Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

> Are you seriously framing the discussion as "people who think ill of Youtube's monetization scheme are shooter apologists"?

No, but there are such 'shooter apologists' in this thread.

Read the whole of it, at least one person writes that they feel that it was only a matter of time before someone brought a gun to a dispute like this.

View on HN

That is not apologism, that's realpolitik. It doesn't mean the deed is acceptable, but that people in power should've anticipated it.

I don't think 'entitled people will come and shoot at our employees' is something that any normal business should have to plan for.

And that's the point. Youtube is an extraordinary business with an utter monopoly.

Youtube doesn't really have a monopoly on the business of serving video. What they do have a monopoly on is the ability to get 100's of thousands of people to be directed to your video even if you yourself only do a fraction of the work required. This combination of technology and the audience is what makes Youtube so powerful.

But if you are claiming ownership of revenues then you are indirectly claiming ownership of that audience and this is a giant mistake. After all, hosting some video is trivial, getting that audience to your self hosted content is the hard part.

So if you take part in an ecosystem like that then you will have to (1) abide by the rules and (2) take into account that you serve at the pleasure of others. Failure to do so is going to result in a rude reminder of what your position really is: one of dependence.

So they have a monopoly and are in a not-normal situation, and should've planned for this type of situation.

Thank you for agreeing.

Why do you feel that they should have planned for this type of situation?

You can't plan for 'crazy'.

I don't think anyone thinks that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com