Is the S**t about to hit the you tube fan

[G7PSK]

Came across this today, the forming of a you tube union with the backing of IG Metall

https://youtu.be/EUxxLZz_2NU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Metall

[bsfeechannel]

Content creators of the world, unite!

Wait a minute. Where have I seen that before?

[MyHeadHz]

I'm curious about what will come of this.  This definitely seems like the most serious attempt at the idea so far.

The interesting thing is that in some countries what they are asking for is mandatory, but in others it may be forbidden.  I think they are vague to try to be everyone for everyone, which also never works.

Youtube has been going to crap lately.  I wish them luck.

[Bud]

They sounded more like amateurs, not  professionals... Did not instill confidence in them in me.

[apelly]

Looks like another group found a way to take a bite from the youtube cherry.

[David Hess]

I was amused to see Joerg Sprave behind it.

Is it a coincidence that Germans would get serious about this first?

[m98]

They not only have the worlds largest union behind them, the consequences for Youtube in case they don't budge might get quite expensive.

[EEVblog]

They not only have the worlds largest union behind them, the consequences for Youtube in case they don't budge might get quite expensive.

I'd never heard of them (the worlds largest union).
I'm on the Youtube Union Facebook thing, but never expected anything to come of it.
I don't even know if they have any legal power in any country.
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...

[raptor1956]

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? 


Brian

[Mr. Scram]

I'd never heard of them (the worlds largest union).
I'm on the Youtube Union Facebook thing, but never expected anything to come of it.
I don't even know if they have any legal power in any country.
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...

You don't need legal power to hurt Youtube. If enough content creators take coordinated action against Youtube it hurts the bottom line.

[RoGeorge]

As a video distributing platform YouTube is great, while the way it treats content creators is close to horrible.

Unless other video platforms will come close in technical performance and users number, YouTube won't really bother with any protest group(s).

[Mr. Scram]

As a video distributing platform YouTube is great, while the way it treats content creators is close to horrible.

Unless other video platforms will come close in technical performance and users number, YouTube won't really bother with any protest group(s).

Sure they will. Youtube has proven to be very sensitive to the bottom line. They are very willing to bow to advertisers which means they bow to the bottom line. If enough people do something to make a dent in the profits things are bound to change, regardless of whether the response is the desired one.

[David Hess]

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.

YouTube has been doing that to more than hate and propaganda channels.  Anything "politically incorrect" is suspect.  Google is deliberately using its services in viewpoint biased ways while claiming the opposite.

Youtube has proven to be very sensitive to the bottom line. They are very willing to bow to advertisers which means they bow to the bottom line. If enough people do something to make a dent in the profits things are bound to change, regardless of whether the response is the desired one.

That is the excuse they give but it is a lie.  They had a choice to allow advertisers to select what types of channels they would be associated with and instead implemented a one size fits all policy which gives them a handy excuse when people question their motives.

As a video distributing platform YouTube is great, while the way it treats content creators is close to horrible.

Unless other video platforms will come close in technical performance and users number, YouTube won't really bother with any protest group(s).

I assume their backup plan is to create an alternative to YouTube for those who object to YouTube's policies.  If it is not, then I doubt YouTube really cares no matter what happens.

[EEVblog]

I assume their backup plan is to create an alternative to YouTube for those who object to YouTube's policies. 

No such platform is every close, but orders of magnitude.

[G7PSK]

They not only have the worlds largest union behind them, the consequences for Youtube in case they don't budge might get quite expensive.

I'd never heard of them (the worlds largest union).
I'm on the Youtube Union Facebook thing, but never expected anything to come of it.
I don't even know if they have any legal power in any country.
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...

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. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-drivers-workers-rights-case-court-of-appeal-gig-economy-ruling-a8691026.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/uber-loses-appeal-against-landmark-uk-workers-rights-ruling.html

[T3sl4co1l]

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...

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]

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? 

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

[SiliconWizard]

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.

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]

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...

Exactly, that's the point.  What are they? 

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]

I was amused to see Joerg Sprave behind it.

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]

I assume their backup plan is to create an alternative to YouTube for those who object to YouTube's policies. 

No such platform is every close, but orders of magnitude.

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]

I assume their backup plan is to create an alternative to YouTube for those who object to YouTube's policies. 

No such platform is every close, but orders of magnitude.

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.

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

 

[SiliconWizard]

I don't know about Google, but Facebook has been actively collaborating with the governments of a few countries for a good while.

Couple examples:
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/12/facebook-is-collaborating-with-the-israeli-government-to-determine-what-should-be-censored/
http://en.rfi.fr/france/20190625-facebook-collaborate-french-government-hate-speech-cases-minister

I'm sure there are dozens of them.

[Deodand2014]

Here is a trio of videos from a channel trying to cover WWII on a week-by-week basis, they hit monetization problems and search downgrades.

This is the first of two 'breakfast club' videos where they discussed the issue



In the second one they discussed Google's (aka YouTube's) reply and pointed out that the criteria they were sent for what could be demonetized were so vague that almost all human history fell under it.



And their response...

[RoGeorge]

The WW2 channel dudes sound like bitching for why they were not getting a window seat in a holiday trip airplane that:
- was meant for a different destination than theirs
- still they were given a seat for free, anyway
- they talked only ugly stories all flight long while others were trying to have some holiday fun
- still they got a free meal during flight
- so when the cake was not big enough, their neighbor got a slice for being funnier while they don't.   

YouTube is a space for placing ads, same as a billboard is, but in a different and cleverly twisted way.

YouTube is nobody's own TV broadcasting station.

[soldar]

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.

There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing things that are lies, like perpetual motion, dangerous, like how to cheat the electric power company by doing things that don't work anyway, and objectionable in many other ways. What is being demonitized is not specific content as much as unpopular content. That is because YouTube is in the business of selling advertising and they want to place their ads on popular videos not on videos that cause conflict.

You tube does not care if a guy posts videos of mice being tortured to death. But if a video of a dead mouse being eaten by a vulture gets a lot of complaints then they will demonitize it. Because that is the way their business model works.

[SiliconWizard]

Yeah, on Youtube, most decisions for demonetizing videos come from the advertisers (and that's what Youtube managers themselves admit).

Censored videos, it's a different thing. I've already noticed a few videos that were explicitely censored in a specific country ("content not available in your country"), with an explicit mention that it was due to a complaint from the said country's government. It's probably a very small fraction of all videos, but it does happen.

[tooki]

You tube does not care if a guy posts videos of mice being tortured to death. But if a video of a dead mouse being eaten by a vulture gets a lot of complaints then they will demonitize it. Because that is the way their business model works.

Except that they do care: “Mousetrap Mondays” had to stop showing mice being killed in mousetraps because they got demonetized.

[Mr. Scram]

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

They arguably have more power than many countries. Maybe they don't have exclusive power in one country, but definitely a large influence distributed across many countries.

[SparkyFX]

Exactly, it is optimized for popularity, in itself has practicalities of a popularity contest, with the minimum amount of effort required to keep the business legit. Would not make it different from any other business in the media world (including TV, Cinema, Arts), but some people have problems with it, from advertisers to content creators.

I think it might be a normal reaction to mentally put it in the same bucket as TV regarding censoring, if you could not show it there, then the reaction might have something to it (although TV is more curated and authored). It might be like 30-50 years apart that people complained about TV content and this now is just the same thing.

When using a platform with such a wide public audience, you can not choose your viewers, at the same time no one is prohibited to start his own platform and restrict access in any way necessary to handle complaints themselves.

[windsmurf]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614055/youtube-union-ig-metall-labor-gdpr-privacy-policy-creators/

[SparkyFX]

The campaign just posted their points in form of a video:

[nctnico]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614055/youtube-union-ig-metall-labor-gdpr-privacy-policy-creators/

I they manage to convince Youtube one way or another. I'm sure that in the long run it is better for Youtube to have a well defined relation between the platform provider and the content providers.

[IdahoMan]

We all knew when snowflake commies at G----- acquired YT, that things would go downhill for creativity and freedom of expression.

Google is actually banned on my computer. I use Block Site add-on for FireFox. It won't even allow a link on the list to load.

[Red Squirrel]

Sounds like a neat idea but what can a union really do?  Youtube can wipe out all the channels who are part of the union if they really want to and hardly see a difference in their revenue.  Even in a real job setting a union only has so much power.  If the company wants to mass layoff people the union can't really stop it.  Unions are great in the work place as they do offer lot of protection and fairness, but not sure how it would work for youtubers as you're not really employed by Google. You're basically a contractor. 

What needs to happen is an alternative, ideally one not owned by a megacorporation with a capitalist agenda.  The odds of that happening is slim though... the costs of running something like that is crazy.      I could maybe see Amazon or Microsoft do it as they already own data centres and massive bandwidth but I think they would just be the same as Youtube with their policies. 

[NiHaoMike]

Those unhappy with Youtube demonetizing content can demonetize Youtube back by using adblocking.

What needs to happen is an alternative, ideally one not owned by a megacorporation with a capitalist agenda.

Already exists - it's called Bittorrent.

[T3sl4co1l]

Sounds like a neat idea but what can a union really do?  Youtube can wipe out all the channels who are part of the union if they really want to and hardly see a difference in their revenue.

Sure they will. You're forgetting the total space they live in. Other channels, including the popular and profitable ones, will see what's happening, and at the very least be concerned whether they're "next", and post videos to that effect.  The Twitterverse will explode with outrage.  People will complain on Facebook, and probably share more videos there (freebooting), instead of linking them.  Advertisers may protest, and do another pull-of-funds stunt.

Still maybe not much overall, but noticeable definitely, and magnified definitely.

Tim

[SparkyFX]

Sounds like a neat idea but what can a union really do?

As they stated, they might generally sue based on hidden employee status or unspecific GDPR issues. If that happens they not only sue for their unionized members, but might lead to decisions that affect all. No idea how this might end, because as SiliconWizard said many creators upload to different platforms, YT just pays most i guess. This is a bit a hen or egg problem, because a small platform does not have a business model that allows for the problem (creators depend financially on a platform and its TOS) to exist in the first place.

What needs to happen is an alternative, ideally one not owned by a megacorporation with a capitalist agenda.  The odds of that happening is slim though... the costs of running something like that is crazy.      I could maybe see Amazon or Microsoft do it as they already own data centres and massive bandwidth but I think they would just be the same as Youtube with their policies.

Because the same starting conditions and environments lead to the same results. I mean you can see the serious shit that really needs to be removed, because they need to abide the law. The problem is to start mixing in purely moral values, although they already got the age verification for some content.

[Deodand2014]

Commentary from a crusty old bloke in New Zealand:



And to remember, YouTube is run by people who believe that it is their duty to ensure viewers are safe both online and offline.

[SiliconWizard]

As they stated, they might generally sue based on hidden employee status or unspecific GDPR issues. If that happens they not only sue for their unionized members, but might lead to decisions that affect all. No idea how this might end, because as SiliconWizard said many creators upload to different platforms, YT just pays most i guess.

Not only that, but believe me, most "Youtubers" wouldn't really want to be proper Youtube employees anyway. Be very careful what you wish for. Many people probably don't begin to understand what this status would entail, including losing all freedom to work as, when and with whomever they please.

Again to me it doesn't really make sense. You either want to be an independent worker or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

[Red Squirrel]

Can't youtube just ban all the channels that decide to join the union?  I could see them do that tbh.   That's the issue with trying to fight such a large company they always have a card they can pull and will be way ahead of you.

And yeah one advantage of being a "contractor" is you can somewhat do what you want.  Unfortunately you still have to abide by the rules and when they don't even tell you what the rules are... it makes life difficult.  Technically Youtubers can upload to alternate sites too but then Youtube can also turn around and say that if you upload to Youtube then they own all copyright of your video and you're not allowed to upload it anywhere else.  That's basically how the music industry works, artists don't own their own works and have no rights over it.    I think Youtube already does that for streaming. If you have a Youtube account you're not allowed to stream anything on a non Youtube platform.

[Bud]

What justification YT would use to ban union members? "You have been banned because you are a member of a union"? That would find its way into the press pretty fast and may be considered as retaliation and make big noise.

[SiliconWizard]

Can't youtube just ban all the channels that decide to join the union?

Well, as long as they don't actively promote the union in Youtube videos, I don't think they would really have a ground for banning them. As they are independent workers, what happens outside of Youtube is probably none of Youtube's business, as long as it's not illegal per se (such as false claims/false information/etc.)

But if they do, that could easily pass as disloyal to Youtube, which then could ban them I suppose.

Imagine the extreme situation in which a channel would consist almost exclusively of videos bashing Youtube. Not sure it would last for very long.

Unfortunately you still have to abide by the rules and when they don't even tell you what the rules are... it makes life difficult.

Fair enough. But again, there is no obligation from either side here. A Youtuber has no obligation to post new videos, Youtube has no obligation to keep them available...

Technically Youtubers can upload to alternate sites too but then Youtube can also turn around and say that if you upload to Youtube then they own all copyright of your video and you're not allowed to upload it anywhere else.

But do they do this? Does Youtube actually own copyright of posted videos? I don't think so? And I highly doubt they could ever pull that off. That would ruin their business IMO, and again as long as they don't actually BUY the right to own the copyright, they just can't have it. When they give money to Youtubers, they don't buy the copyrights, they just give them back a fraction of whatever money the video makes for Youtube AFAIK...

[David Hess]

There is no requirement for YouTube to justify anything they do.  It might be bad public relations but that is it.  They already are very nebulous about violations for this very reason.

[SparkyFX]

Can't youtube just ban all the channels that decide to join the union?

Well, as long as they don't actively promote the union in Youtube videos, I don't think they would really have a ground for banning them. As they are independent workers, what happens outside of Youtube is probably none of Youtube's business, as long as it's not illegal per se (such as false claims/false information/etc.)

But if they do, that could easily pass as disloyal to Youtube, which then could ban them I suppose.

I think that might go to some higher court then, as the connection of unionizing and disloyalty would be as much an imputation/libel as it would mean they handle creators like employees. Probably won´t happen unless legally required to treat unions as terror organizations.

In itself the problem is less that YT rewards creators for content the way they do (they somehow needed, otherwise there would be no way to sort out the copyright violations that threatened the platform, by setting it directly on a monetary base and then redirecting the money to the source), the assumption that you can depend most of your income on youtube was made by the creators in the first place, based on the experience they made so far.

