
Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-14/german-union-ig-metall-is-backing-youtubers-fighting-google
======
root_axis
YouTube does not employ creators; creators are utilizing YouTube's free
service in order to broadcast their own content. Google demonetizes videos in
order to be more appealing to _advertisers_ , ultimately the problem these
creators have is that _advertisers_ are not willing to pay for their content.
YouTube only makes money when the content creator does, so naturally they'd be
happy to monetize anything they could.

~~~
m463
The decision to demonetize is Google's.

Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would
make the choice?

~~~
root_axis
> _The decision to demonetize is Google 's._

Yes, but the decision is based on feedback from advertisers. In YouTube's
ideal world, every single video on the site would be monetized, but this isn't
possible because advertisers do not want their brand associated with
controversial topics, especially those that concern very heated political
debates.

> _Wouldn 't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers
> would make the choice?_

The creators and advertisers have no obligation to work through YouTube. In
fact, all of the big creators work directly with advertisers that are friendly
to their content by editing sponsored content directly into the video.

~~~
AcerbicZero
I don't believe there is enough evidence available to state what Google is
making its decisions based on. I think its somewhat safe to assume the first
major round of demonitization (the original adpocolypse) was likely based on
advertiser feedback, since the major complaints being made involved extremely
inappropriate ad placement/tone for the videos they were being played on.

The more recent demonitizations have appeared more and more "proactive" in
protecting Google, but due to the comments being made by the CEO of youtube,
and by the patterns in the demonitizations its not unreasonable to suspect
there maybe other factors outside of keeping advertisers happy.

~~~
root_axis
Perhaps, but as I already noted, every popular video that is demonetized costs
YouTube a lot of money because they stream the video to millions of viewers
but get no revenue to offset the costs of hosting and streaming. We all know
the most important thing to every corporation, including YouTube, is to make
as much money as possible, so barring some strong evidence to suggest
otherwise, we need no other explanation than the obvious one: advertisers
don't want to pay for ads in controversial videos.

------
programmarchy
Check out Joerg Sprave’s video [1] on this with him and the IG Metall lawyers.
Joerg is the slingshot channel YouTuber who is helping lead the charge on
this. In the video, they give a good breakdown on their demands and their
strategy.

[1]
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ)

~~~
dfeojm-zlib
Definitely. I also came across that video via a shout-out from Forgotten
Weapons:

[https://youtu.be/EUxxLZz_2NU](https://youtu.be/EUxxLZz_2NU)

I hope Dr. Richard Wolff interviews Youtube Union and IG Metall, because it's
in his wheelhouse of workers organizing, co-ops and economics.

[https://youtube.com/democracyatwrk](https://youtube.com/democracyatwrk)

------
Mirioron
I don't see how this would work. Creators are from all across the world and
many of them have to deal with wildly different issues due to a differing
legal system. Furthermore, being a youtuber isn't something that's clearly
defined either, because there are many that create content for a bit and then
never create content again.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
This is a solved problem, many unions are international. The AFL-CIO is the
largest federation of unions in the US and is international.

~~~
kazen44
unions have a history of internationalism aswell, considering their close ties
to ideologies which have internationalism as a core tenant. (social democracy,
socialism, communism etc).

------
onemoresoop
Did anyone ever thought of creating an external index of youtube videos so the
recommendations are open source and aren't controlled by Youtube? Basically a
table with links and other metadata

~~~
crdoconnor
Doesn't seem like it would be easy without a firehose of metadata and I doubt
Google would be amenable to providing that for a competing service.

At this point to enable that kind of competition would have to have
legislative protection (e.g. a law similar to the UK one mandating
banks/gas/electric companies have to provide APIs).

~~~
chrshawkes
Selenium, click a video, store the suggested, verify what has been and hasn't
been watched, move to the next, do the same etc... etc... Seems pretty easy to
build a bot to do such a thing.

------
40acres
Fundamentally I think the problem is that these platforms are not neutral,
when YouTube's algorithm hoists your video to the front page they are
"manipulating" the system.

Personally, I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act challenged on this notion and it as the basis for other
challenges.

