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