Watch Out Google, YouTubers Are Unionizing (bloomberg.com) 116
IG Metall, Europe's largest trade union with 2.3 million members, has joined forces with a German YouTuber who set up a Facebook group called The YouTubers Union after his videos started getting "de-monetized." The German metalworkers union is throwing itself in the battle between Google and the millions of people whose income derives from uploading videos to the site. It's inviting YouTubers to become members and is running a campaign called FairTube to press for better terms.
IG Metall has "given Google a deadline of August 23 to come to the negotiating table," reports Bloomberg. "If it refuses, IG Metall plans to use its deep pockets and army of lawyers to pursue legal options." From the report: 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. One strand of the rules, introduced last year, gives people the right to know whether their personal data is being processed, for what purpose, and to request a copy of it all. The union argues that algorithms deciding to stop ads being attached to a clip generate such data. It's a smart play. With the deep pockets afforded by its huge membership, IG Metall is able to contest issues where an individual would struggle.
Notably, the union is trying to use the same tool of its members' atomization -- the online platform -- to organize them. Even before it joined forces with the YouTubers Union Facebook group, IG Metall had launched an initiative called FairCrowd, a website where gig economy workers provide feedback on the apps they work for. It's not that far from its home turf: IG Metall already represents employees at tech companies like SAP SE.
IG Metall has "given Google a deadline of August 23 to come to the negotiating table," reports Bloomberg. "If it refuses, IG Metall plans to use its deep pockets and army of lawyers to pursue legal options." From the report: 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. One strand of the rules, introduced last year, gives people the right to know whether their personal data is being processed, for what purpose, and to request a copy of it all. The union argues that algorithms deciding to stop ads being attached to a clip generate such data. It's a smart play. With the deep pockets afforded by its huge membership, IG Metall is able to contest issues where an individual would struggle.
Notably, the union is trying to use the same tool of its members' atomization -- the online platform -- to organize them. Even before it joined forces with the YouTubers Union Facebook group, IG Metall had launched an initiative called FairCrowd, a website where gig economy workers provide feedback on the apps they work for. It's not that far from its home turf: IG Metall already represents employees at tech companies like SAP SE.
Good for them! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Does YouTube have labor contracts with these "employees"?
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if they have a contract.
In a bunch of European countries: have you been doing temporary work for a long time for a single employer ? Basically, they are your employer, so we the people aka government: willl treat you like they are your employer.
(obviously their are a bunch of details and different laws in different countries, etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing they aren't even temporary employees. They are in no way employees, no set hours, no specific details about nature of work to be provided, etc... Just like a street performer isn't my employee if I tip them a fiver, and someone selling stuff in a consignment shop isn't an employee of the consignment shop.
Re: (Score:3)
Not pertinent. The union is collectively bargaining with Google, it's pooling multiple individual resources in order to fund legal action a single person may not be able to afford.
The GDPR approach is very reasonable and could be pursued by the individual, by a union or by any other organisation.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that an individual cannot afford to protect their rights is the bigger issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should write to the official German data privacy body and suggest they take a more pro-active approach to assisting citizens in engaging with misbehaving companies.
Jorg Sprave, the Slingshot Guy, is leading this (Score:5, Informative)
And if there's anybody I ever really wanted to see look Sergey Brin in the face and go "here is a class action lawsuit from one of the largest and oldest labor unions in Europe, let me show you its features", it's Jorg.
Zero Leverage (Score:4)
Unless the point of this "union" is to move en masse to some other platform, or create a new YouTube like platform, I can't see what they are doing will have any effect. Who cares if some group of B-listers leaves YouTube?
What I can't understand is honestly why at this point something like the movement en-masse to something else has not happened. So many video makers have been screwed around by Google at this point it seems like anything half decent would go elsewhere, and if enough the video makers moved enough people would follow it would hit critical mass. So why does YouTube remain king above all? I'm not enough into the whole video scene to really understand how that is still the case, but as a big fan of history I can predict that someday YouTube will be dethroned.
Re: (Score:2)
What I can't understand is honestly why at this point something like the movement en-masse to something else has not happened.
To what? Everything else sucks.
Re:Zero Leverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless the point of this "union" is to move en masse to some other platform, or create a new YouTube like platform, I can't see what they are doing will have any effect. Who cares if some group of B-listers leaves YouTube?
Umm, did you even read the article? Did you even read the summary? They plan to sue. They make a good argument that YouTube's practices violate European data privacy regulations. Although the suit wouldn't be about privacy per se, the law's disclosure provisions would force YouTube to give reasons for demonitizing videos and they wouldn't be allowed to do so without good reasons.
