further legal theorizing and strategizing.

If nothing else, wasting their time on expensive court proceedings will bleed some money off of them, of course at the expense of those calling such cases.  A battle of attrition can be just as useful in legal battle as military battle.  Not that such a strategy would be all that practical against a giant like Google.

Tim
lordvader88:
I'm sick of the youtube censorship of alternative news and views of events.
Bud:
On a similar note, in Canada there is a set of specific rules that the Government uses to determine if a person is a full time employee or a contractor, in case of disputes. Know this because someone i know went through it. The Government has direct interest in determining such status as they tax the employer differently and require other money such as contribution to the government pension plan and stuff. No lawyers were involved in that particular case, a Government rep just followed the decision tree checklist.
MyHeadHz:
Well, this whole thing started years back with a threat from South Korea, of all places.  They don't have a "freedom of speech" guarantee like the US does (where Youtube is from).  They threatened to sue youtube, and also to start prosecuting viewers and youtube employees in that country under local arms laws which effectively regulate books/media about guns the same as physical guns.  (That's a bit oversimplified to be concise.)  Instead of risking a lawsuit or their viewers being arrested, Youtube caved hard and quickly.  Interestingly, after media attention to the threats, South Korea retracted them in short order and went silent on the issue- even ignoring multiple requests for comments via their consulate.

Before that, everyone had just assumed that the power and control with 'new media' was in the hands of the platforms, and the advertisers had to follow their rules in order to have the privilege of advertising on their platform.  Another assumption was that Youtube would fight to defend legal restrictions on their platforms and the flow of information.  Anyway, advertisers smelled blood after the Korea incident and they have been making up BS on a regular basis to renegotiate lower rates with great success.

I think Youtube screwed up pretty badly by caving to requests (as opposed to actual legal cases) and they have painted the company in a corner.  At this point I see a few options; to revert to the original way of only responding to court orders, restrict the platform to only invited 'partners' and grandfathered channels, or make the platform subscription-based.  Doing the former would likely lead to an extended period where advertisers withhold revenue from the platform or abandon it, which could kill the platform entirely as there are other places to advertise now.  New EU regulations (like the ones Sprave mentioned) will weigh heavily in the matter.  The most likely scenario seems to be a combination of the latter two options.

I don't think it will work, but I really hope that the Youtubers Union can bring back the old Youtube.
langwadt:

--- Quote from: raptor1956 on July 30, 2019, 11:55:29 pm ---I'm not so sure this isn't actually a back-door effort to stop YouTube from de-platforming channels engaged in propaganda and/or spreading hate.  Social media has become the default method for nefarious actors to spread hate and disinformation for personal or national goals and I would not put it past them to latch onto something like this to push the social media companies to allow them to do there hateful things unimpeded.  Be very useful to certain elements to prevent YT, FB Twitter and the rest from clamping down on them in the coming election.

Can governments force a newspaper to publish letters submitted by neonazi's? 

--- End quote ---

you want Youtube to become the "Ministry of truth", sole decider of what it hate,propaganda,disinformation etc.?


Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod