YouTubers Union Teams With Actual Labor Union To Pressure YouTube (vice.com) 123
A group of content creators say they're organizing to make YouTube become a fairer platform, reports Motherboard:
The YouTubers Union, a community-based movement fighting for the rights of content creators and users, has joined forces with IG Metall, Germany's largest union and Europe's largest trade union. Together, they have launched a joint venture called FairTube and sent a letter of demands to YouTube accompanied by a video explaining their concerns, demands, and plan of action. The move is one of the most significant organized labor actions taken by creators on the platform, and puts some actual union power behind what has thus far been a nascent and disorganized movement.
In recent years, YouTube creators have consistently spoken out about changes to the massive platform that they say they are rarely consulted on that affect their ability to make money. For example, YouTube has repeatedly changed how it handles copyright takedown requests (allowing copyright holders to assert copyright on and monetize videos that they didn't upload, for example.) YouTube has also controversially "demonetized" or issued content warnings to some innocuous channels. One of the creators leading the unionization charge, Jörg Sprave, has had his popular slingshot videos removed by YouTube.
"We aren't demanding things that cut into profits or are unrealistic. We want fairness. We want transparency. We want to be treated like partners. And we want personal communication instead of anonymous communication," Sprave told Motherboard... . In a letter to YouTube signed by Sprave and Christiane Benner, the Vice President of IG Metall, FairTube asks that "all categories and decision criteria that affect Creators' earning capability, especially monetization and search and discovery, shall be transparent."
The union's project secretary believes YouTube is now required to do this under Europe's new GDPR regulations. (Adding that in the meantime, YouTube content creators "are having severe mental health problems as a result of living under algorithmic management.")
The article notes one study that found that the top 3% of YouTubers generate about 90% of the traffic -- yet even then, their average income is around $17,000. And Sprave now complains that YouTube creators "are making less money, have less stability, and are constantly being suppressed and demonetized now that YouTube is in favor of ad-safe brands."
In recent years, YouTube creators have consistently spoken out about changes to the massive platform that they say they are rarely consulted on that affect their ability to make money. For example, YouTube has repeatedly changed how it handles copyright takedown requests (allowing copyright holders to assert copyright on and monetize videos that they didn't upload, for example.) YouTube has also controversially "demonetized" or issued content warnings to some innocuous channels. One of the creators leading the unionization charge, Jörg Sprave, has had his popular slingshot videos removed by YouTube.
"We aren't demanding things that cut into profits or are unrealistic. We want fairness. We want transparency. We want to be treated like partners. And we want personal communication instead of anonymous communication," Sprave told Motherboard... . In a letter to YouTube signed by Sprave and Christiane Benner, the Vice President of IG Metall, FairTube asks that "all categories and decision criteria that affect Creators' earning capability, especially monetization and search and discovery, shall be transparent."
The union's project secretary believes YouTube is now required to do this under Europe's new GDPR regulations. (Adding that in the meantime, YouTube content creators "are having severe mental health problems as a result of living under algorithmic management.")
The article notes one study that found that the top 3% of YouTubers generate about 90% of the traffic -- yet even then, their average income is around $17,000. And Sprave now complains that YouTube creators "are making less money, have less stability, and are constantly being suppressed and demonetized now that YouTube is in favor of ad-safe brands."
Hahahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they just stop submitting content to Google, I doubt anybody, including Google, would notice or care.
Re: Hahahaha! (Score:1)
People don't have to be employees to have concerns and exert influence.
The fact is, they are people who make money for themselves and Google so that is why they are acting in concert the same way your average farmer or gun owner might.
Re:Hahahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as they've been trained to think that all their social media friends are real friends, and not other shits also desperately trying to collect friends and likes and don't give a shit about them.
All this social media is just shit all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people do make a decent living from YouTube, although they are usually on Twitch and Patreon as well. Their channels don't even have to be that big, you would be surprised.
Re: Hahahaha! (Score:2)
Oh it was classic...I drove barbar off of slashdot by calling out years worth of examples of him contradicting himself and blatantly lying...all in one very epic post. I triggered his professional victim mentality into completely taking over, forcing his ego to defend itself by convincing itself that people oppressing him are the cause of all of his own missteps, and that it can't possibly be because he's just a narcissistic asshole that fails at manipulation so bad that he can't even keep his own lies stra
Re:Hahahaha! (Score:4, Interesting)
What is absurd is wasting years of your life "pursuing the dream" of making money without a real job, and ending up making less than someone working part time at the minimum wage. This is the YouTube version of all those people who thought they could get rich making apps - except that most apps make much much less.
They both have two things in common - people not making enough money to justify getting out of bed, and Google making big bucks off their stupid asses. Unionizing won't make up for having a product nobody wants to pay for.
Programmers, on the other hand, could benefit from unionizing (van on crunch time anyone?) but make the mistake of thinking unions are beneath them.
Re: (Score:2)
Though to be fair I think we can say the same for aspiring actors and singers, a large portion of which would overlap with aspiring Youtuber population. Thousands and thousands of teenagers singing/acting/do things they love for a tiny chance of getting good money while enjoying their craft at the same time. At that aspect, Unionization probably wouldn't do much good for a fundamental earnings problem.
Unionization, however, may make a abuse problem better, because a little like Uber, youtube both wanted
Re: (Score:2)
Right, they have no real power - so they are teaming up with someone who might be able to do something about it. Some "union reps" show up at Brin's or Page's office, or start organizing among real employees (where they would LOVE to get their hooks), it could work.
Of course, the union might define the end goal a bit differently from the naife's that called them, but that's a different issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they're not employees of Google. For instance, if they *were* YouTube employees, do you think they would be allowed to upload the videos they create to platforms other than YouTube? Of course not... but they can -- because they are independent content creators.
This union is trying to be a bully and that will get them nowhere (or worse).
Re: (Score:2)
They kind of are though. Once the channel gets moderately successful YouTube gives them personal attention. Staff contact them and offer assistance to grow and promote their channels. YouTube also has a certain amount of control over their content, which is (under UK law at least) usually a sign that they are some kind of employer.
A failure to understand their position. (Score:5, Insightful)
What we're seeing here is a group of people who are failing to understand the highly compromised position they are in. Right now, YouTube is the one with the global distribution network that they are benefiting from. The thing is, there are lot of people that want to be "professional YouTubers" and could quickly replace the current flock. Without a serious competing distribution network, YouTube has no fear of losing viewers. So, unless they have secretly been coordinating to create a competing network, they didn't even bring a knife to a gun fight, they brought a twig.
Here's why it would be a mistake (Score:2)
Without content YouTube is an empty site.
Re:Here's why it would be a mistake (Score:5, Interesting)
Without content YouTube is an empty site.
You seemed to have missed the "there are lot of people that want to be "professional YouTubers" and could quickly replace the current flock" part.
Re: (Score:2)
You seemed to have missed the "there are lot of people that want to be "professional YouTubers" and could quickly replace the current flock" part.
Only to a point. Wanting to do something and having the ability to do it are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has a clearly dominant position in the video streaming market with YouTube, if they deplatform people for trying to unionize, that might well be what finally leads to regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
if they deplatform people...
YouTube isn't doing anything, it's the YouTubers that are threatening to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know how strong the legal merits are of the action IG Metall threatens to bring against youtube. But if losing the case could cause youtube to pay 10's of millions of dollars in back-pay and benefits, youtube will at least have to defend against the suit. IG Metall is the largest union in Germany. They may not be as big as Google, but they are not going to be pushovers on their home turf.
Seems like there is at least SOME leverage there. I am sure youtube doesn't actually WANT to defend against a la
Re: (Score:2)
The supplies you need to stay in operation stop arriving because the teamsters union has announced that they are 'standing in solidarity' with the union you actually have dealings with.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it may come to that. So far what IG Metall has mentioned publicly is that they will sue on behalf of content creators alleging that they are employees, not independent contributors, and this will cost 10's of millions of dollars in Euros for Youtube (if IG Metall prevails). Since Youtube doesn't really make anything, it is not like the old days in the unions. But there may still be some way for other unions to act in solidarity with the youtubers union. You don't have to explain it to me. I am old eno
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube won't lose the case... and the union is (IMHO) making a *big* mistake by trying to hold a gun to YouTube's head.
YouTube's response will likely as not be a simple "We have decided to withdraw our Partner Program from EU member states. Thank you for playing".
Then where will those content creators be? Out of a job with no right of appeal.
YouTube would have far less to lose by shutting down its partner program in the EU than it would by risking court action. And remember, if they shut down the partne
Re: (Score:2)
Opaqueness and Unfairness Appears Intentional (Score:5, Informative)
We aren't demanding things that cut into profits or are unrealistic. We want fairness. We want transparency.
To a large degree, the system seems to function as designed, if you consider that the design is to ban certain topics, allow big media and content farms to crush organic and legit channels, favor certain political leanings, and avoid accountability for all of the above.
Here's a topic that was banned, without any explanation of what specific content was banned or any ability to appeal for one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here's a legit cooking cooking channel that's outcompeted by (TOS-violating) content farms with repeated content and simply fake recipes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here are channels whose "trending" status is clearly being suppressed by Youtube, such that they rarely trend, unlike the big corporate (old media, etc) channels they outcompete:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
We aren't demanding things that cut into profits or are unrealistic. We want fairness. We want transparency.