Still no leverage (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you even read the summary? They plan to sue.
Yes, and?
It won't change how YouTube works at all. They'll never see money from it. Whatever reasons YouTube would have to give, wouldn't change how they work and would just lead to even more convolutions.
The point of joining in a group is to try and change the status quo. But everything I said about lacking leverage is true, and holds for the lawsuit just as well as anything else.
Re: (Score:3)
It won't change how YouTube works at all. They'll never see money from it. Whatever reasons YouTube would have to give, wouldn't change how they work and would just lead to even more convolutions.
Say you make a living off Youtube, and your videos start being demonetized. You don't know why. Youtube won't tell you why. How are you supposed to alter the videos so they don't become demonetized again in the future?
With Youtube being forced to provide you with a reason, you would be able to make that reason go away by changing your videos.
Same thing should happen with hiring process, by the way. If one's turned down, there should be well-documented reasons why.
Re: (Score:2)
With Youtube being forced to provide you with a reason, you would be able to make that reason go away by changing your videos.
That would be a very bad outcome and result in something like corporate censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It's still a choice. You could either decide income is more important, or let the demonetized video up and give up income for it, but at least you'll know (and be able to challenge) the reason for demonetization.
Re: (Score:2)
"Say you make a living off Youtube, and your videos start being demonetized. You don't know why. Youtube won't tell you why."
They could go with the "we don't monetize videos by default" argument. Then they don't have to say why they demonetize, only why they monetize. And that explanation can be as simple as, "we think advertisers will pay for ads for this video".
Also, the fact that you "make a living off Youtube" should be irrelevant. Whether that is your primary source of income or you receive $5/month, i
Re: (Score:2)
They could go with the "we don't monetize videos by default" argument.
No, they couldn't. While true that videos are not monetized until you configure your account appropriately, they will be monetized afterwards as long as the thresholds are met. If you are in the YouTube Partner Program and meet the prerequisites for various money-making activities, your videos will be monetized. Now, the subject we are discussing is videos being demonetized, as in "I have 100 videos, 67 are monetized and Youtube decided to demonetize 34 of them". You should know why, as long as all other Yo
Re: (Score:3)
I just read the summary (after all, even without ACs, this is still /.) and I see this:
and I don't see how that reveals anything about the algorithms.
Data about who accesses your video is not your personal data any more than who drives by your house and looks political signs you have posted in your front yard is your personal data, it is the viewer's personal data and to reveal th
Re: (Score:3)
GDPR covers data that can be used to identify a human.
You connect your device to a network and your IP address is recorded. You do some stuff on the network like log in to your personal email. Someone who has access to the IP address and what you did now has information they can use to personally identify you. The log of the IP address assignment now comes under GDPR regulations.
You upload 10 videos to your youtube account. 3 of those videos are demonetized and surely the demonetization process includes a "
Re: (Score:2)
If google doesn't make the demonetization database public (which AFAIK they do not) how is them keeping that a violation of GDPR? If you are the author of monetized videos, google must already know enough about you to report your income on government tax forms and to get the income to you for those videos that are monetized so you've obviously already agreed to that and google has obviously already complied with GDPR with respect to tying your videos to PII about you.
Does GDPR require a company to reveal ex
Re: Zero Leverage (Score:3)
Wrong. GDPR explicitly limits it to "data provided by the user", which (at least according to the position taken by the European Data Protection Board, which previously was the board that worked to implement GDPR) includes data provided incidentally, such as which web pages the user load, but very excludes derived data such as credit scores or other analysis computed from the provided data (as long as they themselves in isolation are not personally identifiable information).
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you should actually read pages you provide links to - from the Wikipedia link:
Re: (Score:3)
What you are describing is not personal data, the definition is item 1 on this page [slashdot.org]. A label placed on a video is an attribute of that video, it is not an attribute of a person and as such is not personal data as defined in gdpr. I think the lawsuit looks pretty weak
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and I don't see how that reveals anything about the algorithms.
Another part of the GDPR gives you the right to have decisions made about you explained and reviewed. The idea is to prevent precisely this kind of black-box algorithm making a decision and your only explanation being "computer says no".
Considering that these decisions have a very significant effect on the producers of the videos, they should be fully explained by YouTube. They should be able to look at each video and see exactly what factors caused it to be demonetized, just like how they can see precisely
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that reveals anything about the algorithms
The summary didn't articulate that, but it's in GDPR: Companies must reveal how they make automated decisions using your data.
See https://www.cio.com/article/32... [cio.com] for some helpful context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While Google may be dethroned someday, it would take one hell of an investment to do so. Video takes up a ton of space and requires tons of bandwidth. Furthermore, there are competitors for YouTube out there, but they don't have the breadth of content that users have come to expect from YouTube. People expect to find what they're looking for on YouTube no matter what that is. It might be a classic film, it might be instructions on how to repair your HVAC system, it could be a music video, etc. These "YouTub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
of which only a tiny fraction are monetized.
of which only a tiny fraction are worth watching.
youtube needs quality content, and said content is provided by "big" youtubers.
random people uploading clips is not "quality content".
Re: (Score:2)
There are already competitors, but a lot of them are like what Gab is to Twitter -- any content on them is assumed to be part of a certain extremist movement, so the sites get shunned. Right now, we have mainstream sites which will ban/demonetize, (YouTube, Vimeo [1]) at a whim. We then have the "alt" sites that have a political tinge to them. After that, pr0n sites.
I would say the niches for video are already full. Smaller sites likely will be shut down either due to political pressure, copyright "viol
Re: Zero Leverage (Score:2, Troll)
You know this demonetization crap was rare until social justice types started threatening to boycott YouTube advertisers that had their ads appear next to content that they found objectionable, instead of, you know, pointing their browser elsewhere. After it began to hit the news, Google definitely started to feel the financial pinch. Started to.
At the time, Google even said that they didn't have a good way of policing that type of content. And you know what? They still don't. This is just a symptom of that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why does YouTube remain king above all?
Eight Billion dollars a year in advertising revenue.
That's why.
Re: (Score:2)
Devil's advocate: The thing that keeps YouTube afloat is that they are wealthy enough to handle all the legal items and not get shut down. Had they not been able to show to the *AAs that they are taking heavy-handed measures for copyright song/video protection, they might have been sued out of existence, similar to mp3.com. YouTube tends to overreact, but that is what keeps them going.
Trying to do a video site that isn't YouTube or pr0n is difficult. For example, sites on prepping or guns get shut down
Video streaming is a Commodity race to the bottom (Score:2)
Unless the point of this "union" is to move en masse to some other platform, ..... I can predict that someday YouTube will be dethroned.
From 2004-2008 I created owned and operated a UGC video sharing site pre-YouTube that scaled to 2M video streams per day, took VC investment and eventually sold it to a media company that killed it a few yeas ago after a 10+ year run.
I say this because I know that technically it is exceptionally expensive to build a video sharing website. My cofounders and I were ex-AT&T Backbone solutions architects so we knew how to build ours 100x cheaper than anyone else which is how we achieved break-even on li
YouTube Has Certainly Gotten Weird (Score:5, Interesting)
On a personal note, I've been trying to reduce my use of Google products and services but YouTube has been the hardest Google service to abandon. I really wish an alternative would emerge that could provide a platform that eliminates all of this madness.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Any alternative platform driven by advertising revenue would turn out exactly the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the problem here is Google isn't telling the video creators specifically why each video was demonetized. Thus the 'secret list of forbidden words'.
Another platform may have advertising, but may tell video creators specifically why each video was demonetized.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is basically the same as spam filters not telling rejected senders why their emails were rejected.
They filtered out content they didn't want to reward and are refusing to help those content makers game the rules by not telling them the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it would not have lasted long for said advertiser to not be on the largest platform on the internet,
No lol. Lexus doesn't care about showing advertisements to trolling college students and griefers. "Biggest platform" isn't how marketers look at it, they look at branding, and "best return for dollar spent."
Re: (Score:2)
No. Basically it's NOT.
Because a video uploaded to youtube is willingly uploaded ONCE by an individual.
And for it to be monetized, you need to do some (virtual) paperwork with Alphabet, Inc. to get monetization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean sort of like people do when posting comments on articles in major media outlets or on advocacy sites? I see no difference between ABCNews.com or WashingtonPost.com or DailyKos.com curating comments and google curating YouTube videos.
Why would you think that an "alternative" would not end up doing pretty much what google does with YouTube? Google has to make money off of YouTube, it's not a charity and that requires keeping it from becoming a cesspool which advertisers won't touch. I suppose a subsc
Re: (Score:3)
and people don't get paid for writing news site comments.
So all those bot farms run by the intelligence services of Russia, North Korea, the US, Cambridge Analytica, various lobby groups run by the Koch brothers and Big Oil, they all work for free? Just how naive do you think we are?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how you conveniently leave out the David Brock trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
google doesn't "curate" any videos
Of course they do. Google don't curate every video but they absolutely do curate some.
Usually to ban something they dislike even though the automated systems correctly assessed it as conforming to their guidelines.
LOL (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not employees of YouTube / Google. Ergo, this isn't a "union." They are bitching that someone's privately-owned platform in which they voluntarily participated is no longer paying them money they claim they should be paid, but of course they have no proof of breach of contract. Yeah, good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
They're working with IG Metall, which has previously represented workers in a similar position. The definition of "worker" is a bit broader than you're implying, but it will be an important part of any lawsuit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't workers. They weren't hired. They are not paid a salary or wage. They are voluntary users of a service that allows them to put videos on the internet and may, at the service owner's discretion, give them some money if the video is popular.
Saying they are workers is like saying we are both employees of Slashdot, FaceBook, or Twitter, because we post here. That is how stupid this is.
Re: LOL (Score:2)
That doesn't matter. We have unions for independent contractors as well and even unions of employers. Unions are useful for many things, not just employees.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You-tubers in a sense produce content that Google agrees to host, and place advertisements on.
I think in this case, Google, or Youtube, is agreeing to host, but not agreeing to place advertisements on these videos, and therefore they are not getting any revenue from it to pass on to the content creators.
Not that I am particularly feeling sympathetic for Google here, but they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Content creators seeing their content demonetised are collateral damage of a different fight - which is where certain folks are unhappy that some people they consider deplorables are a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm told /. has ads on it in some cases.
Should I get a cut of ad revenue /. derives from every page view that includes this comment?
Without the comments provided by users like us, /. wouldn't exist and would not generate any ad revenue because no one would come just to read the summaries (which, of course, are usually provided by other non-paid users). How is this different that YouTube? YouTube could probably just stop paying anyone anything for videos and probably still have a sustainable library of conte
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know what a union is, do you? Perhaps start with Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed, I'm going to organize all the trolls who comment on articles on mainstream media sites and demand concessions from the media sites. Seems like a great business opportunity (at least for me as the lead plaintiff who will accept the "here's $x to go away" offer).
Re: (Score:2)
ot but Kid Blink's speech [tumblr.com] is more entertaining than any politician's in the last 30 years.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
If YouTube moved to a flea market-type model where they charged you money to host your videos, and in return you got all advertiser revenue on your videos paid to you directly; or they hosted videos for free but took a percentage of any advertiser revenue your videos got, then I'd say your interpretation was correct. But that's not how it works. YouTube collects all the revenue, doesn't say how much it got, and arbitrarily distributes some of it to video uploaders as they see fit. That level of control over revenue and how it's distributed is what makes an employer an employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not employees of YouTube / Google. Ergo, this isn't a "union." They are bitching that someone's privately-owned platform in which they voluntarily participated is no longer paying them money they claim they should be paid, but of course they have no proof of breach of contract. Yeah, good luck.
The privately owned platform that has absolutely zero of its own to offer and relies on the efforts of these people to create content and the draw to their site, which they then make metric shit tons of cash from by laying ads over the top (still not any actual work on their part) and then do everything in their power to keep that for themselves and not share with the people actually making the content, that brings the people that makes the money. Yeah youtube are perfectly innocent victims. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
People can stop making videos if they aren't happy, easy peasy. Fact is YouTube had videos before sharing advertising dollars, and the people posting the video also get free use of Youtube's video distribution system for free. It's exchange in kind.
Should YouTube get a cut of any money you make using their distribution network (e.g. people selling shit on youtube)?
Re: (Score:2)
Should YouTube get a cut of any money you make using their distribution network (e.g. people selling shit on youtube)?
Depends, are youtube facilitating any part of that or are people just clicking a link to elsewhere?
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe the definition of "employee" is apparently a bit different to wherever you are.
Basically if it looks like a job it probably is. Making content for the same company for years, sharing in the monetization of that product, getting support from the company and being subject to their rules governed by a contract? Working on it full time as your primary source of income?
Yeah, that's a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this exactly. People are trying to pretend this is like Uber or Lyft which are a bit more muddy water. This is nothing like that, YouTube has no control over your hours, the nature of your content, how much content, or anything else.
Even ridiculous-ass Europe won't find that these people are employees.
I must have slept through it (Score:1)
How well did this stuff work for the Uber drivers?
Maybe youtubers can claim to be employees?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's remember: Europe isn't the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Program partners aren't employees. (Score:2)
As such, this "union" has exactly zero bargaining power.
What're they going to do? All refuse to make content?
YouTube doesn't CARE!
Re: (Score:2)
As such, this "union" has exactly zero bargaining power.
What're they going to do? All refuse to make content?
YouTube doesn't CARE!
When youtube becomes nothing but inoffensive, cookie cutter, sponsored videos all dancing to the beat of the advertisers drums and people stop going to it. They will care then.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, if people are going to videos that are not fit for advertisements and they stop coming, how does that matter to YouTube? Youtube doesn't make money if you go to a video with no advertisements, and advertisers aren't going to work with offensive videos.
You're not making any sense. If 25% of the views on Youtube are for videos with no ads, and those videos go down what happens to youtube? Nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, they are NOT employees.
They're partner organizations.
Affiliation is "at will".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this "union" has exactly zero bargaining power
It is a union. There's no need to put quotes around it.
They have bargaining power because they represent a large number of people, and have financial resources derived from that.
What're they going to do? All refuse to make content?
According to the summary they're going to take legal action. It's right there at the top of the page. You may need to change browser if you're not seeing it.
YouTube doesn't CARE!
While many people working for Youtube see the law as a pesky distraction the organisation itself very much cares. Its very existence relies on obeying laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're grossly overestimating the bargaining power of this group of people.
Affiliation with these partners is "at will".
They have no ACTUAL power, and no real leverage to FORCE them to do anything.
Also, because the affiliation is "at will", the "union" essentially has no standing to actually sue.
Basically this is some union recruiter's bonus check.
Once they think they've milked it enough, the organizer will disappear and these poor schlubs will be left in nearly the same predicament they are now.
Jus
Re: (Score:2)
"at will" is a US term that has no meaning in Germany. The German courts will determine whether the plaintiff has standing or not - and since the union can easily just fund the case brought by the individual rather than act in its own name, the plaintiff will have standing.
Re: (Score:2)
You still don't understand.
YouTube creators are NOT EMPLOYED BY YOUTUBE.
They are a business unto themselves.
But please, keep talking about how the automotive industry should subsidize buggy whips.
Re: (Score:2)
At no point did I claim that creators are employed by youtube, so you're right, I don't understand. Just what the fuck do you think that has to do with anything?
They're saying that Youtube is breaking the law, that this is causing detriment to them and that they are considering legal action as a result. Don't tell me that you think only employees of a company can take legal action against a company? You can't be that stupid, can you? Shit. You can.
Re: (Score:2)
They can try to sue Google.
But they're not employees.
They're partners, and Google is under no obligation to continue relationships with these people.
Any suits will be bounced for "no standing".
Platform (Score:2)
Class Action Suit (Score:2, Insightful)
If you did yard work for someone, and they didn't pay you--wouldn't you be angry? Well, it appears that youtube stated that they would pay thousands of people money for their videos, including myself, but didn't. I feel bad because I live on a fixed income, and used what money I had to start a channel.
It appears that youtube buried me in the rankings even before that happened. Even considering the home-quality, production values, most other channels with similar DIY -tech content, elevated muchmuch higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube can only do what they are doing because they have an unchecked monopoly. No judge in Silicon Valley would give the little people a break.
Likely, a lot of people who post on this thread--work at Goggle/Youtube.
Google in general, and Youtube very specifically, have been picking on anything that they don't personally like. It's no surprise that eventually they will accumulate enough people unhappy about the unequal treatment. When that group of unhappy people gets large enough, political solutions become an option. Google and Youtube are having their cake and eating it too. If you're curating then you are liable for what remains. If you're not curating then you can escape liability but might have content or pe
Re: (Score:3)
" it appears that youtube stated that they would pay thousands of people money for their videos"
Where/when did youtube "state" they would pay for videos? And even if they did, I guarantee there would have been a plethora of caveats related to the nature of the video and its contents, how their adversiters felt, among other considerations.
I'm sure you agree they shouldn't have to pay anyone who posts any crappy video compensation. If they did, people would create thousands of videos and have farms "watch" th
Bait and switch (Score:2)
Become a youtube creator, they said. Earn monetization on videos, they said.
Youtube waits until it becomes an unassailable vertical monopoly, then decides the alter the deal leaving these creators stranded. Then corporate apologists show their support by blaming the victims. Funny how that works.
Whew! (Score:2)
For a moment, I read that as "Youtubers are ionizing". Sounds painful.
Oh really? (Score:2)
Firstly, lets compare the 'deep pockets' of the union and their lawyers to Google. To even try to bring that up as a positive is almost laughable.
Secondly, as a union member I'd be pretty pissed off to have my union's deep pockets drained fighting for some youtubers. It's pretty insulting.
The revolution ... (Score:2)
Not much has changed... (Score:2)
Wow. Bloomberg is really late with this story, which was posted on slashdot: https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
There really isn't any new stuff here.
Do you want Youtube to block you country? (Score:2)
'cause it sounds like you want Youtube to block uploads from your country.