Internet providers just serve bits, any effort to "manipulate" those bits
based on who is providing them is looked at with great aversion (net
neutrality), tech platforms have done a good job so far distancing what they
do to other times of platforms but I believe we are all awakening to the power
that these obtuse algorithms have on us.

~~~
solotronics
It is pretty obvious that things like search results are manipulated to fit an
agenda. Search Google Images for "white american family" and "black american
family" and compare the results. You can replace "black american family" with
indian or any other group and the results are similar.

There are many interracial couples under "white american family" and none
under "black american family". The only way I can explain this is there is
manipulation of the algorithm to fit a certain perspective.

I don't think there is anything wrong with interracial families but I do think
it is concerning that our search results are being subtly manipulated like
this without most people knowing.

~~~
arkades
Out of curiousity I did just that. And aside from skin tone, I got identical
sets of people in khakis and button-downs hugging in front of houses, white
picket fences, and couches. And found interracial families under black, but
not white.

Something something anecdote not data.

~~~
solotronics
compare these I just did it again

[http://i68.tinypic.com/213nty.jpg](http://i68.tinypic.com/213nty.jpg)
[http://i67.tinypic.com/fnqoib.jpg](http://i67.tinypic.com/fnqoib.jpg)
[http://i65.tinypic.com/20krl6p.jpg](http://i65.tinypic.com/20krl6p.jpg)

------
preommr
Isn't this kind of good for youtube? They've been struggling with better
organization and would probably like to deal with one collective than many
small youtubers. It would probably help with things like better overall
quality, better understanding of legal issues like parodies, better
communication, etc.

In a worst case scenario, how much can a union even hurt youtube? If they
decided to go on strike, the barrier to entry is so low that people would
easily fill up the void until the issue got resolved. Not to mention a lot of
videos are things from tv shows and music videos that probably wouldn't be
part of this union.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
Power structures see other power structures as a threat. Google would like to
be able to do what they want, whenever they want, without having to negotiate
with another entity, or even worse, getting sued by another entity.

------
anon1m0us
What they should do is collectively take their content somewhere else.

As an aside, I'm seeing the same pattern at Amazon. People thought they were
opening a business on amazon selling retail. Then amazon started selling the
profitable products themselves, storing the products themselves, ... basically
doing more and more of the work and taking more control and taking money from
the people who helped them become powerful. Businesses there are now devolving
into repackaging jobs.

Now Youtube is doing the same. They used focus on being a search and
distribution mechanism. Now they produce content, allow sponsorships, have
more ads per minute of viewing then television, ... jobs there are again,
repackaging jobs. Repackage scenes from movies, previews, upload
documentaries, sports clips...

They both grew through the expansion of the long tail. The reality is: where
are people in the long tail going to go to sell their repackaged stuff?

Nowhere. There's no other amazon. Ebay? The flea market of the internet?
That's where people who wanted to sell to wal-mart go.

The only place for them to go would be to create their own online store, or
their own website where people can watch their movies. Then you have to be
found through...

... that's right, Google. Nope. That won't work either, because only AdWords
sponsored content appears in Google searches anymore. Google wants you adding
data snippets to google.com so people won't even visit your website.

The internet has turned to garbage. You're better off going to the library
like the old days.

The internet has been ruined by the mainstream and the money grubbers.

It's just gross. So sad.

~~~
chillacy
> Ebay? The flea market of the internet?

You disregard ebay but ebay actually has economic alignment with its sellers.
The buyer experience isn't as good as Amazon's, but the seller experience is
better in that you can control your destiny more.

But this apparently makes it a flea market?

There's going to be a tradeoff between curation and producer freedom. You
can't have your cake and eat it too.

~~~
hirundo
Apparently you took the flea market comparison as disparaging and it was
intended that way. Why? What's wrong with flea markets? I shop there regularly
and have sold there many times. I usually get great deals there on either side
of the transaction. I can say the same about Ebay. For Ebay to be a kind of
vast internet flea market seems like a good thing.

~~~
msla
> Why? What's wrong with flea markets?

