RIP Youtube

[SGOS]

But yeah, if you put out videos that entertain an audience in the hundreds of thousands, I don't have a problem with them getting paid for it. 

Nor do I.  I have followed Heather Feather's stereo ASMR videos for a couple of years.  I think she spends a lot of time making them, and she has a loyal following, although she was gone for awhile after some surgery.  Then she returned and now she's gone again.  Last I heard she was traveling around apparently enjoying herself.  She's been gone for 6 months at least.  I've often been curious what someone makes that becomes marginally popular on the net.  It's apparently worth their time. 

I got a kick out of that atheist vs. preacher in that other thread.  He referred to their Utube  videos as their "stations."  I like a couple of these stations, and find them a pleasant alternative to cable TV.  Sometimes they are unique, and sometimes informative.  And I don't feel like I'm being fed sanitized or network approved pabulum.  And the regular news channels seem to depend on governmental press releases, which amounts to a lot of filtered and approved government propaganda.   Although there's a tremendous amount of internet news too that is well below what I consider minimum journalistic standards.

I don't know what's going to become of the kind of information that a healthy democracy needs to have to function well.  I'm not sure the internet is the answer.  I miss Walter Cronkite.

[TomFoolery]

And I don't feel like I'm being fed sanitized or network approved pabulum.  And the regular news channels seem to depend on governmental press releases, which amounts to a lot of filtered and approved government propaganda.   Although there's a tremendous amount of internet news too that is well below what I consider minimum journalistic standards.

The news has changed a lot because of the Internet, and I don't think it's for the better. Most news outlets are only owned by a small handful now and can't really be considered independent, and that is as a direct result of the Internet. There used to be a lot more independence and investigative journalism, but those things just don't compete with the Kardashians and the world's ever-shortening attention spans anymore.

The biggest problem is, we want our news, and we want it to be cheap (preferably free), fast, and true. In that order. Why should anyone pay money for a newspaper or online service if you can just get it for free somewhere else? Unfortunately, "free" comes with a cost, and that cost is often quality and the truth. So what's worse for the dissemination of information? A lazy news agency on the verge of bankruptcy spewing press releases, or conspiracy theory bloggers?

I guess I just have a very unique perspective on it, because I've seen some of this stuff firsthand about the war between "independent journalists" and "traditional media," and in my experience, the independent journalists are shady as fuck. I could go on for hours about the independent bloggers I worked with in Afghanistan, but I doubt anyone would read it. Bottom line is, it's not true journalism. There's a difference between truth and conjecture, and all too often, what independent journalists have on offer is a lot more of the latter.

[Baruch]

News isn't free from the effects of entropy.  Unless effort is taken to keep things organized ... and this requires corporate or government authority ... then the lowest common denominator will dominate.  Gresham's law not only applies to currency ... but to information, monetized or not.

Disruptive technology and anarchistic capitalism ... is causing advanced aging of whatever systems we have ... from order to chaos.

[Shiranu]

People negatively affected by this are always welcome to get a real job.

Slightly triggered right now.

[Johan]

Slightly triggered right now.

Well then substitute get a real job for choose a livelihood from any number of known existing sources which do not suffer the disadvantage of having a single solitary product and a single solitary revenue stream which both depend on the whims of an entity you have zero control over and zero influence with.

It doesn't quite flow like get a real job does. But it does describe the point a bit more accurately I suppose.

[TomFoolery]

Slightly triggered right now.

I'm sorry, but "social media star" and "YouTube blogger" are right up there with "actor" and "singer."

Bottom line is, anyone can claim to be one and feel like they should be paid to do it, but most aren't, or at least not well enough to live on. Most spend a good chunk of their lives doing other jobs to pay the bills. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, it's not a "real job" for most people, but more of a hobby that they can maybe make a little extra cash doing. 

For those people who actually DO make enough money from YouTube ad revenues to support themselves and are getting screwed by this... well that sucks for them. Times change, markets change, and I don't know why anyone would think that a entrepreneurial boon like getting paid to give opinions on controversial topics on the Internet was going to provide stable income forever if you can't control the platform on which those opinions are given.

They're always welcome to strike out on their own I suppose, and make their own website and post videos there. No one is stopping them.

[SGOS]

I guess I just have a very unique perspective on it,

It's not unique to me, but looking at news on Yahoo, which may be better than some of the others, it's still bad, dictated by a combination of  popular demand, manipulative click baits, and forces not conducive to journalism.  It's media driven by pure capitalism, and too much of anything, and yes that includes capitalism, is seldom a good thing.  Society just gets dumber, and it was already dumb enough to begin with.  Technology is getting better, but it doesn't help much when its content is driven by idiots and assholes.

[Nonsensei]

It isn't a financial penalty. YouTube never had to offer monetization, they just did, and a lot of enterprising folks tried to turn YouTube into a career and some even did with moderate success. People negatively affected by this are always welcome to get a real job. A penalty would be something like a fine.

