WTF, YouTube?

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
SomeGuyOnHisComputer said:
I've watched quite a few of the Youtubers who took part in the #WTFU thing, I don't recall any of them ever saying that. Why are you putting words into people's mouths?
Interesting how "I haven't seen it" translates into "she's putting words into people's mouths."

Also interesting that you limited the scope to "content creators" when I did not.

I suppose the question, then, is why are you putting words in my mouth to condemn the same?

RedDeadFred said:
So are you saying that the content creators should have seen this coming and split themselves among other platforms to foster competition
Nope.
 
Jun 20, 2013
112
0
0
Something Amyss said:
Interesting how "I haven't seen it" translates into "she's putting words into people's mouths."
Also interesting that you limited the scope to "content creators" when I did not.
I suppose the question, then, is why are you putting words in my mouth to condemn the same?
Fair enough. I will say this, there is nothing in your post indicating the scope. #WTFU is primarily a youtube movement, in my opinion, the assumption that you were alluding to the content creators is a perfectly fair and valid one. With that, none of the content creators I follow who have participated in the movement have ever spouted any of that "vote with your wallet" stuff. Ergo, it came off as if you were accusing people of hypocrisy with made up nonsense.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Heres the thing, it needs to go to court. But no one wants to actually do that, and those few who might cant. I don't know enough about the legal system to give any real advice but, you have to break eggs to make an omelette. May not be the same caliber, but LGBT rights didn't get going until people physically fought back against the abusive cops who'd raid gay bars because they could. If bigger youtubers would unite with other big and small youtubers, something likely could be done.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
SomeGuyOnHisComputer said:
[#WTFU is primarily a youtube movement
It's really not. That's kind of the problem. It's about YouTube, but we've had multiple threads on this site alone talking about it. Even if we limit it to YouTube, however, the bulk of the WTFU talk is coming from users, not content creators. Unless you want to get super specific and talk about video creation, in which case I will grant you that tautologically it's content creators making videos about it, but that grossly limits the scope of the conversation.

Rather, you made a shoestring of assumptions and took me to task for the end result. These assumptions seem to be based more on your personal opinions than any solid foundation. Folks like the Nostalgia Critic (ironic) have seen a groundswell of support, sometimes from thousands upon thousands of people, and if you think they're all the ones making the videos then I don't even know what to tell you.
RedDeadFred said:
I have no idea how this shit works when it comes to the internet, but I do know that many countries which claim to embrace the free market still do have laws about monopolies, so I don't really see where your evil socialism comment applies.
Since I'm already responding again, let me add this:

You have no idea how these things work, but you don't see how my socialism comments play into it.

First, that's conflating two separate arguments. That's fine, I don't really care. My internet writings appear to have more secrets than any treasure hunt Indiana Jones might go on, and I'm the only one not privy to them.

But things get dicey when you start talking monopolies[footnote=for this purpose, "monopoly" will refer to the illegal sense, as it's perfectly possible to have a legal monopoly, as I will get into below]. See, when I phrased it as I did, the wording was deliberate. I called it a virtual monopoly because it is not, at least as far as I can see, an actual one. The reason I say "far as I know" is less because I don't know how these things work (though I'm far from an expert) and more because I don't have evidence of these things.

Google is, generally speaking, not a monopoly in the legal sense because there's little or no evidence of anti-competitive practices. A lot of people compare Microsoft's monopoly in the 90s to Google now, but they're too young to remember what it was like when you couldn't search up a rival product on a search engine. Hell, there used to be a need for workarounds just to download Netscape from an IE broswer. When we say "monopoly" in terms of legality, we're not talking about someone who simply dominates a field. While yes, a company that controls say, 80% of a given marketplace has a monopoly, they don't in the sense of anti-monopoly laws.

The problem here is that people have flocked to YouTube by choice, not because Google has tried to stifle the market. Many of the people I now follow on YouTube felt that Blip was a better platform based on the exact grounds that are the source of WTFU. It simply wasn't seeing the success of YouTube, however. Many Blip creators also hosted on YouTube (as have other sites, like...this one) because they want the views. Again, this is not a case of coercion, but rather of choice. YouTube dominates because it's considered the "better" service, whether due to content or services or ubiquity. I'd prefer Blip except I always had trouble watching Linkara or Rap Critic because their ads would fuck up constantly. I do find being able to actually watch videos to be the superior was to watch them, whether I otherwise like YouTube or not.

"Better" is, of course, subjective. It's less what makes a good service and more, as Bill Nye would say, what makes a "good enough" service. People have decided that YouYube is good enough. Good enough, in fact, that the endless complaints about it are often done by people who still use the service. And since we are talking the free market, that's enough to validate its continued dominance.

A monopoly created by such a service is not illegal. And while it's possible Google is violating antitrust laws in some way I'm not aware of, calling them a monopoly here is not enough to trigger antitrust laws. But a monopoly created by making a service people choose to use over competitors' services is not illegal. It is the free market in action. It is people voting with their wallets.

Which, incidentally, makes the sort of intervention you're talking about what those same free-marketeers call "socialism." It would be interfering with the sacred Free Market (praise be upon it).
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Saelune said:
Heres the thing, it needs to go to court. But no one wants to actually do that, and those few who might cant. I don't know enough about the legal system to give any real advice but, you have to break eggs to make an omelette. May not be the same caliber, but LGBT rights didn't get going until people physically fought back against the abusive cops who'd raid gay bars because they could. If bigger youtubers would unite with other big and small youtubers, something likely could be done.
It's really not the same caliber. Please don't compare LGBT rights to people who voluntarily join an optional service.
 

The Raw Shark

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
Nov 19, 2014
241
0
0
So who wants to bet on this shit show eventually resulting in a mass temporary or permanent shut down for YouTube?
This whole thing can only explode from here as far as I can see. The number of smaller content creators who are getting exploited will eventually reach a highly vocal point. So from there I can only assume that the bigger ones will have to start listening in the end.
Either that or I just lost my own bet. It's a lose-lose in any case.
 
Jun 20, 2013
112
0
0
Something Amyss said:
These assumptions seem to be based more on your personal opinions than any solid foundation.
More or less ignorance of past forum drama than any opinion. Reread your post as someone who doesn't bother lurking the escapist and got most of their info from their youtube subscription box, the foundation for my assumption is certainly there. Not really a personal opinion as much as living under a rock.

This next part is purely my personal opinion though, but I gotta say, even if the majority of the discussion is through other means, I don't think it's fair to say that "it's really not" primarily a youtube movement. The content creators have the majority of the power in this case, as they are the ones making google the money[sup]1[/sup], hence they would be the ones google would listen to. All other discussion is just kind of a fart in the wind. If this was ... a more normal movement where the power wasn't so concentrated into a select group, then I would agree.

[sup]1.[/sup] I know It's technically the viewers who make them the money. However the creators are the reason they have viewers in the first place. You could argue it should be the viewers who take initiative to migrate, hence the other discussion not being a fart in the wind, but youtube is so ubiquitous that I don't think that's feasible unless a chunk of creators migrate en masse, and I don't see that happening.
 

Jack Action

Not a premium member.
Sep 6, 2014
296
0
0
Jack O said:
So who wants to bet on this shit show eventually resulting in a mass temporary or permanent shut down for YouTube?
This whole thing can only explode from here as far as I can see. The number of smaller content creators who are getting exploited will eventually reach a highly vocal point. So from there I can only assume that the bigger ones will have to start listening in the end.
Either that or I just lost my own bet. It's a lose-lose in any case.
Come on, the big boys raising a stink would be a major scandal, and when have major websites ever gone out with a bang instead of a whimper? I've got my money on "enough people will just leave youtube, get popular somewhere else, then YT will be replaced with said somewhere which will inevitably become the exact same thing as youtube until people get popular somewhere else". Rinse and repeat. Because if there's one thing the internet keeps consistently proving, it's that you always become the monster you set out to kill, but at least you'll be sitting on piles of gold and jewels when you fade into oblivion.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
Something Amyss said:
Thanks for the detailed response and for making me chuckle (the Indiana Jones bit is surprisingly accurate sometimes). I think I have a much better idea of what you were talking about now. So what do you think should happen now? I know I wouldn't be opposed to more government intervention, but then again, I've never thought of the free market as the Holly Grail to base my beliefs around. Unfortunately, if that was the solution, I don't see it going through without some major shifts in public ideology, which I suppose is what you were getting at.