Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by egypturnash 2506 days ago
I feel like there is a line to be drawn somewhere around the points where you start referring to yourself as a "YouTuber" and where other people regularly describe you as one.

More broadly, this same line may exist for any site/company somewhere around the point where whatever awkward construction for "person who regularly posts on site X" or "person who regularly does gig work for company X" starts getting applied to you a lot.

I have no idea how to even begin to define this in legal terms. :)
1 comments
root_axis 2506 days ago
> I feel like there is a line to be drawn somewhere around the points where you start referring to yourself as a "YouTuber" and where other people regularly describe you as one.

This seems pretty subjective, difficult to measure, and impractical to enforce.

link
egypturnash 2506 days ago
Which is why I said "I have no idea how to define this in legal terms".

I would bet money that something can be nailed down in terms of what percentage of time goes into it, what percentage of total income comes from it, and other hard measures like that, if you feel like surveying a few hundred self-described You-Tubers and a few hundred non-You-Tubers. That sure sounds like work I don't feel like doing, though.

link
root_axis 2506 days ago
> what percentage of time goes into it

Who would verify the amount of time spent by private individuals recording videos using their own equipment in their own homes?

> what percentage of total income comes from it

Why would that matter? It seems odd that YouTube's employer status would depend on whether or not the would-be employee has other sources of income.

>other hard measures like that

This doesn't seem like a realistic "evolution" of employer status. I'm not saying the definition won't ever evolve but it just doesn't seem practical that a private business which offers a free service to consumers would suddenly become an employer of those consumers based on how they use the service.

I'll also add that turning YouTube into an employer would have problematic consequences for creators, e.g. as an employer, YouTube would be in a position to make editorial demands of creators which would put them right back where they started (create advertiser friendly videos or you don't get paid).

link