Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joeri | Hacker News Reader

They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not). In fact, google is the customer in this relationship, and they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why.

It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer because that customer is the most profitable, would you pity them when they are fired by that customer? Or would you call them bad at business for failing to diversify?

View on HN

It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer ...

Yes, this is the monopoly part of the argument. There are no real and practical alternatives for content creators, it seems.

I did see a non YouTube video link on HN recently...

The definition of monopoly isn't the absence of alternatives, it's the absence of significant alternatives, and the fact that monopoly distorts the surrounding ecosystem.

Killing small businesses definitely counts as a market distortion. Good luck arguing it doesn't.

And there is no competitive service, because YT is an audience provider, and not specifically a video hosting provider.

In fact these problems would go away if YT offered a paid tier - with proper support - for content providers.

But YT and Google are averse to treating anyone else as an equal partner, so that's never going to happen.

> Yes, this is the monopoly part of the argument.

If there is a single customer, it is not a monopoly, but a monopsony:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopsony&oldid=9...

I can just picture a gaggle of google employees jumping out of their seats: "They used the wrong word for it! Their argument is invalid!".

> I can just picture a gaggle of google employees jumping out of their seats: "They used the wrong word for it! Their argument is invalid!".

Would the "average" Google employees really care about this? I would rather imagine that only executive level employees of Google could be happy about this. And these people play much deeper political games than caring about a wrong word.

Great point. Because people get something out of engaging in business with Google/YouTube/Facebook/etc. they think that they are the customer and that they should be entitled to certain things. They forget that they are the product, and the company is the customer. By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free. These companies make money off content that you freely give them.

Ad-revenue you receive doesn't even make you a contractor. It's basically like working for free and then being tossed something at the end for your efforts. There is no legal agreement or obligation to continue paying you.

It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.

> It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.

I disagree. I think that people have convinced themselves that they are customers of YouTube.

There is a lot of projection on things like YouTube and Facebook, then people get mad because it actually isn't that after all.

I agree with regards to projection, but I also believe that the companies are helping quite a bit. It feels more like love scammers. Yes, there's the victim telling themselves the scammer loves them and just has some financial troubles they need help with, but there's also the scammer doing everything in their power to make their victim believe that.

> By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free.

Not for nothing - platform usage costs money. It's for the average per-user cost of building and running the platform.

> they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why.

This might be right if they were a mom and pop store with 5 others within a couple of blocks. There is no viable alternative to Youtube so they don't get to make these calls.

You said don't, did you mean shouldn't? Because seems to me like they do get to.

They will get smashed for this eventually

The are betting on that "eventually" being many many miles down the road. They will fix some of the issues/cases (ad hoc) for the vocal minority, they will pretend they didn't see for the silent majority that suffers from the same side effects.

As a parent stated, the content creators are NOT the clients. Client is the one who pays you money. So advertisers need to be kept happy. If this guy goes down, the guitar makers will advertise on the next guy/lady in line. And the (true) client (advertiser) will be happy.

One of the reason that Google is making crazy money is that they cut plenty of corners in support. And it serves THEM (YT) right to do so.

This video has less than 100k views. "Charlie bit my finger" has 876 Million views.

In work I use the phrase "it is not a Problem until it becomes one".

One content creator (or a thousand) complaining is NOT a problem for YT. A Problem is if YT drops from 100M views per day (or whatever that number is) to 20M views per day.

If you ask me, YouTube is having it good. And if this content creator goes down, his followers will jump on the next guitar player teacher person.

Apologies if my comment seems to cold. I believe it reflects the mentality of YT.

Your comment is cold but it's also bang on point. Ethically how they act is inexcusable however. I hope many years is actually a few months in reality.

> They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not).

In a sense, they are Google's products.

I beg to differ: content creators use the service provided by youtube to offer their content for consumption and receive payment via a ad service.

Youtube does not order contractors but offers a service for production and consumption of content- so they have customers creating content and others just consuming- both being customers of their service.

Isn't monopsony also handled by antitrust rules?

I feel like this is the problem. The content creators and users don’t matter as they aren’t the customers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com