Low-quality goods and the increased possibility of scams.

~~~
hirundo
I get plenty of low quality goods at Walmart and Amazon too, and plenty of
scams as well. Sometimes it's the cheap goods I'm there for, and I don't
expect high quality for that. Caveat emptor applies everywhere.

The problem comes when you don't realize you're digging through crap looking
for pearls and imagine that it's all pearls.

------
callalex
I wonder why the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) hasn't weighed in on this whole
sector at all. The exploitation of entertainers is not exactly a new issue,
and it has been tackled by existing unions before.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
SAG-AFTRA has weighed in on this issue, both to the press[1] and on their
website[2].

From their site:

> _Do you create your own content on YouTube or other social media platforms?_

> _If a brand reaches out to promote their product (paid or product trade) on
> your platform, that is a commercial and SAG-AFTRA can have your back._

> _SAG-AFTRA covers advertisements on all platforms. Get fair compensation,
> access to health insurance and a team of experts making sure you are PAID!_

[1] [https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/08/15/sag-aftra-content-
crea...](https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/08/15/sag-aftra-content-creator-
protections/)

[2] [https://www.sagaftra.org/get-involved/ads-go-
union/creators-...](https://www.sagaftra.org/get-involved/ads-go-
union/creators-only)

~~~
anon1m0us
So what you're saying is there already _is_ a union for content creators, they
just need to _join_ it.

That seems like a way better approach. All content creators on the internet
should join the _same_ union -- preferably one that already exists -- rather
than recreate a wheel that will water down their message.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
Competition is a good thing, perhaps other unions can meet the needs of
content creators better than this one.

------
La-ang
Can youtubers go on strike and take the content down for a limited time? If
such an option is available and they do it, it would be a relevant strike. But
since those who are joining the Union are the one demonetized provides that
Youtube isn't making as much profit from their presence as those who are still
running ads. In such case, the former ones will need a way to engage those who
make profit align with their doctrine, so the strike can be a blow to youtube.
Bottom line to me; Not Gonna Happen (NGH).

~~~
nordsieck
> Can youtubers go on strike and take the content down for a limited time?

In order for that to be effective, a strike needs to remove enough capability
from the other party to materially affect them. In this case, with so many
videos online, I'd bet creators would need to get perhaps 95%-99% of recent
videos taken down. They won't get anywhere close.

Right out of the gate, news and music won't join in the strike. Also the
rewards to defect get higher, the more other creators join the strike.

~~~
knotsies
I feel like a very strong effect could be had if popular creators move their
content to other providers. While they might not be able to take down a huge
percentage of all recent videos on YouTube, they could redirect the attention
of enough users to have a very strong impact on YouTube's ad revenue.

Say someone is a die-hard fan of Pewdiepie--he's the reason that user opens
YouTube on a daily basis. This user watches his daily video, but might also
watch some news and music from their recommendations after the video ends. If
Pewdiepie moves his content somewhere else, that user might not end up viewing
that related content on YouTube anymore.

I'm really interested to see how these shared groups of fans cooperate with
union efforts. Given how close of a connection many popular creators have with
their fans, a call for a boycott could impact a lot more than just those
creators.

~~~
nordsieck
> I feel like a very strong effect could be had if popular creators move their
> content to other providers.

That could work. There's no exclusivity clauses for video hosts, though, so
I'm not sure why they wouldn't already be on those other platforms unless it
isn't worth the work. I'm forced to conclude that youtube's competitors have
few enough viewers and/or pay so poorly that it would require a truly
organized and massive move to make that work.

All I can say is: good luck. I won't be holding my breath.

------
Rikaro
Youtube is like a free Gallery, where anyone can display there artwork. The
content which can be supported by advertisement (for benefit of the artist and
the gallery management), surely is to be decided by the gallery management,
ie, Youtube, as they're not 'employing' content creators - they're just
allowing free posting of content and allowing revenue generation through ad as
an extra cream.

Content creators 'use' Youtube, they don't 'work for' Youtube... This is what
people are confusing these days. (For eg. They can use affiliate marketing
with a video, without any intervention from Google, and sharing the video on
youtube)

Should Instagram pay for most viral posts? No right? - the user posted it for
sharing. If, Instagram paid, as a 'Thank you and win-win' strategy to such
posts - people would've lost it if some posts were demonetized.

Also, if anyone wants to showcase in a gallery where they are paid for it,
Youtube provides the 'Youtube Premium' option.

------
duxup
I wonder how this plays out.

Youtubers are very competitive, and the high profile YouTuber crowd very much
asks for special benefits for themselves ... not for the collective.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
We can take a look at SAG-AFTRA, the Screen Actors Guild, to see how it will
play out.

Turns out that every movie star alive today is a union member, and they have
no problem asking for special benefits and receiving them.

~~~
duxup
It will be interesting to see if that is in fact how it plays out.

A lot of the unions that are tied to trying to make progress in tech related
fields are not at all like the screen actors guild. They often operate in a
way where benefits are tied to simple things like seniority or prescribed
certifications and etc.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
Which unions in particular?

------
alexashka
The headline is misleading - nobody is unionizing.

A German union is _maybe_ going to sue Google, on behalf of some youtubers,
based on European laws, that's all.

~~~
root_axis
Quote from the article:

> _The German union is inviting YouTubers to become members and is running a
> campaign called FairTube to press for better terms_

~~~
alexashka
Did we read the same article?

 _> A strike in the traditional sense would achieve little. Even in the
extreme unlikelihood that every YouTuber in Germany boycotts the platform and
stops uploading videos, it would have a limited impact on the site’s
profitability. While a localized strike by Uber drivers can cripple the
ridehailing service for its duration, YouTube has unparalleled cross-border
scale – 450 hours of video are uploaded every minute – and an almost
bottomless library of existing content.

> So what exactly can IG Metall do? A lawsuit is the most likely next step.
> The union claims that decisions made to de-monetize a video with no
> explanation contravene the European Union’s General Data Protection
> Regulation._

They clearly admit the traditional power-move of a union to strike would fail
and that their only recourse, would be to file a lawsuit.

------
EamonnMR
I wonder if this means that amateurs who casually make videos are going to be
considered Scabs?

------
AzzieElbab
Tweeters are next. Mark my words

------
telaelit
Good. It's about time.

------
ryanmercer
This is mostly just people like Jörg Sprave and Taofledermaus types, that are
angry their videos of making improvised weapons and improvised ammunition,
getting demonetized or removed. This started early last year when Jörg got fed
up with losing money and getting strikes against videos on his channel.

For context he was most famous for his fantastically powerful homemade
slingshots, he then started doing stuff like trying to defeat riot shields,
stab resistant armor, etc by launching spears/metal rods/knives/swords/metal
'missile' projectiles etc out of homemade weapons that look like something
Leonardo would have made if he went on a psychotic break after everyone he
loved was killed in an alley to become Renaissance-Vigilanteman. He started
posting rant after rant to his channel and ultimately started a union.

He, and channels like Taofledermaus started claiming they were being censored,
their videos were unjustly being demonetized, yadda yadda and outright
ignoring the fact that YouTube is a FREE platform and that YouTube primarily
exists as an advertising company, not as a video hosting company. If you
pointed this out in their video comment sections you would have rabid fans
telling you "freedom of speech is a right!" "this is censorship!" "this is
unconstitutional!" and ignoring the fact that serving tens of millions of
video views costs money and that the content creators never paid a single cent
in hosting fees to Google.

Most advertisers don't want to touch a guy showing how to defeat riot shields
with homemade crossbows or a channel that packs shotgun shells with random
crap from their junk drawer and shoots it at barbie dolls claiming they're
shooting at Taylor Swift (seriously, Taylor Swift is mentioned in a TON of
Taofledermaus videos while they shoot nails, ball bearings, legos, marbles,
exotic commercial ammunition etc at dolls and other random Goodwill finds).

YouTube has nothing to fear and Content Creators need to wake up. If a content
creator that gets 100,000 views per video on average in the first month had to
pay for hosting on one 10 minute video they are looking at something like 25
gigabytes of data transfer at 1080p or something like 130 gigabytes of data at
4k, at a video a week you're looking at the better part of 7 terabytes of data
transfer and assuming 10 minute videos with 4k upload quality and at least 800
gigabytes of storage.

Now consider some of those videos easily hit millions of views, especially if
they go viral, and that many YouTubers that are actually doing this for a
significant portion of their income have hundreds of videos, benefit wildly
from the recommendation algorithms and trending feature of YouTube and what
that sort of exposure would cost them to achieve on their own domain and...

I mean, imagine if PSY had to host Gangnam Style, it currently has 3.4 billion
views... at YouTube HD (1080p) toolstud.io' video file size calculator puts it
at 219 MB... that's 744,600 petabytes of data transfer... I can't imagine PSY
could afford that bill.

They're making out like bandits and whining that YouTube isn't giving them
enough of the ad revenue. Yet there are tons of creators on YouTube making a
living purely off of Patreon subscriptions, YouTube has a competing supporting
method and you can always sell merch and/or do sponsored videos occasionally.

~~~
buboard
> ost advertisers don't want to touch a guy showing how to defeat riot shields
> with homemade crossbows

I 'm not sure anymore if "advertisers" dont want to advertise on non-
mainstream or adult sites, or if it's just google imposing arbitrary standards
on both their advertisers AND publishers. In the old times of TV there were
brands that catered to specific, non-family friendly audiences (e.g.
cigarettes, alcohol). With google's current policies, and monopoly on
advertising, that section of advertisers and publishers is completely
excluded.

I also don't get the point that "youtube is advertising, not video hosting" \-
they depend on both very much. By that reasoning TV should stop paying its
anchors too.

> what that sort of exposure would cost them to achieve on their own domain
> and

They don't need to pay for hosting. There are already distributed platforms
like bitchute. Each of them just needs to add one node to the system and the
collective benefit would be huge.

~~~
tbyehl
Go check out the ads on some non-mainstream or adult sites. They're the
epitome of _This is why we use ad blockers._

~~~
buboard
Exactly. There is no way for these sites to reach mainstream advertisers who
_might_ be interested. Google has the keys to all of them

Similar with payment processors. Nudity or even porn is increasingly accepted
today, yet paypal won't touch it, so these sites have to deal with subpar and
expensive payment providers

------
perfmode
what is it about collective action that triggers contempt so quickly and
automatically for those attempting to organize? many comments in this thread
show contempt for the organizers in a way that is readily visible.

~~~
Mirioron
Because the resuls of collective action isn't always fair for society. Many
countries have an HDD/CD/DVD tax, because of (basically) collective action by
artists. I don't see this as being fair. Why do I have to pay more when buying
a HDD so that artists I'm never ever going to listen to can get more money?

I understand that collective action is often beneficial, but these bad
examples are enough to make me annoyed at it.

~~~
aaomidi
Then unionize against this tax with other fellow HDD buyers?

The difference between you and the artists are that they organized. You came
on HN to complain.

------
cheeky78
If that's the case, 99% will be booted off the platform and they will have to
meet certain numbers of visitors and engagement every month, or lose their
job..which is what unionizing means.

If I were google, I would also get control of their users (they would now be
the companys) and youtubers will no longer be able move to any other platform
while working for Google.

You can't expect the freedom of running your own business with none of the
restrictions of a job.

I never understood the need to take away the ability for someone to truly run
their own business and have freedoms and restrict it down to a corporate job,
by law.

~~~
MrLeap
If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another,
larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner'
alludes.

How many HN posts have we seen over the years of businesses based on Amazon,
Twitter, Apple getting blown the fuck up because the mothership restricted an
API, copied their project or changed a ToS?

I'm not putting in an opinion on anything else in your post except the
supposed 'freedom' of youtubers et al. Okay maybe one more thing. I like
seeing alternative viewpoints, and yours is a rare one on HN. I like to
champion alternative viewpoints whenever I see them, especially when they're
voted white for no reason. It's hard to go to bat for you on this though,
since you're for retaliation against a bunch of people who dare try and
organize around their shared pain points. I just can't do it this time!

Unionizing is like a mini revolution. I was always confused about anti
unionism when I was in school, because unions seem as american as it gets (in
the 7th grade social studies definition of 'America).

Democracy in the workplace? Hell yeah! Fighting against a power that exploits
you without representation? That's boston-tea-party as shit. Shame there's no
way to talk about things like this with someone who disagrees without it
devolving into 'modern discourse'.

~~~
cheeky78
"If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another,
larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner'
alludes."

My point is that Youtubers can start their own sites and go elsewhere if they
get tired of a large company controlling their content.

Unionization usually means they will now need to be paid a 'fair wage' and
benefits..and your relationship changes to more of an employee..with more
restrictions on what you can do.

Youtube also won't pay everyone as an employee and less people will be able to
actually make money on the platform due to these restrictions.

"I like seeing alternative viewpoints"

This is is kind of crazy when you think about it: Independent business is now
considered an 'alternative viewpoint' here on HN..a site dedicated to hackers,
startups, and the tech business.

My guess is that the majority here work for large companies and really don't
care about (or have even tried) running a business/startup.

"Since you're for retaliation against a bunch of people who dare try and
organize around their shared pain points. I just can't do it this time!"

I'm not for retaliation, I'm just pointing out the unintended consequences.

"Fighting against a power that exploits you without representation? That's
boston-tea-party as shit"

Everything isn't deserving of a 'revolution'. If so, I would have started a
revolution against HN years ago. I can't even have intellectual discussions,
without scared users down voting my comments..because someone might be
convinced of a different view point.

~~~
MrLeap
Hey thank you for your reply.

"My point is that Youtubers can start their own sites and go elsewhere if they
get tired of a large company controlling their content."

I don't fault people who try that, nor do I fault anyone who tries to stay and
fight. In many ways, Google "owns the well". It makes sense to me that the
economics of the situation for some makes staying and organizing the easier
course of action. Taking on Youtube as a competitor.. building a website,
attracting advertisers, etc. Especially doing all this while making cat
videos, now for no money, seems like a tough play.

You'd have to have some systemic luxuries, and lots of grit to take on the
risk of such a feat. I wish anyone who tries the best of luck.

"Unionization usually means they will now need to be paid a 'fair wage' and
benefits..and your relationship changes to more of an employee..with more
restrictions on what you can do."

You're already restricted to whatever rules of the road Google sets, by fiat.
99.999% of Content creators who work with google have ZERO negotiating power
right now. They can, and do change the rules at anytime. Companies can submit
fraudulent DMCA takedowns depriving these small business owners their revenue
during its most important period. You can appeal, but it doesn't undo the
damage to your revenue even if you win.

These are dirty tricks! Those affected should maximize their voice to do
something about it, in my opinion.

"This is is kind of crazy when you think about it: Independent business is now
considered an 'alternative viewpoint' here on HN..a site dedicated to hackers,
startups, and the tech business."

It's alternative to put 'independent business' contingent on employees never
organizing. Businesses can make partnerships, why not employees?

"My guess is that the majority here work for large companies and really don't
care about (or have even tried) running a business/startup."

I've worked for a few startups. We weren't aggrieved anywhere close enough to
consider Unionization. We were all well paid, treated well, and close enough
to management that they listened to concerns as we brought them up.

I wish I had some stats on how many startups are brought low by unions, I bet
it's a vanishingly small number. If you consider unions to be a response to be
corrective feedback from aggrieved employees, some of these hypothetical blown
up startups probably should have gone under.

Honestly, I've only ever associated unions as responses against sufficiently-
large-to-be-dehumanizing companies. Maybe it is a problem? I'm open to the
possibility even though I would be surprised.

"Everything isn't deserving of a 'revolution'."

Those rebels decide what deserves rebellion, power dynamics decide if they
succeed, I bet most don't. Treat your people better to make it harder for them
to justify the risks of unionizing, imo.

Thanks for the chat!