To a large degree, the system seems to function as designed, if you consider that the design is to ban certain topics, allow big media and content farms to crush organic and legit channels, favor certain political leanings, and avoid accountability for all of the above.
One more example of the abusive power of Youtube management
An explanation of why Facebook was (and still is) banned in China [youtube.com]
Let's not consider if that explanation above is correct or otherwise. Let's say that the guy in the video was talking shit. So what?
I mean, there are so much shit on youtube that one has to wonder why the name hasn't been changed into shittube, and why only this particular video was demonetized ?
To protect Facebook ?
Or to protect that BLATANT LIE spread by MSM that Facebook is a vict
Ridiculous (Score:1)
The so-called "creators" need YouTube WAY MORE than YouTube needs them. Without YouTube the "creators" would be working at Starbucks.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
90% of traffic (Score:5, Insightful)
The article notes one study that found that the top 3% of YouTubers generate about 90% of the traffic
They need to demonstrate that if they leave, Youtube traffic will drop by 90% (or even a significant portion of that). Then they actually have power that they can leverage as a union.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:90% of traffic (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you watch the video? IG Metall said that if Youtube does not negotiate, they will bring a lawsuit against Youtube claiming that all of their content creators are de-facto employees under German law which could result in a huge judgement (10's of millions of dollars) against Youtube. If it was just a bunch of youtubers threatening to leave, I would agree with you. But if 10's of millions of dollars may be at stake, I think there will at least be some discussions happening.
Re: (Score:3)
But if 10's of millions of dollars may be at stake, I think there will at least be some discussions happening.
I don't think you understand how rich Google is.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand how rich Google is.
I don't think it would hurt but I think they might actually notice.
Re: (Score:2)
With tens of millions at stake, do you think Google will be forced to negotiate?
Re: (Score:2)
IG Metall said that if Youtube does not negotiate, they will bring a lawsuit against Youtube claiming that all of their content creators are de-facto employees under German law which could result in a huge judgement
Of it could get thrown out because the people making videos and posting them on YouTube are not employees of Google.
Re: (Score:2)
they will bring a lawsuit against Youtube claiming that all of their content creators are de-facto employees under German law which could result in a huge judgement
That sounds like a strange definition of employee. An employer asks an employee to do something: "Make this shoe", "Drive this person from A to B", etc. YouTube isn't asking these creators to do anything. By the same reasoning, how would YouTube break off the employment agreement?
Re: (Score:2)
You should watch the Jörg Sprave video. I know nothing about German labor law, but, I am guessing that IG Metall (largest union in Germany) does. The case may not have enough merit to win. But being sued is still a nuisance. You have to send lawyers to court to defend against the complaint. What would you rather do, stonewall and go to court or pick up the phone and call the person threatening to sue you to see if any negotiation may be possible?
Youtube has in many cases broken off the agreement by shu
Re: (Score:2)
I mean if they left - someone from the 16 hours of video people upload to youtube every minute will replace them.
How long until... (Score:2)
How long until this video gets striked?
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't dare. They have already striked Jörg Sprave and a LOT of people stepped forward in his defense. To strike THIS video would definitely be a mistake and would just get the video even more views (it would quickly be mirrored on other channels and other outlets). The bottom line is that unless they think IG Metall is bluffing, or that the case has absolutely no merit, they will probably at least engage with Jörg and IG Metall.
Big EU union (Score:2)
Who gets to keep more of the actual ad money now?
Want that company costs in the EU? Thats a full time EU job. With a new EU wage to pay.
Ad money is further reduced to pay for that EU person to do all that new communicating in EU nations.
Add in the costs of an EU nations laws, the demands of emerging US CoC.
Now add in German unions? The new costs of more German laws. German staff and German tech tax.
Easy to understand US freedom of speech and US hosting was looking like a nice
The thing about unions... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No. He had a video receive a strike because the daily mail mis-characterized it as a "how-to" for terrorists to defeat police body armor. It was a whole kerfuffle and almost took him off the air over a mis-understanding. But quite a few other youtubers made videos about Jörg's plight, and in the end they restored the video. I am sure I am forgetting some of the details of the drama. It was a while ago. But Jörg is very careful about German law. All his slingshots and other launchers are legal by G
Youtube Did Not Pay Money Earned (Score:2)
I live on a fixed income, below the poverty-line. I made some videos with people to share ideas and projects, but I needed lights and backup drives for videos, so I bought some, with the idea that youtube would eventually pay me for my videos. They stated they they would pay me some $80, as soon as it reached $100, but then they did not. Then they demonetized my channel.
