As Jim says "they want all the money or none of the money." If they can make more Money off of youtube they will do it even if it can risk there bottom line in the long run.Silvanus said:
YouTube did a thing again
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
If Youtube/Google made it crystal clear what counts and does not count, their reasoning, and were consistent and fair about it. But considering this kind of stuff is mostly used to oppress LGBT people all the time, No, I am NOT ok with it.IceForce said:
Sure, this kind of stuff COULD be used to stomp bigotry, but usually it is just used to encourage it.
I am not fond of giving corporations free reign to abuse whoever they want, no.bluegate said:
These kind of policies are put out to protect their bottom line, full stop. If being evil is profitable, they will do it. Google has proven it is not concerned with being ethical.
After watching this: https://youtu.be/nfkem5e5Iqg?t=1220, I'm tending toward your second statement. They can already ban you for pretty much no reason anyways, why would they need a specific clause to ban you for not making google enough money?The Rogue Wolf said:
Also, that clause is under the header of terminations for service changes. If the service is getting shelved for not making enough money, they're not going to allow the users to keep attempting to access it (See Google+).
Combining this with the COPPA update/FTC YT purge, my, Jan 1st is going to be a s***storm, isn't it?!
Are things only hard for a startup? I'm just wondering what comparison you're using for a basis of what is hard or not on a global delivery of media from anyone and everyone with internet access.Silvanus said:
Difficult, no. If I were a billionaire, I wouldn't find getting a billion dollar loan "difficult", at least compared to who I am now, a student of probably negative material worth if we subtract my debt from my money and possessions. But that doesn't mean that I want a billion dollar loan to cover a service that was hemorrhaging money instead of making it profitable like a service is supposed to be, or that it's good business practice.Silvanus said:
Just cuz big ol' Mr Google has the total revenue to keep Youtube afloat doesn't mean that it's obligated to do so instead of figuring out a way for Youtube to be a viable business by any metric. And I'm someone who thinks businesses should be more socially conscious than just money grubbing machines. If Youtube costs Google a billion to keep the lights on, that's a billion that isn't getting invested into new tech development. And yes, yes, a decent chunk of that billion would just go into certain highly placed persons' pockets, but it turns around and gets invested in the economy and those struggling little startups you mentioned.
Of course, in regards to Youtube, my personal belief is that Youtube should burn to the ground and we should all go back to reading books. But that's me.
I remember back in 2012, there was supposed to be this mass exodus to Dailymotion. Which many user threaten to switch sites. Nothing ever came of it, and turned out most these users were blowing smoke. While I wish for it, I doubt most are going to follow through on it again.Marik2 said: