Except YouTube owns the platform. Yes, you can make a living from it, but honestly, I wouldn't consider it a job, because there's nothing really stopping YouTube from 'firing' you. You are not hired by them, and they are not employers, so there are no laws to help keep your 'position' secure.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
Like how the government owns the roads, and you can make a living driving on them, delivering content people want. And how the government can't "fire" you if you're a truck driver, since you're not hired by them.
But truck drivers would all go out business if the government began to exercise excessive control, even dismantling of the roads.
YouTube is not the government. It is it's own company, and without any sort of legal contracts, they can do what they want with their platform. You are providing a 'what if scenario' to a whole different thing. Yes, if the government did take full control over roads and prevented people from using them it would cause massive job loss. But guess what? We're talking about a corporate entity. One that does pay people using ad revenue earned from the popularity gained by that user, but unless they are directly hired by YouTube, and made employees, they could stop that system whenever they wanted. Would it be bad for their business? Yes. But could they be persecuted by law? No. My point is that, there is no job security in being a YouTuber, and people should realize that. People act surprised when it stops working out for them, and they need a job with laws in place that prevents unlawful termination.
I know YouTube's not the government. I just meant that roads are literally a platform owned by someone. These platforms make many jobs possible, so the owners of the platforms should at least consider the workers on the platforms as they implement updates and changes.
Your only argument is 'YouTube MUST make sure people can keep using it to make money.'
No it doesn't. YouTube is a company owned thing, the roads are owned by the government. The government may have to prevent the loss of jobs, and help keep the economy stable, but YouTube doesn't. It isn't about 'Well they should'. It's about 'They literally can do what they want about the subject.' They never had to start paying people. They did so because they thought it might increase their overall profit. And if it isn't bringing in as much money as it used to, they can stop if they want.
None of this is about right or wrong, is about whether they can or can't. You keep on saying how the government can't close roads, so YouTube can't stop paying people, but the two things are held to totally different rules and laws. Yes they may be both platforms, but the literal laws in place that control what can and cannot be done with them by their respective owners are so different, it negates it entirely.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
You gotta chill with your giant comments about points and arguments you say I'm making, that I'm not making.
@unklethan but you are making them and he/she is right. In any case, creators have to diversify. Suppose youtube is hacked one day and goes up into flames. What then? He/she isn't saying they are doing a good thing or bad thing, he/she is talking about the legal aspect and he/she is completely right. They have to do what DeFranco is doing,diverify, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Captain you are missing the point. Youtube is a business and it gets harder to make money if the people making you money aren't making money because they leave. Thus youtube SHOULD make these changes. They don't HAVE to as you said, but it would be buffoonish of them not to get their shit straight.
We are old enough to know of companies that ruin themselves. He is talking about the legal issue. Of course they have to care about the users, if they don't they will be crushed by a newcomer or something. That's the reality of business
But truck drivers would all go out business if the government began to exercise excessive control, even dismantling of the roads.
No it doesn't. YouTube is a company owned thing, the roads are owned by the government. The government may have to prevent the loss of jobs, and help keep the economy stable, but YouTube doesn't. It isn't about 'Well they should'. It's about 'They literally can do what they want about the subject.' They never had to start paying people. They did so because they thought it might increase their overall profit. And if it isn't bringing in as much money as it used to, they can stop if they want.
None of this is about right or wrong, is about whether they can or can't. You keep on saying how the government can't close roads, so YouTube can't stop paying people, but the two things are held to totally different rules and laws. Yes they may be both platforms, but the literal laws in place that control what can and cannot be done with them by their respective owners are so different, it negates it entirely.