I didn't start doing this for the money, but when you say you are going to pay people for their work, and then do not, there must be some l
Re: (Score:2)
I've just subscribed to your channel.
I liked the ones I say so far involving scavenging parts and heavy repurposing of random crap into useful things.
Liberalism is a mental disorder (Score:1)
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
As a writer... (Score:2)
As a writer, it's very interesting to see all the techies on here sneering at content creators as if its easy work that anyone could do.
It explains a lot about why Google/Youtube feel free to exploit and abuse content creators for profit, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
It will also be interesting to see how they downvote you for saying so. The groupthink is so bad on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
As a writer, it's very interesting to see all the techies on here sneering at content creators as if its easy work that anyone could do.
Holy shit yes there's a lot of really nasty sneering here. Making videos is hard. Making good videos is much harder. I like the people calling it "not a real job". If you make a living, it's a real job.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is this is an inverse equality issue. Revenue generation is limited to about the top 3% of accounts and a significant portion of those accounts are celebrities outside of YouTube or accounts operated by businesses and corporations. A fraction of that 3% are what YouTube stands to lose and there are, undoubtedly, plenty of individuals in that bottom 97% who are capable of putting in that hard work. While the fraction of accounts like PewDiePie are undoubtedly nice for YouTube their actions show t
They'll just end the partner program (Score:2)
I don't think they realize what they're stepping into. Youtube commentator Tim Pool put out a video today about how they have the easy out of simply ending the partner program for most users. The handful that remain would be classified "employees" but they would only be the ones who bring in enough money to justify it (think frequent videos which regularly obtain 1 million views).
When Youtube began there wasn't any revenue sharing, there's absolutely no reason for them to continue that program if it conti
Re: (Score:2)
My video link got eaten: 'Youtube Union' Plans MAJOR Legal Claims Against Youtube [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
What youtube can do is be transparent about why the demonetize videos and what is allowed and not allowed. Right now any videos that have anything to do with guns or weapons are often demonetized for no obvious reason, and stealth banned by not showing up in search. If youtube wants to exercise detailed editorial control they should do it with published guidelines that are not bullshit. The reason everyone is so unhappy is that nobody can tell what youtube is really trying to do. Everything seems arbitrary
Re: (Score:2)
What youtube can do is be transparent about why the demonetize videos and what is allowed and not allowed.... Everything seems arbitrary and capricious and generally no explanations are given when videos are demonetized or strikes are registered against a channel.
I agree, and that seems to be a part of what this union is trying to accomplish: require Youtube to give a more detailed reasoning as to each video demonetization / strike. On a 10+ minute political commentary, getting a strike for "hate speech" should at a minimum provide timecodes as to what crossed the line, and make it easier to file appeals. Many creators are afraid to even quote potential hate speech (for the purpose of discussion/critique/condemnation) in fear of running afoul of the censors.
If the
Fools fail to learn from the mistakes of others. (Score:2)
I find myself reminded, in these situations, of the old Douglas Adams quote:
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
If your entire "business" model amounts to "Piggyback on someone else's platform, without actually bothering to do the real work of building your own; while hoping that the people who DID build the platform never make any changes to it that might negatively affect you; des
Severe mental health problems? (Score:2)
How about, "Feel like depressed idiots for making 'professional YouTuber' their career"?
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, you should be celebrating. You've completed 25 years without a real job! Maybe you can make a YouTube channel devoted to how you plan to do the same for the next quarter century. There's plenty of incels like you who might want to kno
Re: (Score:3)
How do you, after 25 years of not having a job, justify your existence?
I'm retired so I don't have to justify my existence,
Right, so a boomer with a nice feathered nest and long, comfortable retirement is complaining about how other people aren't doing "real jobs". Working in the entertainment industry is a real job. So, put your money where your mouth is: if it's not a "real job" then presumably anyone can do it. So prove it and do it yourself.
Thing is if people are making some kind of living from it (obje
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ha disregard my ranty angry post, my I apologise for it. I completely misunderstod your post and thought you were taking aim at the youtubers not APK.
Re: Can I ask a question? (Score:1)
I thought shaming APK is a totally bipartisan activity. Not only that shaming APK unifies the left, the right and transcend sex, sex orientation, race and religion. It's universal.
Unless you are a Host File worshipper.... in which case you ARE APK.
So stop trying to make it a partisan thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what religion a person is... you... yourself have proven a person can be either evil or just a plan old asshole no matter what religion or faith you are.
I think you're cute with the "You let them host your shit..."
No, it didn't work like that, they posted their shit on the service which has an almost monopolistic scale and audience in order to increase the likelihood they would be noticed. They are using YouTube as their advertising plat