| General > General Technical Chat |
| Is the S**t about to hit the you tube fan |
| << < (5/25) > >> |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: G7PSK on July 31, 2019, 07:59:59 am ---Court rulings have made Uber drivers employees here in the UK using what was basicly EU law so it is possible that another court might make a ruling that you tube creators are employees. --- End quote --- I wouldn't hold my breath. If it does happen it's probably going to be a very small fraction of youtube creators: those that actually make a living out of it and have no other significant revenue source. The rule over here is one of subordination, meaning that if it can be proven that there is a subordination relationship, it can be considered hidden employee status and be requalified as a full employee status. Subordination can be established from various criterions, but the fact that the company is the sole customer of an independent worker is already a big red flag. For instance, people driving for Uber have (AFAIK) an independent worker status. If they are allowed to do their work (driving people around) outside of Uber, then it could be reasonably considered that the worker is indeed independent. I don't know about Uber contracts: but if they are exclusive, then the independent status is just a fraud, and the responsibility is upon Uber's shoulders. Next. For Youtube, it's pretty different: AFAIK, very few people rely on Youtube as their unique source of revenue, and Youtube doesn't require anything from the creators - they are free to post new videos or post nothing. No subordination. It's not an hidden employee status. It's just much closer to the status of any artist selling their creations. |
| ajb:
--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 31, 2019, 09:46:53 am --- --- 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? --- End quote --- There are lots of relationships where value is exchanged but no employee/er or independent contract relationship is entailed. I expect that most serious creators resemble a business-to-business relationship, even if they do not have an actual corporate entity established (in the US, a 'sole proprietorship' is a business even though it's often just a person doing business under their own name). Especially if you have a Patreon or do sponsored videos or sell merch I think it's really hard to argue that you're not simply one business choosing to trade with another--essentially Youtube is paying you for the right to distribute (and profit from) your content. Or if your Youtube content is secondary to another business, then it's essentially an advertising platform with an optional cash kickback. |
| SparkyFX:
--- Quote from: David Hess on July 30, 2019, 08:51:39 pm ---I was amused to see Joerg Sprave behind it. --- End quote --- As far as i read in one article YT demonetized most (?) of his slingshot videos. They are still up, though. Some key points from this german article - what this is about is a "campaign" called Fairtube, consisting of "Youtubers Union" (somehow organized on Facebook, 17000 members) and the "IG Metall" (2 million members in Germany). - they request more transparency for rules, categories and methods used for moderation of Youtube - reasoning for demonetization and deletion of videos - a neutral arbitration board, as Youtube calls creators "partners", but maybe contrary to public policy of what a partnership is perceived as - they aim for a work council like position which represents creators and can take influence on the decisions made by Youtube Their legal leverage is practically based on fulltime youtubers getting an income through youtube, but youtube not paying the social insurance part (as a self employed person you of course pay that). But there is a recent legal development toward this form of employment called "Scheinselbständigkeit" (translates to something like "fake self-employment") and is currently a hot issue with parcel services, that hire self-employed people to deliver parcels as subcontractors to skip the requirements of actually hiring people, often also resulting in a very low income, yet having the whole business based on exactly that job. And they threaten to sue them for doing that, plus GDPR issues. 23rd of August is targeted to get some negotiations going. |
| SparkyFX:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 31, 2019, 02:36:27 am --- --- Quote from: David Hess on July 31, 2019, 01:52:35 am ---I assume their backup plan is to create an alternative to YouTube for those who object to YouTube's policies. --- End quote --- No such platform is every close, but orders of magnitude. --- End quote --- Even if they were, they´d run into the exact same problems. The complaints about lack of neutrality by youtube are nothing new, you can read such remarks on many forums, just that there is usually no monetary background for average users (except they bring that in or a third party is drawn into it). Complaining about lack of neutrality is just too simple, not saying there are no sound cases. Those partially come from trying to automate the process vs. proper moderation. If all viewers like the latest fake news, conspiracy video or hatespeech, then there is no starting point for an algorithm to work with. Actually companies like Cambridge Analytica intentionally worked around such efforts anyway, by starting their own platforms and buying ads on other platforms to lead readers there based on the profile data they bought (covered in various documentaries). I know the that the free speech concept is interpreted a bit different in different countries, but usually if you publish on someone elses platform there are laws governing the publishing of content itself, leading to the enforcement of rules. So you either work by those rules or do not use this platform. Unfortunately these rules are usually mixed up with rules that have no direct legal reason as a background (but are still binding) or are the result of corner cases - no explanation given. No one likes the security by obscurity approach or such, it is just the quick and dirty way of doing it. |
| langwadt:
--- Quote from: SparkyFX on July 31, 2019, 08:15:41 pm --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on July 31, 2019, 02:36:27 am --- --- Quote from: David Hess on July 31, 2019, 01:52:35 am ---I assume their backup plan is to create an alternative to YouTube for those who object to YouTube's policies. --- End quote --- No such platform is every close, but orders of magnitude. --- End quote --- Even if they were, they´d run into the exact same problems. The complaints about lack of neutrality by youtube are nothing new, you can read such remarks on many forums, just that there is usually no monetary background for average users (except they bring that in or a third party is drawn into it). Complaining about lack of neutrality is just too simple, not saying there are no sound cases. Those partially come from trying to automate the process vs. proper moderation. If all viewers like the latest fake news, conspiracy video or hatespeech, then there is no starting point for an algorithm to work with. Actually companies like Cambridge Analytica intentionally worked around such efforts anyway, by starting their own platforms and buying ads on other platforms to lead readers there based on the profile data they bought (covered in various documentaries). I know the that the free speech concept is interpreted a bit different in different countries, but usually if you publish on someone elses platform there are laws governing the publishing of content itself, leading to the enforcement of rules. So you either work by those rules or do not use this platform. Unfortunately these rules are usually mixed up with rules that have no direct legal reason as a background (but are still binding) or are the result of corner cases - no explanation given. No one likes the security by obscurity approach or such, it is just the quick and dirty way of doing it. --- End quote --- the free speech and censorship argument becomes a bit complicated when there is only a few big players with a virtual monopoly google and facebook are not a government, but in "Internet land" they have more power |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |