[ensignro2340]

It's not similar to being fired. [REDACTED: It's similar to a store owner allowing you to panhandle outside their business, and then later telling you you can't panhandle there anymore (but loiter all you want!).] It is not reasonable for adults to look at internet ad revenue as a reliable source of income. It's unfortunate if/when they fall on hard times because they made the mistake of relying on something so volatile. I really wish people this confused on the issue would google (heh) AdWords certification study guide and "Google Penguin"/"Google Panda"/"Google Hummingbird"/etc.

EDIT: many people are upset by the panhandling comparison. I just meant that as a juxtaposition to those saying "it's like being fired". It was meant as an analogy - no intent to insult anyone (YouTubers and beggars alike). A better analogy would be a musician who was paid to perform in a bar, and the bar owner tells them "you can still play here all you want, but we're no longer going to pay you." (mind you - they are not saying "you have to continue playing here and do it for free")

[delecti]

Youtube is a valuable platform in no small part due to content creators, and they recognize that, which is why they have a revenue sharing program to begin with. It's disingenuous to compare those content creators to panhandlers.

I agree that they should realize it's a volatile system and prepare for downswings, but that doesn't make them beggars.

[ensignro2340]

I didn't call them beggars - I was only meaning to call out the comparison to employees. Sorry for the confusion. I've edited the original comment.

[Klinky]

As we slide more and more towards a "gig economy", not only can we underpay people, but we can also tell them they don't even have a "real job". Someone producing content for YouTube or driving for Lyft is a beggar? Get real.

[ensignro2340]

Lyft drivers are independent contractors. In my opinion they (and Favor deliverers, etc.) should be categorized as employees instead and should receive benefits. Uploading content to YouTube is not the same thing. I'm not meaning to say anyone's a beggar. But YouTubers just don't have an employer-employee relationship with YouTube. That's just a fact. This woman was not a YouTube employee, the people she targeted were.

[Klinky]

I am not sure what the employment status of the attacker or the victims has to do with your post, other than being a dig at the "obviously stupid people who think they can make money on Youtube". Let's also call out all the obviously stupid people who think they can make money from a startup.

There are many popular creators on YouTube earning an honest full-time living from the YouTube platform, some even have more lucrative relationships with YouTube(e.g. Slo Mo Guys, Vsauce). It's hyperbole to compare them to beggars on the street. Is that income absolutely secure? No, but that seems to kinda be the trend we're heading towards, where fewer jobs provide income security. Should YouTube be more open and transparent about demonetizing content? Yes, especially considering their effective monopoly on the indie video-on-demand scene, and parent Google's effective monopoly on internet ads.

[ensignro2340]

All of my comments have been about the shooter's relationship to YouTube as a company, so that's why I brought up employment status. I was literally replying to the comparison to "someone getting fired from their job".

I'm not trying to make a dig at anyone - I'm describing reality and it's upsetting a lot of people who feel entitled to ad revenue. I honestly hope YouTube just does away with their partner program altogether.

As for YouTube careers - I couldn't agree more that many creators are full-time and put their time and energy into making content. The Slo Mo Guys, VSauce, etc are all making money outside of Adsense. They've done what Philip Defranco often tells people to do - diversify where you're getting your money from.

My whole point is that being a YouTube creator or a blogger is a perfectly fine profession - but that requires work to monetize your product and/or direct support from your subscribers/readers.

I am a huge proponent of users in general creating and participating in services that truly meet our needs and wants rather than going all in and hitching ourselves to a multinational corporation that has advertisers and board members to please.

I honestly think we're on the same side of this argument. I just don't think the answer is in expecting YouTube to take care of us.

I know a lot of people want to nationalize YouTube/Google, but unless/until that happens (and unless/until their IP becomes free & open source), we cannot count on them.

[baud147258]

Well, it's not exactly panhandling, but more like a venue providing free spaces for artists. The venue is funded through advertissement and some of this money is given to the artists, taking into account the number of people looking at them. Because in that case, there's a content produced, which is used to bring people to the venue.

But I agree on the rest of your point, relying on advertising and third-party services is unreasonable.

[ensignro2340]

Ah - I just saw this. Sorry I totally copied your comparison without meaning to. Thanks for getting what I meant despite my poor analogy.

[baud147258]

You totaly can copy and improve my comparison, no harm done. You're welcome.