The hidden employee status might be too big of a stretch in a freelancing scenario, but i think a contract that involves being paid at will of the other party is a legal problem of some sort, after you invested effort into it. There is some ambiguity, as the content might just have no views or be of low value, but  high view count/watch time and demonetization without a reason given kind of break the contract, and willful setting of the price does not help either. The value is not the only parameter, it could also be the measurement of watchtime (not independently measured).

Unions don´t care about freelancers, they usually work for the contract details as offered. It just happens that this falls in the same time in which others try to pay for labor by making it look like freelancing, although the laborer is doing full time for them under horrible conditions. This would be a huge loophole which even the government is not interested to grow big (loss of taxes, voters, undermining of workers rights and laws), so the unions get involved.

Imagine the extreme situation in which a channel would consist almost exclusively of videos bashing Youtube. Not sure it would last for very long.

They don´t have to delete it (that might get them into problems with free speech, depending on country), but they can set the value of it and not recommend it to viewers.

[EEVblog]

Sounds like a neat idea but what can a union really do?

As they stated, they might generally sue based on hidden employee status or unspecific GDPR issues. If that happens they not only sue for their unionized members, but might lead to decisions that affect all.

And that's the worry, what if they screw it up for everyone?

[EEVblog]

Can't youtube just ban all the channels that decide to join the union?

Well, as long as they don't actively promote the union in Youtube videos, I don't think they would really have a ground for banning them. As they are independent workers, what happens outside of Youtube is probably none of Youtube's business, as long as it's not illegal per se (such as false claims/false information/etc.)
But if they do, that could easily pass as disloyal to Youtube, which then could ban them I suppose.

It's already against the T&C to promote other live streaming services like Twitch in a Youtube video
https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/8s8ujf/youtube_is_cracking_down_on_twitch_streamers/

[SiliconWizard]

Imagine the extreme situation in which a channel would consist almost exclusively of videos bashing Youtube. Not sure it would last for very long.

They don´t have to delete it (that might get them into problems with free speech, depending on country), but they can set the value of it and not recommend it to viewers.

Interesting point, but I'm not completely sure free speech could be invoked here.

Actively using the services of a private company solely, or mainly to bash said company is dubious (and hypocritical!) It's very obvious that it's bound to harm the company's business, and as such, the company could take measures to save its business. Free speech has limits. Now limits include of course saying things that could be unlawful, such again as false claims.

As an example, and as has been discussed in this thread, we could reasonably consider that claiming Youtube is using the creators as hidden employees IS a false claim.

[SiliconWizard]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

[SparkyFX]

Interesting point, but I'm not completely sure free speech could be invoked here.

There are some things different in the US, i am not fully knowledgeable about exact differences, but as far as i understood it, it is far reaching, so that even a private platform has no absolute power if they start to discriminate certain content that can be seen as opinion or comedy in a certain context. Hard to tell, some articles indicate it has been interpreted this way, some don´t. It´s too vague for me and it´s often represented in legalese.

I would summarize the situation in Germany that the platform is seen as a publisher and does not need to publish everything a user uploads, there is no right to have everything you send them to be published - as a privately held platform. It is also possible to retract something afterwards. Free speech is considered once someone does actually publish something, additional protection if it is a publicly held space, other possible infringements left aside. Now as publisher you can be made responsible, so if a report on experience or such can be disproven you might run into problems for doing harm to a business or personal rights (e.g. smearing), so this is rather conservative.

So I´ve read about the free speech argument used in a nonexistent context quite a lot in forums, but this is something else of course, there are incomes depending on administrative actions and it seems this is not about a legal requirement per se or about the publishing, as this would not lead to demonetization, but to deletion or unavailability in certain countries. In such cases a platform needs to react in a short time to reports.

Actively using the services of a private company solely, or mainly to bash said company is dubious (and hypocritical!) It's very obvious that it's bound to harm the company's business, and as such, the company could take measures to save its business. Free speech has limits. Now limits include of course saying things that could be unlawful, such again as false claims.

Yes, on the platform this would be a problem for everyone involved in taking decisions, given anyone has his/her bias, but until such content needs to be sorted out externally it is more or less just opinion. Most bashing attempts so far seem to just try to hype the topic, jump the hypetrain and gather views this way, instead of reasonable criticism. I think those do realistic approaches to these problems a disservice.

As an example, and as has been discussed in this thread, we could reasonably consider that claiming Youtube is using the creators as hidden employees IS a false claim.

Given that what is called a hidden employee often comes in the form of freelancing, it is at least dubiously close to that - however the schedule is what the creator makes of it, not all boxes are ticked. They might not need to be.
Would Youtube function without creators? I guess not, as this can mean anything from huge media companies to occasionally sharing videos.
So it might run down to some form of discrimination or one sided termination/withholding of contract agreements?
There is something to these claims.

[EEVblog]

Actively using the services of a private company solely, or mainly to bash said company is dubious (and hypocritical!) It's very obvious that it's bound to harm the company's business, and as such, the company could take measures to save its business. Free speech has limits. Now limits include of course saying things that could be unlawful, such again as false claims.

I'd support Youtube's right to boot off someone for just continually bad mouthing them every video.
In fact I kinda support Youtube's right to boot off anyone they see fit for whatever reason they want, all I ask is that they are consistent, the rules are crystal clear, and they have allowance for otherwise good long time creators.

Youtube isn't really the "public square" in the same way Twitter has become which I think has become a defacto free speech public platform because it's used by government services and politicians. Evene the US supreme court seem to be agreeing with that position now.

[EEVblog]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

Depends on your country and circumstances.
Often the income can be classified under "hobby income" and no tax is payable.
For me being a Pty Ltd company obviously the Youtube income is now considered business revenue for tax purposes.

[MyHeadHz]

Here is an interesting development for monetization/advertising on Youtube.  It may or may not be a result of the union, but it is relevant to the idea.   The new details may offer insight into how youtube works now or how it may work in the future. 

(Note: This happens to be a 'gun channel', but it is mostly about what appears to be a new low-key monetization trial at Youtube. He does have a small rant a little about politics, so sorry about that.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pid_RtqeC2c?t=0

edit: just noticed your second channel vid about it. Ohh, well   Below is the link for that:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJGUTc43kg?t=0

[SiliconWizard]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

Depends on your country and circumstances.
Often the income can be classified under "hobby income" and no tax is payable.
For me being a Pty Ltd company obviously the Youtube income is now considered business revenue for tax purposes.

Yes that would depend a lot on countries. I am curious to see how it's handled in various countries.

Over here, "hobby income" is not really called that, and you're supposed to declare almost anything you make. In practice of course, the rule of thumb is that any source of revenue that is only a small fraction of your main income source doesn't have to be declared. Now if it becomes a significant part of your overall income and someone notices, it'll be considered professional practice and you will get in trouble if a/ you didn't declare it and b/ you don't have an established official pro status, which over here is always in the form of a company (even for freelancers). You can't freelance without creating a small company first.

That said, since it's very close to artistic work, I think over here, this income could be considered in the same category as artists' royalties, which have a very different status from other sources of income, and are easier to deal with.

As for an established company, I was curious about the exact category of revenue. "business revenue" is pretty vague. There's a myriad of accounting categories for revenue and expenses. I'm certainly no acocountant so that eludes me a little, but I know it's not that simple. For instance, what's the status of Youtube relative to the company? It's not a regular "customer" you can bill stuff to IMO. So what is it? How is revenue without bills accounted? Is VAT involved? Many questions. I guess this would depend on the country and would probably require an experienced accountant to answer those.

[EEVblog]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

Depends on your country and circumstances.
Often the income can be classified under "hobby income" and no tax is payable.
For me being a Pty Ltd company obviously the Youtube income is now considered business revenue for tax purposes.

Yes that would depend a lot on countries. I am curious to see how it's handled in various countries.

Over here, "hobby income" is not really called that, and you're supposed to declare almost anything you make. In practice of course, the rule of thumb is that any source of revenue that is only a small fraction of your main income source doesn't have to be declared. Now if it becomes a significant part of your overall income and someone notices, it'll be considered professional practice and you will get in trouble if a/ you didn't declare it and b/ you don't have an established official pro status, which over here is always in the form of a company (even for freelancers). You can't freelance without creating a small company first.

That said, since it's very close to artistic work, I think over here, this income could be considered in the same category as artists' royalties, which have a very different status from other sources of income, and are easier to deal with.

As for an established company, I was curious about the exact category of revenue. "business revenue" is pretty vague. There's a myriad of accounting categories for revenue and expenses. I'm certainly no acocountant so that eludes me a little, but I know it's not that simple. For instance, what's the status of Youtube relative to the company? It's not a regular "customer" you can bill stuff to IMO. So what is it? How is revenue without bills accounted? Is VAT involved? Many questions. I guess this would depend on the country and would probably require an experienced accountant to answer those.

In Australia the definition of "hobby income" is whether or there is a "reasonable expectation to make a profit".
So not hard to argue that spending say 20 hours a week on making Youtube videos on some hobby oriented subject for say $10k income if you are professional that could charge your time at $50-$100/hr or whatever is "hobby income".
You could argue even more hours based on having to read and respond to comments and emails etc.
When it becomes you sole or primary source of income that's when it's no longer easy to argue that.

[SparkyFX]

In fact I kinda support Youtube's right to boot off anyone they see fit for whatever reason they want, all I ask is that they are consistent, the rules are crystal clear, and they have allowance for otherwise good long time creators.

I wonder how they might see channel sponsorships that bypass YT by being part of the video (e.g. Skillshare, NordVPN and whatnot), in the wake of the YT premium move. That directly affects their business model and kind of routes around it... i assume. Using Monetization as a moderation tool means problems and would be ineffective in such cases.

Then there is also: Some "influencers" have been cease-and-desist-ed in Germany for not declaring product placement, otoh the regulations for cease-and-desist have been hardened recently (how competitors have to prove their business being harmed by it before being able to ask for money or sue).

Youtube isn't really the "public square" in the same way Twitter has become which I think has become a defacto free speech public platform because it's used by government services and politicians. Evene the US supreme court seem to be agreeing with that position now.

That´s kind of the point, no one stops them from seeing YT that way one day. And if so, which government´s platform it is...

[MyHeadHz]

Well, it hit the fan big time...

At least one upset Google employee leaked ~300MB of internal documents detailing everything from bias, politics (election influence), policies, censorship, monetization, and so on.  The file served on the website keeps getting modified and continually shrinks for some reason (redactions?), but the original file is an active torrent atm called "Don't Be Evil.zip".  A great deal of it apparently involves censorship and monetization.

https://www.projectveritas.com/google-document-dump/

[Deodand2014]

Here's an interesting discussion from the hosts of two firearms related YouTube channel, I've never watched the first channel, but the second has been doing a good history/context & mechanics coverage of firearms used in WWI. The discussion covers the YouTube Union and other related issues.

Part 1

https://youtu.be/JzaK3kJVOEI

Part 2

https://youtu.be/dLjIbDY-1J8

[MyHeadHz]

Update from JoergSprave:

https://youtu.be/CMFqwCx7tnQ

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

In addition to potential EU litigation like with the youtubers union, there is growing criticism about the legal status of social media companies and potential legislation in the US.  Already the courts have ruled (pending appeal) that Twitter is a "public forum," and politicians can't block users on the platforms in some situations.  Potential knock-on effects could go as far as courts therefore ruling that such companies lose their "platform" status if they are biased (censor), thus losing DMCA and other protections.  It is quite a can of worms, and I imagine such cases will go to the US Supreme court before anyone really knows what to do.  Members of both major parties have been hit with these cases, including Trump.

[David Hess]

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

You mean the banning, shadow banning, and censorship they insist never happened?  Yea, right.  I just checked and none of the channels I regularly watch are any less restricted.

Taking some token actions and negotiating with Joerg Sprave is just for delay until they can get a bigger stick.

[SparkyFX]

A great deal of it apparently involves censorship and monetization.

But no big surprises in there, it seems. It basically contains internal guides how to deal with legal requirements, approach to fake news/ads that look like articles, how it affected search in a few case studies.

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

Which is not what FairTube is about, it is about transparency. So even "unbanning" without transparency would not be a step forward.

[EEVblog]

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

Who?

[Bud]

Update from JoergSprave:

Was he wearing a pyjamas or something, to ridicule YT perhaps   

[SparkyFX]

Somewhat related to the question if Youtube creators are employees or should have stable contract agreements:
California Bill Makes App-Based Companies Treat Workers as Employees

Best quote:

“Today the so-called gig companies present themselves as the innovative future of tomorrow, a future where companies don’t pay Social Security or Medicare,” said State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat. “Let’s be clear: there is nothing innovative about underpaying someone for their labor.”

There are things moving for the so called gig economy.

[Deodand2014]

This is a recent video (Dated; 13th of September, 2019) from a history channel, does a good job covering things that 'should be remembered' including some less than flattering stories about the US, but they've been hit with demonitization as well. To quote the description of the video:

Viewers, this video has been demonetized by YouTube, meaning that it gets limited or no ad revenue.  That flag has been upheld on review, meaning that a live member of the YouTube team decided that it represents "Controversial issues or sensitive events" that are "not appropriate for all advertisers."   I do not see what is in here except history- no graphic display of violence, nothing political, just education.  I would think that YT would embrace such content, but instead YT has decided to drive history off their platform.  We are actively looking to alternative platforms, and hope that our viewers will stay with us when we find a better place than YouTube.  In the mean time, if you wish to complain to YT and try to change their thinking n the subject, we do appreciate it.

After all they have to appease the members of 'Comfort Culture', a worldview that holds that an individuals mental comfort is the most important thing, transcending all else. Or in other words 'All creatures be merry on pain of social death.'

[SparkyFX]

After all they have to appease the members of 'Comfort Culture', a worldview that holds that an individuals mental comfort is the most important thing, transcending all else.

Naah, they got a huge problem to differ what is political content and what isn´t, at the same time they are under scrutiny by advertisers and governments to sort misinformation out. I guess that ended in conflicting guidelines for content moderators, which now hits the creators.

[Deodand2014]

Another dissatisfied YouTuber...



After all those of 'Modern Sensitivities' need to be protected from that which might cause them to suffer the effects of PTSD, even if they were never subjected to the stimulus that would cause it in the first place.