YouTube is a private company, and so are the advertisers that are offering monetization. To say that they won't pay people money to post objectionable things is NOT censorship, anymore than it would be censorship if the local NBC station refused to show my 30 second commercial about sex toys.

You opinion seems utterly driven by your prejudice against people who make internet content for a living. In your own words its not a "real job". I can't help but feel that if this were any other type of work you would not be so cavalier about the destruction of people's livelihoods.

And yes, it is a financial penalty. Its youtube allowing popular opinion to penalize content creators by taking away the money they created the video to earn.

[Shiranu]

Well then substitute get a real job for choose a livelihood from any number of known existing sources which do not suffer the disadvantage of having a single solitary product and a single solitary revenue stream which both depend on the whims of an entity you have zero control over and zero influence with.

You mean... like basically any "real job" that you don't own yourself? Because if you work for anyone other than yourself, your livelyhood is based on having a single solitary product (your value as an employee) and a single solitary revenue stream (your position within that organization) which both depend on the whims of an entity you have zero control over (your boss) and whom you (often) have zero influence with.

Sorry, but artists have been one of the most important workers in the market for thousands of years, and that's not going to change.

I'm sorry, but "social media star" and "YouTube blogger" are right up there with "actor" and "singer."

Who are both hugely important players in the work force. Good to see you admitting they do deserve more recognition.

For those people who actually DO make enough money from YouTube ad revenues to support themselves and are getting screwed by this... well that sucks for them. Times change, markets change, and I don't know why anyone would think that a entrepreneurial boon like getting paid to give opinions on controversial topics on the Internet was going to provide stable income forever if you can't control the platform on which those opinions are given.

Therefor we should just say, "meh.".

It's not about control, it's about watching one more good business turn into some corporate bullshit. It's watching something that was culturally revolutionary turn into some cog-and-gear machine that now cares more about it's bottom line than art. And I realise that's what happens to basically every medium, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. And I am certainly not going to say that the artists who utilized it were asking for it by using the medium. I try to be consistent about not being a victim blamer.

[Johan]

You mean... like basically any "real job" that you don't own yourself? Because if you work for anyone other than yourself, your livelyhood is based on having a single solitary product (your value as an employee) and a single solitary revenue stream (your position within that organization) which both depend on the whims of an entity you have zero control over (your boss) and whom you (often) have zero influence with.

Of for fuck sake Shir, I could argue this easily in vast detail. But I've learned that doing so rarely makes a difference with you. So instead I will simply argue you statement thusly. Bullshit.

On second thought fuck it. Its sunday and I'm not doing anything else so why not prove the kid wrong again even though it will have zero impact on him?

Nothing in what I wrote suggests that my comments are intended to limit one to only working for others. If you want to create your own business and be your own boss, have at it. Just don't be stupid... oops change that to short sighted (wouldn't want to trigger anyone) and create a business that relies on one single outside corporate entity for its existence.

I created my own business when I did computer repair. Google could go fuck itself and it wouldn't have shut my business down. There would still be computers to repair. HP could go fuck itself and it wouldn't have shut my business down. There would still be computers to repair. Apple could go fuck itself and it wouldn't have shut my business down... You get the idea.

Anyway, NOTHING in what I said means the only other available option is working for 'the man'. My point, that you so skillfully missed or simply chose to completely ignore once again, was that no matter what you choose to do for a living, choose to do it in a way that leaves you with other viable options should your current option dry up.

And yes, that applies just as much to choosing to work for 'the man'. I got into aviation. Its an absolute shit hole of an industry but I really enjoyed flying so I did it anyway. In pro aviation with rare exception, no matter what job you're doing, there is always a line of guys (or more literally a stack of resumes) at the the door who have more experience than you and are ready, willing and able to do the job you're doing for less money than you're currently making. That is the reality of pro aviation. So what did I do? I found a way to make myself more valuable than those other schmucks by getting into a job that allowed me to rack up tons of tailwheel time. I won't get into the minutia of it but suffice it to say that pro pilots with gobs of tailwheel experience are rare these days. So if you just so happen to service some sort of pro aviation niche with tailwheel aircraft, you're probably going to a hard time finding talent with lots of tailwheel in their logbook.

You know what that means? It means no matter who you're working for in that industry, you're no longer dependent on just one entity. Boom. Now go fuck yourself.

[TomFoolery]

You opinion seems utterly driven by your prejudice against people who make internet content for a living. In your own words its not a "real job". I can't help but feel that if this were any other type of work you would not be so cavalier about the destruction of people's livelihoods.

There's a difference between people who make Internet content for a living and people who make YouTube videos for a living. This topic is about YouTube, and all of my comments have been about YouTube. All YouTubers make Internet content, but not all internet content producers are YouTubers. Don't put words in my mouth.

YouTube is a private company that allows people to publish videos for FREE. To publish on YouTube, you don't need an agent or a contract, so really, YouTube already overwhelmingly favors content producers. That being said, people that post videos on YouTube are not employees of YouTube. At best, they are freelancers who use YouTube as a FREE platform, again, with very few restrictions on what they post.

