[cheeky78]

If that's the case, 99% will be booted off the platform and they will have to meet certain numbers of visitors and engagement every month, or lose their job..which is what unionizing means.

If I were google, I would also get control of their users (they would now be the companys) and youtubers will no longer be able move to any other platform while working for Google.

You can't expect the freedom of running your own business with none of the restrictions of a job.

I never understood the need to take away the ability for someone to truly run their own business and have freedoms and restrict it down to a corporate job, by law.

[MrLeap]

If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another, larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner' alludes.

How many HN posts have we seen over the years of businesses based on Amazon, Twitter, Apple getting blown the fuck up because the mothership restricted an API, copied their project or changed a ToS?

I'm not putting in an opinion on anything else in your post except the supposed 'freedom' of youtubers et al. Okay maybe one more thing. I like seeing alternative viewpoints, and yours is a rare one on HN. I like to champion alternative viewpoints whenever I see them, especially when they're voted white for no reason. It's hard to go to bat for you on this though, since you're for retaliation against a bunch of people who dare try and organize around their shared pain points. I just can't do it this time!

Unionizing is like a mini revolution. I was always confused about anti unionism when I was in school, because unions seem as american as it gets (in the 7th grade social studies definition of 'America).

Democracy in the workplace? Hell yeah! Fighting against a power that exploits you without representation? That's boston-tea-party as shit. Shame there's no way to talk about things like this with someone who disagrees without it devolving into 'modern discourse'.

[cheeky78]

"If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another, larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner' alludes."

My point is that Youtubers can start their own sites and go elsewhere if they get tired of a large company controlling their content.

Unionization usually means they will now need to be paid a 'fair wage' and benefits..and your relationship changes to more of an employee..with more restrictions on what you can do.

Youtube also won't pay everyone as an employee and less people will be able to actually make money on the platform due to these restrictions.

"I like seeing alternative viewpoints"

This is is kind of crazy when you think about it: Independent business is now considered an 'alternative viewpoint' here on HN..a site dedicated to hackers, startups, and the tech business.

My guess is that the majority here work for large companies and really don't care about (or have even tried) running a business/startup.

"Since you're for retaliation against a bunch of people who dare try and organize around their shared pain points. I just can't do it this time!"

I'm not for retaliation, I'm just pointing out the unintended consequences.

"Fighting against a power that exploits you without representation? That's boston-tea-party as shit"

Everything isn't deserving of a 'revolution'. If so, I would have started a revolution against HN years ago. I can't even have intellectual discussions, without scared users down voting my comments..because someone might be convinced of a different view point.

[MrLeap]

Hey thank you for your reply.

"My point is that Youtubers can start their own sites and go elsewhere if they get tired of a large company controlling their content."

I don't fault people who try that, nor do I fault anyone who tries to stay and fight. In many ways, Google "owns the well". It makes sense to me that the economics of the situation for some makes staying and organizing the easier course of action. Taking on Youtube as a competitor.. building a website, attracting advertisers, etc. Especially doing all this while making cat videos, now for no money, seems like a tough play.

You'd have to have some systemic luxuries, and lots of grit to take on the risk of such a feat. I wish anyone who tries the best of luck.

"Unionization usually means they will now need to be paid a 'fair wage' and benefits..and your relationship changes to more of an employee..with more restrictions on what you can do."

You're already restricted to whatever rules of the road Google sets, by fiat. 99.999% of Content creators who work with google have ZERO negotiating power right now. They can, and do change the rules at anytime. Companies can submit fraudulent DMCA takedowns depriving these small business owners their revenue during its most important period. You can appeal, but it doesn't undo the damage to your revenue even if you win.

These are dirty tricks! Those affected should maximize their voice to do something about it, in my opinion.

"This is is kind of crazy when you think about it: Independent business is now considered an 'alternative viewpoint' here on HN..a site dedicated to hackers, startups, and the tech business."

It's alternative to put 'independent business' contingent on employees never organizing. Businesses can make partnerships, why not employees?

"My guess is that the majority here work for large companies and really don't care about (or have even tried) running a business/startup."

I've worked for a few startups. We weren't aggrieved anywhere close enough to consider Unionization. We were all well paid, treated well, and close enough to management that they listened to concerns as we brought them up.

I wish I had some stats on how many startups are brought low by unions, I bet it's a vanishingly small number. If you consider unions to be a response to be corrective feedback from aggrieved employees, some of these hypothetical blown up startups probably should have gone under.

Honestly, I've only ever associated unions as responses against sufficiently-large-to-be-dehumanizing companies. Maybe it is a problem? I'm open to the possibility even though I would be surprised.

"Everything isn't deserving of a 'revolution'."

Those rebels decide what deserves rebellion, power dynamics decide if they succeed, I bet most don't. Treat your people better to make it harder for them to justify the risks of unionizing, imo.

Thanks for the chat!

[vkou]

> If you run a business and your solvency depends on the existence of another, larger business, you're not as independent as the title of 'business owner' alludes.

99.9% of businesses in the United States depend on the existence of their power utility to operate.

I guess they aren't independent businesses, either.

But the rest of your point is salient. I too, am baffled by how many of the greatest advocates of democracy seem to have been brainwashed into resisting democracy in the workplace.

[munificent]

That's one of the reasons power utilities are regulated by the government.

Yes, every organization is dependent on other organizations. That's why it's so important to be thoughtful about how those organizations are structured and what their incentives are. It's not the being dependent on an organization that's a problem, it's being dependent on an organization that has little regulation, whose goal is to make as much money as possible, and who thinks of your organization as a cost sink.

People tend to get into this mindset that businesses and government are fundamentally different, but their both just social institutions with their sometimes different sometimes similar rules and incentives.

> I too, am baffled by how many of the greatest advocates of democracy seem to have been brainwashed into resisting democracy in the workplace.

The owners of those workplaces have spent decades and millions of dollars creating propandanda to do that brainwashing.

[randolando]

> If that's the case, 99% will be booted off the platform and they will have to meet certain numbers of visitors and engagement every month, or lose their job..which is what unionizing means.

Youtube already does this to some degree in the form of changing their monetization requirements over time.

I'm all for giving more collective bargaining power to the creators. Youtube provides the infrastructure to connect creators to users, but I think over time we've seen them begin to take advantage of this in a way that is not fair to individual creators.

[SolaceQuantum]

I would rather liken this to running a soap making company, but the governmental society where you do your soap making keeps changing what ingredients are legal on an arbitrary basis, causing you to need to recreate your product constantly, much to the chagrin of your customers. It makes much more sense for you and your fellow bath products producers to bind together and have a sit down with the government on everyone's behalf.

[ziddoap]

>I never understood the need to take away the ability for someone to truly run their own business and have freedoms and restrict it down to a corporate job, by law.

They obviously feel that it balances in their favor, in the sense that as of right now they are unable to "truly run their own business" while they are at the whims of monetization and censorship policies that seemingly change on a dime, with no recourse. On top of the copyright issues plaguing creators - they must think that unionizing will give them bargaining power to start to rectify these issues.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The important question, which according to the article the union won't disclose, is how many people are included in "they". Is this something that Youtubers in general are rallying behind, or is IG Metall just trying to bully Youtube and advance its own interests?

[cheeky78]

All unions bully large corporations to advance their own interests. The auto unions, for instance, had leaders that were getting multi-million dollar bonuses for decades..and probably still to this day.

[perfmode]

your statements are somewhat reductive. collective action is possible outside of employment.

[pjc50]

Google always already had the users. They're on Google's platform and won't move. That's why the YouTubers have to fight Google rather than just move.