[coppice]

Another dissatisfied YouTuber...



After all those of 'Modern Sensitivities' need to be protected from that which might cause them to suffer the effects of PTSD, even if they were never subjected to the stimulus that would cause it in the first place.

Try using Google to search for quite a wide range of historical topics and you will get some bizarre results these days. If that is how the want to rewrite history it doesn't surprise me that they want to suppress other people presenting historical topics.

[EEVblog]

This is a recent video (Dated; 13th of September, 2019) from a history channel, does a good job covering things that 'should be remembered' including some less than flattering stories about the US, but they've been hit with demonitization as well. To quote the description of the video:

Viewers, this video has been demonetized by YouTube, meaning that it gets limited or no ad revenue.  That flag has been upheld on review, meaning that a live member of the YouTube team decided that it represents "Controversial issues or sensitive events" that are "not appropriate for all advertisers."   I do not see what is in here except history- no graphic display of violence, nothing political, just education.  I would think that YT would embrace such content, but instead YT has decided to drive history off their platform.  We are actively looking to alternative platforms, and hope that our viewers will stay with us when we find a better place than YouTube.  In the mean time, if you wish to complain to YT and try to change their thinking n the subject, we do appreciate it.

I see no such thing in the description, did they re-monetise?

[RoGeorge]

I think he's talking about the highlighted column at 1:20 in the video.

[EEVblog]

I think he's talking about the highlighted column at 1:20 in the video.

You must be talking about the other guy, I'm talking about The History Guy

[MT]

Basically any YT channel who discuses financing gold v.s dollar, politics in general are demonetized particularly if
the channel is conservative but surprise, surprise progressives nowadays start to find them being demonetized,
when liberal globalists cant take an argument they throw the "racist label boomerang" at you.

As far as im concerned YT, FB, Amazon, Google, has to be made public domain while their founders CIA have to be closed down.

[station240]

The real problem is Youtube's lazy keyword matching, especially when combined with automatic subtitling.
There is no consideration of context.

To give an example, youtubers are too scared to use the word "trump" in their videos, as youtube only assumes they are talking about the orange haired one, and not the phrase "X trumps Y"
There are some really hilarious ones, like "focus ring" being mis-heard as something sexual by youtube's bots, so camera review videos become porn.
Both of these are the result of not taking context into account, one word should not be enough to trigger the filters, especially if many other harmless terms have been used.

Thing is, google know full well words can have multiple meanings given context, their search engine wouldn't work without knowing that.

[scatterandfocus]

Youtube seems most unfriendly toward youtubers who have anything critical to say of corporations and their products and western governments.  Just 2 of many political  youtubers who have experienced the gamut of measures that youtube will take are Jimmy Dore and Lee Camp.  And it definitely is not only political youtubers who experience some of the gamut.  It all leans very heavily toward youtube controlling an overall narrative by promoting those youtubers who are compliant with corporate and western government agendas.  In other words, $$$  Those youtubers who promote products through no bad reviews and promote western agendas through no dissent seem to be who youtube wants leading the pack.  If you are a nice neutral khaki, you probably have nothing to worry about.

[tooki]

Then there is also: Some "influencers" have been cease-and-desist-ed in Germany for not declaring product placement

It was just in the news here in Switzerland about some Instagram influencer who got an official warning from the Swiss federal customs administration for violating the liquor advertising laws for posting a picture of herself with a gin and tonic. Apparently, if it’s even tangentially related to any kind of sponsorship or whatnot, it’s “advertising” and thus the laws apply, and they are absurd. I understand not wanting to market to kids, and to a certain extent (though nowhere near as much as the federal customs administration) avoiding lifestyle marketing. But they go much too far, and above all, it’s only for distilled spirits, not wine and beer. As a cocktail drinker who doesn’t particularly care for wine or beer, it’s legitimately unfair that a shop can advertise a sale on beer or wine, but not on spirits. (They literally cannot even write “sale!” on a shelf tag!)

[BBBbbb]

Interesting:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/man-agrees-to-pay-25000-for-abusing-youtubes-takedown-system/

A Nebraska man has agreed to pay $25,000 for abusing YouTube's takedown system under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, YouTube said in an emailed statement Tuesday. The man, Christopher Brady, also signed a public apology admitting to "falsely claiming that material uploaded by YouTube users infringed my copyrights."

[coppice]

Interesting:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/man-agrees-to-pay-25000-for-abusing-youtubes-takedown-system/

A Nebraska man has agreed to pay $25,000 for abusing YouTube's takedown system under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, YouTube said in an emailed statement Tuesday. The man, Christopher Brady, also signed a public apology admitting to "falsely claiming that material uploaded by YouTube users infringed my copyrights."

If he's a lone troublemaker I guess $25000 is a serious punishment. If he was acting for interests that are trying to suppress people on YouTube its too light a punishment to have any effect. Take down notices kill the view count for videos, even if the video is restored after a day or two. A large part of the total view count occurs in the first day or two, especially for topical material.

[SerieZ]

But they go much too far, and above all, it’s only for distilled spirits, not wine and beer. As a cocktail drinker who doesn’t particularly care for wine or beer, it’s legitimately unfair that a shop can advertise a sale on beer or wine, but not on spirits. (They literally cannot even write “sale!” on a shelf tag!)

Welcome to the Statist Bureaucratic Insanity. 
Fortunately tho here in Switzerland we get a bit less of it like... let's say Germany.

[tooki]

But they go much too far, and above all, it’s only for distilled spirits, not wine and beer. As a cocktail drinker who doesn’t particularly care for wine or beer, it’s legitimately unfair that a shop can advertise a sale on beer or wine, but not on spirits. (They literally cannot even write “sale!” on a shelf tag!)

Welcome to the Statist Bureaucratic Insanity. 
Fortunately tho here in Switzerland we get a bit less of it like... let's say Germany.

Definitely.

P.S. You goofed up the quoting. It was me who talked about CH, not SparkyFX.

[David Hess]

YouTube is updating their terms of service.  Nothing about it is good.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/11/20955864/youtube-terms-of-service-update-terminations-children-content-ftc

[soldar]

People who want to upload videos of anything else than kittens, puppies and babies are nothing but troublemakers who need to be dealt with accordingly.

[Black Phoenix]

People who want to upload videos of anything else than kittens, puppies and babies are nothing but troublemakers who need to be dealt with accordingly.

Let me correct you: People who want to upload videos of anything else than kittens, puppies and babies that goes against what the advertisers want are nothing but troublemakers who need to be dealt with accordingly.

Youtube is a machine to make money to Google, it's free but you are the product, your content are the product for ads. If you don't provide return, you are terminated.

I think that some years ago there was also a kind of controversy about advertisers paying directly to the content creators instead of going through Google and Google wanted to ban that.

[MT]

YouTube is updating their terms of service.  Nothing about it is good.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/11/20955864/youtube-terms-of-service-update-terminations-children-content-ftc

I heard about this some days ago, its brilliant the faster CIA driven YT goes in to the grave the better!

[David Hess]

Let me correct you: People who want to upload videos of anything else than kittens, puppies and babies that goes against what the advertisers want are nothing but troublemakers who need to be dealt with accordingly.

Advertisers do not have that choice.  There are plenty of advertisers for completely legal products which are banned from both YouTube and Google.