By the way, if they wanted to, YouTube actually reserves the right to restrict whatever fucking content they want, not just strip ad revenue. YouTube does not equal the Internet. YouTube is a private company: the Internet is not.

If people are convinced the only way they can make a living and feel like productive members of society is to make videos ranting about what's wrong with the world and get paid for it, then they are completely free to do so. Most will probably be broke as fuck, but it's their right (at least if they're American) to seek self-determination and all that bullshit. Rant away on the Internet. But to act so entitled as to say that advertisers who partner with YouTube OWE them money for the content they produce, sorry, they don't. Just because it was that way in the past, YouTube, as a private company, reserves the right to make changes to its policy. Don't like it, then start your own company and court your own advertisers.

[Shiranu]

Anyway, NOTHING in what I said means the only other available option is working for 'the man'. My point, that you so skillfully missed or simply chose to completely ignore once again, was that no matter what you choose to do for a living, choose to do it in a way that leaves you with other viable options should your current option dry up.

And yet you imply that the Youtubers are in someway different from the other 99% of the work force that does exactly that when you say they don't have a "real job".

B[size=0px]ut to act so entitled as to say that advertisers who partner with YouTube OWE them money for the content they produce, sorry, they don't. [/size]

As is not the case. But what IS the case is that people are quite rightly annoyed that YouTube is taking a pointless and self-destructive path that harms a legitimate economy that has thrived around it. Again... what is "entitled" about saying that changing a good business practice to a shitty one that hurts your livelyhood?

Basically it's boiling down to, "Artists don't have a right to complain when their work place changes.".

As someone else said, if we were talking about any "real job" doing the exact same thing, it's hard to feel your reaction would be anywhere near the same.

Now go fuck yourself.

I say this from experience, be careful with the toxicity (not just this but in several parts of your post). It might get you a three day suspension. You are probably as indifferent to that as I was, but never the less just a heads up.

[TomFoolery]

And yet yo imply that the Youtubers are in someway different from the other 99% of the work force that does exactly that when you say they don't have a "real job".

A "real job" implies you have rights and benefits under federal laws. By posting a video on YouTube, you are not an employee of YouTube, you're just using a website as a means to distribute original content.

Just like a street performer who performs in front of a busy, popular restaurant is not an employee of that restaurant. He may be using that restaurant's fame and foot traffic in the hopes of getting more nickels tossed in a box, but if that restaurant tells him to go away because he's on their property and harassing their patrons, they can. Of course, I'm sorry if I imply this person doesn't have a "real job."

But making money off of YouTube really isn't a whole lot different.

[Johan]

And yet you imply that the Youtubers are in someway different from the other 99% of the work force that does exactly that when you say they don't have a "real job".

I wasn't the one who made the get a real job comment. Since you seemed to be offended by it, I simply tried to offer some perspective that might help explain why such a comment might not be intended to offend. IOW I never implied that youtubers don't have a real job. Rather I implied that they were perhaps a bit short sighted in gauging the long-term viability of their chosen livelihood.

As is not the case. But what IS the case is that people are quite rightly annoyed that YouTube is taking a pointless and self-destructive path that harms a legitimate economy that has thrived around it. Again... what is "entitled" about saying that changing a good business practice to a shitty one that hurts your livelyhood?

Basically it's boiling down to, "Artists don't have a right to complain when their work place changes.".

As someone else said, if we were talking about any "real job" doing the exact same thing, it's hard to feel your reaction would be anywhere near the same.

you're responding to comment I didn't make so.... no comment.

Well maybe one comment. I am an artist. So I do indeed value artists. But I also live in the real world. So I don't for a moment believe that artists should be able to live in a reality that is any bit different from everyone else. You wanna be an artist and you wanna do it for a living? Great. But don't cry foul when you willing choose to put all your business eggs in a single basket that you have no control over nor influence on and it doesn't work out for you.

I say this from experience, be careful with the toxicity (not just this but in several parts of your post). It might get you a three day suspension. You are probably as indifferent to that as I was, but never the less just a heads up.

Roger that brother. I hope you know that while I'm obnoxious with you a lot and I'm hard on you sometimes as well, I only do that with those I genuinely care about. I never tell the salesperson at Best Buy to go fuck themselves. Even then they deserve it. But if you're a friend of mine? You hear it from me regularly. And I expect the same in return.

I know you and like you and ultimately I believe we're on the same team. I don't think I've said this in the past. We're a long way apart, but I see a lot of myself in your story. And if needed, you've always got a room in the midwest if you need it so long as I have one available. But yeah, I appreciate the heads up. Dully noted.

[Shiranu]

Roger that brother. I hope you know that while I'm obnoxious with you a lot and I'm hard on you sometimes as well, I only do that with those I genuinely care about. I never tell the salesperson at Best Buy to go fuck themselves. Even then they deserve it. But if you're a friend of mine? You hear it from me regularly. And I expect the same in return.

Sorry, shouldn't have used you as a way of throwing snark at someone else anyways.