1617
Google Flat-Out Refuses to Bargain With Workers, Prompting YouTube Music Strike (www.vice.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
222 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 119 points 3 years ago (26 children)

I'm very much pro-union, but meanwhile artists and creators who made that content in the first place are getting fucked by everyone

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 78 points 3 years ago (19 children)

    A YouTube creators' strike isn't an impossible notion. It'd just have to be led by a couple of big names, like a Mr. Beast type.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 51 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Mr Beast is the result of the trendy gen Z libertarian millionaire pipeline. He will never unionize nor support strikes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 37 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (16 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    No, it is not all upside. What has more value. Content people want to watch somehow. Or an empty "platform" that slurps up most of the gains.

    I'm not saying there is no value inherent to platform's. Merely pointing out the disingenuous nature of that argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] 14 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (10 children)

    An empty platform has little value. Hundreds have gotten shut down for this very reason.

    Content by and large makes the platform. Not the other way round. Yet the platform soaks up the lions share of the benefit. Leaving most who aren't whales to see nothing at all. This is the problem google is very complicit with. I'm all for them making enough to sustain the service. I just think they owe far more than they are giving, to the content that made them.

    Nebula is great. And is trundling along just fine. It could use some more promotion and love sure. But it's goals aren't the same as a behemoth like Google's. Who's talents aren't in creating content, but promoting it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] 11 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (8 children)

    Creators would exist without the platform. They always have. But the platform definitely does bring value. The problem is that for a while now, greedy corporations have slowly been pushing the balance so that they received most of the benefit of everyone else's work. It's an overarching problem of capitalism that we need to deal with. But have been putting off for 50 to 60 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

    Creators would exist without the platform. They always have.

    Not sure what you mean with this. Youtube has allowed anyone with a camera and an internet connection to put content out in the world. It was completely different back before youtube existed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    I've been on the internet since 94. I know what it was like. YouTube did not create creators. People posted video to the internet long before YouTube was a thing. And long before Google owned it. Because they didn't create it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    I'm not saying people didn't share videos beforehand, but youtube created a platform that allowed people to do it more easily, be discovered more easily, and actually make a decent living through it. The internet landscape, especially in respect to influencers or content creators, is entirely different now than it was in the 90's.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    So did Vimeo and dozens of others. YouTube did not get where it is by being better. Or by even being a platform. It got where it is by being bought out by a large corporate entity with near endless sums of money to back it with over the competition.

    And a decade or two from now the internet is liable to be as different again from today as today was from them. And many people will be wondering Google who? Because ultimately people will remember the content not the platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Yes, but the backing by Google turned it into a viable career path for many creators. Name a single creator who posts to vimeo as their full time job. I'm not saying that youtube's rise in popularity was necessarily good or ethical, I'm just saying that it is objectively better for creators over the other options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    You've basically said the same thing over and over about four or five times now. And been shut down on the facts of it every single time. Aren't you getting a little tired of that?

    Publishing has existed long before Google and alphabet. And it will exist long after they're gone. Creators don't really owe them all that much to be honest. And yes Vimeo or other competitors could have just as easily been the ones to do what YouTube did. Because YouTube didn't do anything. It was the leveraging of Google's near Monopoly on search and advertisement that allowed them to guide everyone to YouTube once they owned it. Making it viable and profitable for them to share some of those profits no matter how small with the people who post. People made a living making videos long before YouTube.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    You've basically said the same thing over and over about four or five times now. And been shut down on the facts of it every single time. Aren't you getting a little tired of that?

    Yes, I am getting tired. You consistently argue against the pretty inoffensive and commonly understood arguments I have made with completely irrelevant points. So I'll say it one more time and see if it can finally sink in. If someone wants to get into making videos, they'll go to youtube for better or for worse. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of Google's influence, I'm saying that the reality is that youtube has enabled a huge amount of people to monetize their video creation and build an audience in a way that other competitors haven't caught up with. If you're arguing that the landscape for video creation and publishing on the internet is the same as it was before youtube rose to prevalence, then you're just dead wrong. Sorry.

    Also, you do understand that youtube was more successful than vimeo before google's acquisition, right? Their success is kind of the whole reason google backed them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    Going with what is happening in the SAG/AFTRA strike, perhaps the big names shouldn't join the strike because they would come across as entitled, but they are more than welcome to donate towards the strike.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Artists, techies, and socialists need to come together. To build a platform focused on sustainability ultimately. Devoid of profit for the sake of profit. And more focused on meeting the needs of their members. No overpriced CEO or board of directors. Or layers of redundant management. Once the service costs are covered. Anything after that could be split somewhat proportionally within strict limits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm on board with this idea, but I'm not sure where to start.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    A lot of the basic pieces are in place. Torrenting/peer tube for distribution. Modern day royalty free codecs. Realistically the two biggest hurdles are how to monetize responsibly, and bringing people in. It's something that in one shape or form will always require some small donation of time and resources. And it's easier to convince someone to join a Ponzi scheme telling them you will make them wealthy. Than it is to get someone to join guaranteeing that you'll never make them wealthy but you will try to make them secure in their lives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    This is a good thread and good comment to throw this up on:

    https://youtu.be/PJSTFzhs1O4?si=3SalhKn7wN6dgUpP

    Benn Jordan, perhaps better known as "The Flashbulb" as an EDM artist, has an excellent YouTube channel. This video dives into some details on how we could get artists paid, and stop getting our art jerked around by corporations. For less than we pay to not get free healthcare healthcare, you could have access to all copyright content, ad free, and artists would be better compensated.

    It's an idea worth spreading.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent