Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "Google workers are unionizing - what about the rest of the people who make Google money?" video.

  1. Yeah, I hate banning symbols. Sure, they "propagate", an idea to some extent. However, the problem is not the symbol, it's the idea. I believe, that symbols are reminding us of what was done in the past and of lessons to be learned, and if you remove the symbol, you'll only obscure the lesson. Make it harder to learn and learn the right, or at least right-ish meaning. That is why I disagree with banning nazi flag or, more recently, confederate battle flag. Hell, if I were US citizen, I would get my self both, the era appropriate union flag and the confederate battle flag and I would raise them side by side. As these symbols have a lesson to teach and I feel, like they can't do it one without the other.
    1
  2.  @rossmanngroup  Can't agree with you there, Louis. There are entire companies built around Youtube. Just look at Linus Tech Tips and it's sister channels. The guy built a company around video production around Youtube videos. A company thirty people strong. So, I'd say, as I mentioned in another comment, that youtubers are entreprenauers, not just freelancers (I know, subtle difference, but still) or outright businessmen. No, we as audience are not the product. It may seem that way, however, product usually can't make the choice of not getting sold. Here you can make that choice, by going elsewhere. Sure, you'll lose the content, however, you can find different content available through different means. What you are suggesting, Louis, is actually illegal. When a group of companies or entrepreneurs start to work together, to achieve something, instead of competing with each other, that is called cartel. US has entire field of laws regarding anti-trust, so this wouldn't work. Google, a monopoly, would cite anti-monopoly laws to maintain it's position (que the Senate Ironic scene from Star Wars).
    1
  3.  @koketsok1513  Sure, but that means, youtube doesn't have to be the only source of income for a person. Look at Crosstalk Solutions, who essentially use youtube instead of advertising, Chriss said some time ago, that youtube bring's him customers for the IT services he's providing. I don't know, whether Tom Lawrence from Lawrence Systems uses monetization, but if he did, he'd only have an extra revenue stream to his company, while (I presume) also increasing his business through improved visibility of his company. Or what about Stormware? This Czech company produces accounting software and uses youtube to get video tutorials on how to use it for those, who bought it, saving money on teaching operators on how to use the system. Sure, their customer could buy that service too, but everyone thinks, that the employees will simply learn by working and doesn't want to invest in them... well at least initially. As I mentioned elsewhere, youtubers aren't employees, they are businessmen and, unfortunately, such is the nature of the beast. In business, there are bigger and smaller, stronger and weaker players, and the stronger player, which youtube is, has the power to get what they want out of the deal. Question then arises, whether it's worth doing business with someone, who only gives you this kind of cooperation or service, or go to someone else, or maybe even completely change the heading of that business. All the concerns you wrote are legit, and perhaps need's some redressing, perhaps through changes in copyright or limiting the freedom to negotiate a contract for the stronger player, if their strength becomes too big, but that is a different discussion, however, for the case at hand, all of it is also irrelevant, because as a business, it is entirely up to you, what business ventures you'll pursue and what tools and other business ventures you'll utilize in that pursuit. And we know, that betting on one card isn't the smartest of decisions.
    1
  4. And to answer your question. What are youtubers? Alphabet is getting cash off youtubers, but they are not employees, I would argue they aren't contractor per se either. What I would argue, is that youtubers are entrepreneurs and businesses and, sadly, this kind of behavior is normal in business relationships. For example, from what I've heared, most french companies demand payment six months before they provide you service and won't pay any sooner, than six months after you provided them a service. And this is becoming a standard in companies, that trade with France, and are in weaker position, as either a nation or company. Such is the nature of the beast, that in (underregulated) free market capitalism, the stronger can dictate terms and conditions with no regard for every other stakeholder in business being forged. This happened to my father, who had transportation company. We were handling logistics for a number pumping station chains including the Royal Dutch Shell, who at the time had the strictest conditions to follow. However, our main and biggest contract got snatched by some Polish companies, when Poland started to subsidize fuel, and Shell could do little to nothing for us. One would expect, that well functioning partnership would be maintained, as quality service provided would justify some premium to be had, especially given that service was transportation of dangerous stuff like petrol, diesel and kerosene, but no. Partner demanded lower costs, we literally couldn't do that, lest facing bankruptcy and the rest is history. The company is gone and dad is facing lifetime of having no money, regardless of how much he'll make working in whatever field. The same can happen to every youtuber or company, that uses youtube or any big platform as their main source/intermediary of revenue. The platform owner could demand a bigger cut, that could become so big, a youtuber could be faced with very unpleasant probem. Chose one and only one: 1) return to days of youtube as a hobby... with a couple of millions subscribers. 2) Give up on new production, as he/she can't ever recoup the investments made to create new content, not to mention, that in some cases people might not make equivalent of minimal wage, which at least in theory, should cover basic necessities of living, meaning this person should in theory starve to death, if he doesn't change careers. 3) create meaningless content that draw's traffic (like cat or dog videos, which, to be fair, have recently gone up in terms of quality and meaning)... ps, comment sections under these videos are downright therapeutic. Or 4) find a niche audience and go full Alex Jones on them, catering to their specific points of view or, in less extreme cases interests. which has far reaching consequences, which might be unintended, but are destructive none the less (I mean 2016 elections stand testament. Never before in US history, were other party candidates so universally hated and the crack went and is still going down the middle, because certain media only cater to some world views). And there that youtuber could contribute to the crack spreading ever wider, because he has become his own media in a way. None of the four opitons benefit neither the creator, nor the end customer, in case of that last one, the society as a whole may suffer, and the platform will simply up the ante again, as more as possible, because as niche audiences leave for new places, where to place their old and new content. Where to find their content won't eventually be deemed "unsuitable" for the platform and measures will be made, so that this content is made unavailable. Be it shadow banning, demonetization, or outright censorship of certain topics, or simply misuse of copyright. It's certain pi project today, tomorrow, it just may be alcohol ads and the day after, computer guides, tutorials and arguments supporting the right to repair, and the day after, subliminal messages urging us to bey new eye phone from Momcorp.
    1