I think that some years ago there was also a kind of controversy about advertisers paying directly to the content creators instead of going through Google and Google wanted to ban that.

That ship sailed when YouTube started using demonetization as a weapon.  Plenty of videos I regularly watch include the advertisements as part of the video now.

[Deodand2014]

People who want to upload videos of anything else than kittens, puppies and babies are nothing but troublemakers who need to be dealt with accordingly.

Let me correct you: People who want to upload videos of anything else than kittens, puppies and babies that goes against what the advertisers want are nothing but troublemakers who need to be dealt with accordingly.

Youtube is a machine to make money to Google, it's free but you are the product, your content are the product for ads. If you don't provide return, you are terminated.

And here's one example of that.



You also have to remember that Google is run by members of the iGen, they believe that individual words (E.g. 'Picnic', 'Violate') no matter what the context will cause those individuals to suffer the effects of PTSD and since mental comfort is the highest thing, we end up with nonsense like this.

[SiliconWizard]

You also have to remember that Google is run by members of the iGen, they believe that individual words (E.g. 'Picnic', 'Violate') no matter what the context will cause those individuals to suffer the effects of PTSD

Oh, really?

Picnic!!

[Deodand2014]

You also have to remember that Google is run by members of the iGen, they believe that individual words (E.g. 'Picnic', 'Violate') no matter what the context will cause those individuals to suffer the effects of PTSD

Oh, really?

Picnic!!

Indeed, just check out Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/picnic-origin/

[tooki]

You also have to remember that Google is run by members of the iGen, they believe that individual words (E.g. 'Picnic', 'Violate') no matter what the context will cause those individuals to suffer the effects of PTSD and since mental comfort is the highest thing, we end up with nonsense like this.

OK, boomer.

That claim is, of course, utter nonsense. The vast majority of Gen-Xers (which is who runs google, not young millennials) as well as millennials do not hold such extreme views, nor did the fringe members of those generations invent such silliness. For example, the woman who coined the term “herstory” was born in 1941, too old to even be a boomer! It was them, and boomers, who invented the “outrage” over things like the normal American pronunciation of “harassment”, and it’s boomers who came up with women’s studies, gay studies, etc. It’s baffling to me that millennials get attacked over this, when they had nothing to do with it. I’m sure that if we look hard enough, we can find examples of that kind of silliness dating back to at least the 19th century, if not earlier.

[magic]

Read the Unabomber Manifesto and you will know that SJWism already existed when Millennials were in their diapers.
But the problem with Millenials is that they are the first generation which (at least a subset of) grew up completely immersed in this mentality and they know nothing else. Millennials is what happened when those boomer hippies tried to raise children.

Boomers were SJWs fighting for eternal victims, Millennials are eternal victims. There wouldn't be half of the drama without a fresh supply of victims to parade before the public and those are mostly all sorts of mentally troubled youngsters. These days it is fashionable to be a victim and everybody wants to identify as one, even the neo-Nazis. This is the original contribution of the Millennial generation.

[tooki]

That’s just as much nonsense as the claims that they’re all SJWs. “Playing the victim” is what the perpetrators say to try and gaslight their victims.

At least in USA, millennials legitimately have a much, much harder situation than prior generations, in almost every tangible way. And when they rightfully stand up and say “WTF?”, they get called “victims”, but in a very real sense they are, and it’s absolutely correct of them to stand up against the people who caused the mess.

[tooki]

Also, millennials were not “in diapers” in 1995 (when the Unabomber manifesto was published), but rather older kids or young teens . People forget that typical definitions of millennials starts at about 1983. (A lot of people seem to mistakenly think that millennials means people born around the turn of the millennium, but it means people who became adults around the turn of the millennium!!)

As I said, SJWs predate millennials by a whole lot longer than the anti-SJWs of today want to believe.

[coppice]

That’s just as much nonsense as the claims that they’re all SJWs. “Playing the victim” is what the perpetrators say to try and gaslight their victims.

At least in USA, millennials legitimately have a much, much harder situation than prior generations, in almost every tangible way. And when they rightfully stand up and say “WTF?”, they get called “victims”, but in a very real sense they are, and it’s absolutely correct of them to stand up against the people who caused the mess.

The young working class in the US do genuinely seem to have a much harder time than their parents. I have yet to be convinced that the average middle class US millennial has things worse. If they have bought into the BS around them they will suffer, but this has always been the case. Nobody, except (if you are lucky) your family, is looking out for you. You have always needed to look out for yourself, and steer your own course in life.

[magic]

“Playing the victim” is what the perpetrators say to try and gaslight their victims.

I see that you have already been assimilated by the Boomer, resistance is futile

At least in USA, millennials legitimately have a much, much harder situation than prior generations, in almost every tangible way. And when they rightfully stand up and say “WTF?”, they get called “victims”, but in a very real sense they are, and it’s absolutely correct of them to stand up against the people who caused the mess.

I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying why Millennials are being associated with SJWism: because many of the most visible and obnoxious SJWs of today are, indeed, Millennials. The poor women in tech, the nonbinary zirs, the white knights defending them. These are mostly overgrown kids (indeed in their twenties or thirties by now, no disagreement here) who live in some imaginary world where other people's actions or lack thereof mean different things than they actually do and they fight fucking windmills.

Don't get me started I have been to some Internet feminist safe spaces, used to read "H".N. for years with the weekly submissions about Social Justice, I have some idea what those people are and I say they are insane.

And yes, #NotAllMillenials
But it doesn't matter when it comes to the image, go figure. Another Boomerism to believe otherwise

edit
Holy crap, EEVBlog forum has hastags, are we Twitter now?

[tooki]

That’s just as much nonsense as the claims that they’re all SJWs. “Playing the victim” is what the perpetrators say to try and gaslight their victims.

At least in USA, millennials legitimately have a much, much harder situation than prior generations, in almost every tangible way. And when they rightfully stand up and say “WTF?”, they get called “victims”, but in a very real sense they are, and it’s absolutely correct of them to stand up against the people who caused the mess.

The young working class in the US do genuinely seem to have a much harder time than their parents. I have yet to be convinced that the average middle class US millennial has things worse. If they have bought into the BS around them they will suffer, but this has always been the case. Nobody, except (if you are lucky) your family, is looking out for you. You have always needed to look out for yourself, and steer your own course in life.

Agreed. (Luckily, I am aware of how the UK definitions of working/middle/upper class differ from the US ones. By the US definition, even the middle class is not doing that great.) What sucks for them is that not only is the working class’s work situation bad, but they’re saddled with batshit crazy amounts of student debt, making it functionally impossible for them to begin to accrue any kind of savings or assets. This is going to be really, really bad when they’re reaching retirement age.

“Playing the victim” is what the perpetrators say to try and gaslight their victims.

I see that you have already been assimilated by the Boomer, resistance is futile

I don’t think I understand. (FYI, I’m a “xennial”, i.e. the sliver between Gen X and millennial.)

At least in USA, millennials legitimately have a much, much harder situation than prior generations, in almost every tangible way. And when they rightfully stand up and say “WTF?”, they get called “victims”, but in a very real sense they are, and it’s absolutely correct of them to stand up against the people who caused the mess.

I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying why Millennials are being associated with SJWism: because many of the most visible and obnoxious SJWs of today are, indeed, Millennials. The poor women in tech, the nonbinary zirs, the white knights defending them. These are mostly overgrown kids (indeed in their twenties or thirties by now, no disagreement here) who live in some imaginary world where other people's actions or lack thereof mean different things than they actually do and they fight fucking windmills.

Don't get me started I have been to some Internet feminist safe spaces, used to read "H".N. for years with the weekly submissions about Social Justice, I have some idea what those people are and I say they are insane.

And yes, #NotAllMillenials
But it doesn't matter when it comes to the image, go figure. Another Boomerism to believe otherwise

edit
Holy crap, EEVBlog forum has hastags, are we Twitter now?

While it’s possibly true that the most obnoxious SJWs are millennials (though l suspect it’s actually not millennials, but rather the yet-unnamed generation following them, the people who are in their teens and early 20s now), there are a lot of Gen-Xers who are, too. Just who exactly do you think runs the SJW university departments? Millennials are too young.

[magic]

I see that you have already been assimilated by the Boomer, resistance is futile

I don’t think I understand.

I mean, you blame SJWism on "Boomers and those before them" while yourself operating within their mental framework of "victims" and "perpetrators"
And you fail to see how habitual victims are a real phenomenon and a perfectly rational (if shortsighted) response to an environment where victimhood is the primary social currency.

[Deodand2014]

Another rant, best to listen to this with the audio turned off if at work, basically the channel covered model trains, train crashes from films and uploaded a couple of old films. He'd already been pinged for copyright over the train crash videos, but apparently COPPA was the last straw.

[tooki]

I see that you have already been assimilated by the Boomer, resistance is futile

I don’t think I understand.

I mean, you blame SJWism on "Boomers and those before them" while yourself operating within their mental framework of "victims" and "perpetrators"
And you fail to see how habitual victims are a real phenomenon and a perfectly rational (if shortsighted) response to an environment where victimhood is the primary social currency.

I’m not talking about false victimhood. I was bullied as a kid and as such I’m acutely aware of how bullies act, and gaslighting is a key feature of it. The words “victim” and “perpetrator” also exist outside of the nonsense SJW context, you know?

And frankly, when it comes to boomers vs millennials, it’s absolutely the right way to frame the situation. The boomers DID cause a ton of the problems, and then they go and call the millennials crybabies for very rightfully calling the situation what it is. But just as statements can only libelous if they’re false, you don’t get to be dismissive of issues that are true! It’s not “victimhood”-as-an-insult if the damages claimed are factual!!

It’s you who are falling into the “professional victim” mindset by dismissing millennials’ very justified gripes as mere “victimhood”, when in fact they are adults with perfectly reasonable observations about very real problems. As I said, that’s just used as a tactic to discredit people who are putting one on the spot.

[SparkyFX]

The trap of such discussions is to take the loudest or most popular examples of a certain group for the majority. Such people have always existed, but are barely representative in what they convey.

To make statements or predictions about groups you'd really need something like the average of a set of opinions and then compare it to that average of another group - practically impossible and highly questionable - it's opinions after all, they can change in every context and at any time. It's not as if there was a voting in which decisions were documented at a given time.

Anyway, before assuming agendas where no agendas exist, most of the intransparency Fairtube tries to counter is in my opinion rooted in the former haphazard reaction to some impulse, probably caused by people that never discussed or thought of the larger extent of what regulation they want from Social Media for their woes.
It is understandable that a solution that needs to work for everyone is harder to come by when the reason is only a small part of the whole youtube community and there is only very limited self-moderation/-regulation in place, or a legal problem in the first place. I really have a problem with making the platform the stand-in for the job of the police.

[magic]

The trap of such discussions is to take the loudest or most popular examples of a certain group for the majority.

To make statements or predictions about groups you'd really need something like the average of a set of opinions and then compare it to that average of another group

No, because the loudest and most popular are the ones that actually matter while the quiet cattle of "moderates" invariably ends up accepting whatever the radicals want, to avoid rocking the boat. Modern world is run not by voting but by intimidation, "majority matters" is some fantasy of 20th century democrats.

Don't get me wrong, I was raised in Europe so I know this mantra like anyone else. And I have seen it fail over and over again and I'm not burying my head in sand.

[Black Phoenix]

Another rant, best to listen to this with the audio turned off if at work, basically the channel covered model trains, train crashes from films and uploaded a couple of old films. He'd already been pinged for copyright over the train crash videos, but apparently COPPA was the last straw.

Youtube as what Youtube was is no more. This COOPA is one more nail in the coffin. Youtube is on fault here, well Google because they source of money is ads, so they simply keep doing what they have done until they were discovered and prosecuted.

Have a video that instead of showing your face you are a cute animated character? It's for kids, even if you say that the subject of the topic being discussed is not. FTC will, by the settlement periodically, search Youtube for videos with wrong classification (being for kids when not) and impose fines to the creators.

Change your channel for kids only and say goodbye to ad revenue and metrics recommendations (Rating, Commenting, Sharing, Subscribing, Adding to playlist).



Don't change then incur on a fine and in case you use nor appropriate wording or show something that ad providers don't like and lose monetisation of said video. The said lose monetisation can go as simply stating your own freedom of speech, if it goes against anything or anyone, get a flag, 3 flags and your channel is terminated. 

This as the end is a Win Win for Google. not having to share a slice of the ad pie revenue, increasing their own bottom line. Youtube with Youtube Originals and with the starting of putting in the main page main trending media corporation owned channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc) is catering to that kind of media, trying to turn Youtube in one more media corporation with that likes. Said giants see their revenue and number of people who sees their channels disappear day by day. Control the information, say what you want people to know, what people are allowed to know.

Heck even I if I see any TV channel is Discovery Channel, History Channel and NatGeo. If I need entertainment, Youtube or any VOD application. News, I simply search the Internet, or read a newspaper online.

Your freedom of expression ends when you express yourself. Go against the big ones, you are shut up. Say something or reveal something sensible about someone powerful, don't worry, Google will happily change the algorithm to make your own opinion disapear from the Internet or the one being accused will pay gladly to that to happen. Ad providers want a safe place where they can do their own promotion without being accused of supporting ideas who goes against the pack (see Adpocalipse on Youtube).

What creators have to do is simply migrate to another platform or create said platform. But then you have the same as the video Dave talked about Bitchute.

[Deodand2014]

Your freedom of expression ends when you express yourself. Go against the big ones, you are shut up. Say something or reveal something sensible about someone powerful, don't worry, Google will happily change the algorithm to make your own opinion disapear from the Internet or the one being accused will pay gladly to that to happen. Ad providers want a safe place where they can do their own promotion without being accused of supporting ideas who goes against the pack (see Adpocalipse on Youtube).

What creators have to do is simply migrate to another platform or create said platform. But then you have the same as the video Dave talked about Bitchute.

True, after YouTube went after the Pro-Marijuana community on YouTube they upped sticks and created their own version of YouTube, 'WeedTube'. But I'm now seeing claims like the following being bandied around



All I have to say is that I have a small channel and I'm probably going to download all the videos on it tomorrow to make sure they don't get lost.

[Black Phoenix]

One more - Youtuber have a channel that is tailored not to kids, posts a video and it's MANUALLY reviewed as kid friendly, even having categorized his channel not for kids and without any video tailored for kids.



