So... not really sure? Is this asking why not all content creators on YouTube are treated the same- or why creators of content for YouTube aren’t treated the same as a recording artist with a company like Sony?
As far as why not all content creators everywhere are treated the same- Sony has its own rules and brand image for its artists and Disney has its own rules and Warner brothers etc. Timmy’s parents don’t care if you say “damn” and Lizzys forbid that word as a curse word, and Bills parents don’t allow shoes in the house and Robs parents don’t allow sugared drinks. House rules change with the house and based on the morals and priorities of whoever pays the bills. Then you have differences in media types like Cable vs. network tv- legal things like who or what a government applies what rules too- and then there are the people who run things- Howard Stern’s bosses knew and expected frequent legal headaches and controversy and were fine with it- but KQED may not want the controversy or expense or headaches of pushing limits that way. Just the same as one kid might be willing to make a risky comment in class and possibly get detention or talked to but another kid isn’t.
If the question is why do some creators get to make certain kinds of content and so on- within the same platform... well that’s a little more complex. The first factor to realize is platform like YouTube has a pretty good idea of the enteral audience and age of any channel. So while they may be fine with more risqué content in a channel where it’s mostly adults- they make money on views and don’t really want to upset parents or parents activism groups when Timmy gets in trouble and YouTube is right there.
Beyond that though- even if they can tell mostly who watches what- they’re still a public platform on the internet. So there are limits to what people will put up with. The harder you look at internet content the more.. loose we see the rules. This is often true with technology and innovation. E scooters and vapes and even the internet itself- these technologies start off with basically no laws made about them because before they existed- there was no reason to have a law.
It’s the “Wild West” and these companies are pretty free to make money any way they can while avoiding restrictions and rules on similar things. Most companies try to keep this going as long as possible. Law makers don’t tend to start regulating things and people don’t usually start to ask until a problem comes up. If you don’t create problems you can be more or less self governed.
Once they started passing laws regulating e scooters and vapes and ride sharing for example- businesses started to fold- like retailers who’d jumped on board when it was wide open but now can’t follow the laws; or profits fall etc as happened and is still happening with ride shares and crowd sourcing as laws were passed making companies liable for certain things or requiring licensing- placing limits on services they can offer, or requiring they pay workers to some standard or treat them as employees or contractors etc.
So for platforms like YouTube who’s existence walks many questionable legal lines and who face liability from all sorts of angles- who a sudden decision in an assembly could effectively shit them down or seriously ruin their profit models- they tend to try and use combinations of gimmicks and rules in the most highly visible places to show they are self regulating and don’t need an external body to step in- that they have things under control. If little Timmy’s mom
Isn’t badgering her electors officials or changing her vote because YouTube iOS offensive to her- then no one who has any power cares. You just have to keep the people who will complain and make problems happy.
So why wouldn’t the media care? Well... EMI, Fox, WB, Time Warner, blah blah... the same guys that own the news own recording companies and such. Do you really think that they want to make a stink that could hurt their own bottom
Dollar by calling a competitor out for something that they do too? Oh sure- people do that- but not when it would result in regulation that hurts you too- only when it can be used as a matter of public opinion to smear the other guy.
Lastly- perhaps should be firstly- regardless of what you meant by the question there is one very important rule you should have learned by now that I will share. There is one set of rules- one law on the books- and those are the same for everyone. What isn’t the same? How those rules are applied and to whom. See- from government to YouTube there is always discretion in how and when rules are applied.
That isn’t fair? No. It isn’t. That’s what most people want power for- because it grants you the ability to have the rules favor YOU. People tend to like when things aren’t fair when it is in their favor- and people with the power to make and shape rules are no different- they just happen to be able to make that a reality.
The world is small kids. Everyone is someone’s spouse or child, parent, best friend- so on. The question is who are you and who do you know? Who’s your best friend or parent or uncle etc? If they’re someone that matters to a person in power- someone that someday they’ll need something from- then their discretion will tend to be lighter.
As a judge who may need a favor, may need bailed out of a scandal, or might someday want a position on a high court or to work in politics, or retire and “consult” for a cushy probate firm... of the kid of a connected politician is in front of you... suddenly the punishment for a crime should maybe be the lightest you can make it without being obvious?
If your boss has the ability to make it so you’ll never work in an industry again- you’re probably gonna he nicer to him- and that goes for potential too. If your mid level manager boss sees that you have a trajectory that’s going to take you to the board room- they’re probably going to try and be good with you so that someday when you’re up there you’ll remember them. It’s how it works.
So if you see the rules being applied unevenly- that person is connected to someone most likely. Someone somewhere is invested in them- someone is backing that up.
▼Reply
deleted
· 4 years ago
TL;DR
guest_ pontificates, condescends, and ultimately acknowledges that the world is unfair because rich people have connections. Takes 12 comments to do so.
This is why we common people hate complicated people. You ask what's wrong and they somehow make a grand speech about why that something irritates them while leaving you wondering what that something was in the first place.
To be fair- I’m not sure where I condescend? I used the term “kids” and some other colloquialisms- but they weren’t intended to be condescending but more to be jocular in tone- akin to “alright boys and girls, let’s get to business” or such. I’m sorry if you took anything I said to be condescending.
As for the length etc- It’s philosophical. Personally- I dislike and find arrogant or perhaps condescending the “word of the almighty.” That’s where someone asks a question with a subjective or nuanced answer- and someone just says “It’s because people like corn.” Especially when the road from the question to the answer- the logic- might not be intuitive. Often times the mere fact one asked a certain question is reason enough to consider the logic of the answer wouldn’t be intuitive because if it were for them- they wouldn’t need to ask most likely.
So generally- when I answer here- I provide some train of logic to both help guide to my conclusion- but also for those who would debate the conclusion to have something to audit- so that if there is a fault in the logic that I used to reach a conclusion they can easily say: “You made this assumption here- but Candievs research has indicated that is an outdated model of assessment” or something simpler like “in my own experience I have found...”
This isn’t work. You and everyone else aren’t under my authority here- we are equal. I don’t consider facts and then issue actionable proclamations that agree or not- are what reality will be. I present thoughts- sometimes not even my own thoughts or opinions but just ones which while reviewing a post occurred to me for consideration- and I present them for review and scrutiny to see how other people and different perspectives interpret them- thought experiments. Seeing that these thoughts aren’t even opinions of my own but simply ideas or experiments in logic or perspective- they certainly don’t warrant authoritative proclamations.
My casual writing style is such that I believe many interpret it to be condescending or somehow definitive because it seems overly formal to many. I don’t generally edit what I post- or edit it heavily (some would say “obviously...” lol.) because this is just how I think. For work and other communications I must be very mindful of editing- what I say goes before committees and investors and business partners and often thousands of employees or untold numbers in the general public and must hold a certain image and create certain perceptions. It’s very “tactical communication.” That has its own fun to it at times- but it’s also limiting and sometimes boring.
You don’t have a lot of room to pontificate or explore controversial or potentially divisive ideas while trying to wrangle huge sums of money and advance your career. So it is quite wordy- and so can I be- but I certainly meant no condescension- quite the opposite.
big corpos have more rights. if they would got mad both sides would lose. small creator can't do that. also every reason to demonetize is good, why pay to someone if one may do not.
Isn’t badgering her electors officials or changing her vote because YouTube iOS offensive to her- then no one who has any power cares. You just have to keep the people who will complain and make problems happy.
Dollar by calling a competitor out for something that they do too? Oh sure- people do that- but not when it would result in regulation that hurts you too- only when it can be used as a matter of public opinion to smear the other guy.
guest_ pontificates, condescends, and ultimately acknowledges that the world is unfair because rich people have connections. Takes 12 comments to do so.