Video in question -


See the side bar and recommendations.

Google really wants Youtube to go the way of the Google+, their failed Social Network experiment.

[EEVblog]

But I'm now seeing claims like the following being bandied around

That commercial clause is actually not new, it's been in there a while.
Youtube are stupid, but not stupid enough to go mass deleting channels that aren't commercially viable. It's the kind of thing they sneak in "just in case".

[SparkyFX]

It probably means: once the content on a channel causes Youtube to receive a fine (for whatever reason), they gonna delete the channel. Not: they delete your channel if you are not making profit.

[SparkyFX]

No, because the loudest and most popular are the ones that actually matter while the quiet cattle of "moderates" invariably ends up accepting whatever the radicals want, to avoid rocking the boat. Modern world is run not by voting but by intimidation, "majority matters" is some fantasy of 20th century democrats.

That's interesting, because what i've seen is the radicals burning themselves out by testing how far they can go, getting burned, changing course by 180° every so often, while everyone else just lives their life - not considering themselves cattle btw., not making irreversible mistakes and get along.

[magic]

while everyone else just lives their life

in an increasingly dystopian hellhole desperately trying to neutralize the radicals, and until they find themselves in the way of a crazy with a gun or 100k Twitter followers

[David Hess]

It probably means: once the content on a channel causes Youtube to receive a fine (for whatever reason), they gonna delete the channel. Not: they delete your channel if you are not making profit.

YouTube and Google already delete channels and content to control discourse.  Doing so at the behest of outside agents can be either an excuse or the ultimate expression of power depending on perspective.

[Deodand2014]

Discussion of the new changes on Linus Tech Tips (Discussion starts at 34:28 and runs to 46:42 with a digression to shilling for their store...)



And another discussion on a LEGO builders channel, this one sounds quite scary. I've deleted all the videos I uploaded to YouTube after downloading them first.

[SparkyFX]

YouTube and Google already delete channels and content to control discourse.  Doing so at the behest of outside agents can be either an excuse or the ultimate expression of power depending on perspective.

If you'd offer the general public space to upload videos and then get in trouble for questionable content... would you want to pay for all consequences just because? At some point anyone will take some action on this, especially as the context changed in so far, that the platform is made responsible for the content and cannot roll this over on the uploader alone.

[jetsam]

This is not safe for work or preschool, elementary, jr. high, high school.  College age is debatable with suitable trigger warnings (profanity, blasphemy against YouTube, antidisestablishmentarianism in evidence):
The Nerd³ Show - 23/11/19 - COPPAcabana is at:


    

[David Hess]

YouTube and Google already delete channels and content to control discourse.  Doing so at the behest of outside agents can be either an excuse or the ultimate expression of power depending on perspective.

If you'd offer the general public space to upload videos and then get in trouble for questionable content... would you want to pay for all consequences just because? At some point anyone will take some action on this, especially as the context changed in so far, that the platform is made responsible for the content and cannot roll this over on the uploader alone.

Legally they are not responsible for content that they host whether they curate it or not.  They have gone beyond removing questionable content.  Their remaining content creators now self censor which is still censorship.

[David Hess]

Karl Kasarda of InRange posted about Youtube again:

[EEVblog]

Legally they are not responsible for content that they host whether they curate it or not.

Correct. That's not the reason why Youtube censor/delete most content, it's their own arbitrary in-house terms of service.

[Deodand2014]

Another firearms history channel demonitized. And as a regular watcher I can say that the amount of 'firearms politics' has been kept to the minimum (except where needed to explain particular aspects of a countries history (Britains need for handguns at the start of WWI for example...).

[langwadt]

Another firearms history channel demonitized. And as a regular watcher I can say that the amount of 'firearms politics' has been kept to the minimum (except where needed to explain particular aspects of a countries history (Britains need for handguns at the start of WWI for example...).

I suspect it has to do with their anvil series where Mark repair old firearms

[vwestlife]

And now the channels that are clearly making videos aimed at children are throwing in just enough "adult" key words (like "Dark Web") to fool YouTube's algorithms into thinking that they are not for children and thus can keep earning ad revenue:

[Deodand2014]

Another firearms history channel demonitized. And as a regular watcher I can say that the amount of 'firearms politics' has been kept to the minimum (except where needed to explain particular aspects of a countries history (Britains need for handguns at the start of WWI for example...).

I suspect it has to do with their anvil series where Mark repair old firearms

Turns out it was not those videos that set off YouTubes 'Sensitivity Viewers' (e.g. Censorship Officers), but something else.



As to the appeals process described, I worked for someone who liked to tell people they had made a mistake and then asked them to figure out what they did wrong... Not a very happy workplace.

[mansaxel]

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? 

Trade unions in Europe aren't the mafia's tool of persuasion, they are more of the original idea, i.e. unite against the employer. Also, they  typically don't have the power to force enroll people, and you can have several unions in parallel at the same workplace; it's especially common for salaried employees. (We Europeans are quite confused by the US union situation, which is strange to us.)

I would be very surprised and then some if this was a hate speech enabler vessel. The German unions exist in a context where there still are people around who remember their parents as members or oppressed by NSDAP. Having said that, there are right-wing nuts in Germany too, and they get seats in both Landtage and the Bundestag, while denying their obvious connections to people and ideas even further right.

And, to answer your question: Only in a dictatorship without freedom of the press does the government dictate the lettors to editor column. (there are other things, like corrections of factual errors, that might be mandated, but that is not the same thing.)

The modern dictatorship also is more sophisticated and makes use of smoke and mirrors more than oppression. Of course, when they can get more votes that way, they will oppress and violate international law and conventions and national laws quite openly. Preferably on-camera.

[Deodand2014]

The firearms channel's YouTube issue was resolved, but the how is a little disturbing...

[Deodand2014]

An update on a Movie related channel that tried to focus on works in the public domain.

[EEVblog]

An update on a Movie related channel that tried to focus on works in the public domain.

What on earth is the TLDR; here? I skipped through and didn't really learn anything.
His channel just uploads old movies in full?

[SiliconWizard]

Legally they are not responsible for content that they host whether they curate it or not.

Correct. That's not the reason why Youtube censor/delete most content, it's their own arbitrary in-house terms of service.

At this point, this is essentially what it is. There probably are political motives IMO though (beyond mere economic ones), but those motives are unclear - so yes, from the outside, it just looks arbitrary.

The question of getting those services responsible for the content they host is a hot one though, and it's bound to eventually happen one of these days, at least partially.
They may not be directly responsible (like a traditional media would be), but if they do not take action after *knowing* that some content could be violating some laws/be seen as offensive/..., I guess they could be considered accomplice of some sort? Actually the same thing can happen to an indvidual hosting some dubious content on their website, even when they are not the author of said content and state it clearly.

I for one don't really know how that should be handled. I'm all for complete freedom of expression, but this is not what we currently have, even in countries considered the most "democratic" ones. So in the current state of things, it's a huge mess and I wouldn't want to manage such a hosting service myself. I wouldn't want to have to deal with the schizophrenia: freedom of speech vs. things that are still not allowed to be said, not being responsible while still potentially being able to get into big trouble, having to "please" every kind of users (content creators, viewers, and announcers). Damn. I would go nuts.