Hacker News Reader

Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this kind of reaction is about philosophical "right" to an income from a particular company, more about sudden changes. It's similar to being fired: you previously got an income from this company, then they decided not to give you an income. Some people get angry at that, and sometimes feel desperate, worried about ending up homeless etc. depending on how much they relied on this income and what kinds of safety nets they have access to. Which is all true even if the company was within its rights to fire you. Of course most people who get angry about being laid off don't shoot anyone, but it's unfortunately not really a new story in the US (Google for something like, [laid off employee shooting], and there's dozens of hits).

View on HN

The problem is - and this goes for all the apologists for this person in this thread - that having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on. If you run a small business and you make that business entirely dependent on a third party you are inherently setting yourself up for failure.

Whether it is Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, Medium or any other user generated content site you give up control the moment you start using them and you are essentially working for whatever crumbs they decide to throw your way.

Being fired in many countries actually does come with a whole pile of assurances about your continued income, but it is ridiculous to compare the situation of a content producer on a free platform with the one of a salaried employee.

And to take that anger out on the employees of Youtube is utterly ridiculous, if you feel that there is some form of breach of contract then the courts would be your avenue to seek redress.

I want to see what the reaction here would look like if instead AWS we dropping a bunch of customers with no warning.

You said the magic word: customers. People uploading videos to YouTube aren't customers and don't generally have a contract guaranteeing that they'll receive anything – ad revenue or even the ability to continue uploading.

Even AWS customers who don't have a contract (like reserved instances or an Enterprise Agreement) may not have any claim to receive ongoing service.

Hopefully it would simply mean more customers for other hosting centers. If you feel that people should take up arms against AWS employees in that case then you have other problems.

Business disputes are as old as businesses and we have ways to resolve those disputes: the courts.

And be sure to read the fine print of any service or company that you are going to do business with if your business will be dependent on that other party. Avoid such dependencies as much as possible.

So yes, signing up with AWS is a calculated risk. You should know the possible downsides of that decision, and you should be aware of your position, rights and obligations as well as the terms of service.

Migrating off of AWS is a difficult, drawn-out process which can take months, if you've got a lot of stuff there or are using a lot of AWS-specific features. That's part of why I chose that example. A lot of businesses a lot of people here work for would be in quite difficult straits if that happened.

> if you've got a lot of stuff there or are using a lot of AWS-specific features.

If you allow yourself to be locked in to your hosting provider you are doing it wrong.

AWS is very clever about this but it is still your decision on whether or not you allow yourself to be suckered in. I point this out with some regularity to the companies I look at.

... but the fact remains: AWS is a service provided by a private corporation, not the government. There's no requirement or mandate in criminal law that it exist or continue to function. It could be dropped without warning at any time, and the only recourse customers would have is whatever contracts provide for them. This isn't something Amazon would do, because "Leaving millions of dollars of revenue on the table" isn't in their best interest. But if it ever becomes in their best interest? Nothing but civil contracts stopping them.

Most of society actually works like this, and we somehow manage to muddle through without shooting each other most of the time.

Well, again, I'm not advocating murder. But cris de coueur about changes to services like AWS or the App Store get plenty of upvotes and attention here, while the attitude toward people trying to make a living off of YouTube is different. Why?

The courts are for rich people. Suing a major corporation is all but hopeless.

Practically, when you have a business dispute with a major corporation, your only option is to give up.

I've sued several very large corporations over the last 30 years and have to this date come out the winner in each and every case. Yes it cost some money but the pay-off was substantially higher than the money invested in the court case. And no, we were not rich by any definition.

In Europe the courts are still accessible for companies that do not have millions of $.

This story doesn't take place in Europe.

It couldn't take place in Europe.

I know little about European courts, so I'll just take you at your word. I'm not sure how this observation is relevant to the discussion.

Most of Europe has reasonably strict gun laws and it would be hard to get a gun in the first place.

Again, it seems like a non sequitur, if the discussion is about YouTube monetization policies.

https://theultralinx.com/2012/10/youtubes-awesome-headquarte...

Then other customers would be worried and might decide to move away? That's the key difference here, you're paying for AWS, you're not paying for Youtube. On top of that if you find that Youtube doesn't pay you enough then... Well, there's not much you can do since you'll probably earn even less on other platforms.

AWS on the other hand has plenty of competition, as long as you don't willingly lock yourself into their platform you'll be fine.

That would suck for many people, but would totally be in their right. Again - how are people confused about this. If AWS drops you as a customer use an alternative. Moreover, these people's videos are still hosted on YouTube's servers.

One distinction is that AWS has major competitors you could switch to, but YouTube essentially has a monopoly on that kind of content distribution.

Another is that AWS customers tend to be businesses with full-time workers and not one person trying to eke out a living.

Youtube does not have a monopoly at all. What Youtube has a monopoly on is that your content will get a lot of eyeballs that you don't actually have to do much work for.

It's a mall with a large number of people flowing through it rather than just a content distribution engine.

No the true reaction one should measure is by asking how one should react, if you put anything on the free tier usage of AWS S3, like say a video or a book and then expect Amazon to pay you for it.

I don't think this woman went through a rational process of "deciding" that she was upset with YouTube because they are alleged to have cut off the income on her videos.

She snapped, identified the target of her rage, and took violent revenge.

She did not take revenge on Youtube, she took out her (unjustified) murderous rage on employees of Youtube. People who are even more dependent on Youtube than she ever was.

I don't think the previous poster is being an apologist, but just pointing out that sudden changes in income can trigger people. My wife lost her shit when one fine morning she was laid off without any prior warning. 99% of people don't act out, but 1% do.

And over time, our economic model is to squeeze more and more profit out of a service. The downside of receiving an income from Youtube, as a subcontractor of Youtube, is that they'll want to make more money from you...or the next person to come along to create content for slightly less money.

Calling the critics of YouTube's whims 'apologists for the shooter' even in the context of this thread is a dirty rhetorical trick. Nobody is saying the shooter was justified.

> Being fired in many countries actually does come with a whole pile of assurances about your continued income

What insurances that are not part of earning nothing from youtube?

> And to take that anger out on the employees of Youtube is utterly ridiculous

So? The same is true for any sort of anger from between partners to countries. Even if someone has been laid off. If a person can literally shoot someone, then this advice won't have the ears.

As I said in a different subthread, YouTube is in no way responsible for the actions Ms. Nasim took.

However, it could be helpful to understand Ms. Nasim's motivations insofar as they stem from losing a source of revenue to which she had no entitlement.

To that end, our collective social good might be promoted by platform owners like YouTube giving content-generators greater say over the monetization of their content.

This is not an apology and I accord no blame for Ms. Nasim's actions to YouTube. Mine is just a suggestion that Ms. Nasim had an unjustified grievance which might have been alleviated by giving more agency to the content-generators upon whom platforms such as YouTube depend.

EDIT: add "insofar"

I think we lack evidence that Ms. Nasim's shooting rampage would have been stopped by YouTube changing their policy. Possilby this shooting rampage, but we don't at present have enough evidence to hypothesize that something wouldn't have set her off. She had a lot of anger directed at a lot of targets.

I wasn't even looking at a particular solution when I posted this. Maybe YouTube should change something, maybe the social safety net should change, maybe gun laws should change. Lots of options. I just am skeptical that, compared to those options or maybe even others, repeating to people that they have no legally cognizant reliance interests on income that is not contractually guaranteed is a promising way out. I mean, yes, true, but some big billboards proclaiming that is not going to solve the problem.

> having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on

Sure, and having an at-will employment contract, which is what almost all YC companies offer, isn't something you should count on either. So I fail to comprehend your attempt to distinguish.

An employer does not provide a service for their employees, it's the other way around. Youtube provides a service to its users. That you can get paid for that is optional, that the service even functions is optional.

So the service-provider service-consumer relationship is inverted.

Well, that's at least not the relationship that YouTube claims between itself and the content providers that it has chosen to hire commercially. YouTube's official position is that it has retained them as independent contractors and paid them in a manner reportable on a 1099 because they provide a bona-fide service to the company. YouTube files legal documents both to the IRS and to their shareholders that claim this under penalty of perjury.

Mark Ames wrote a whole book (which I admit I didn't quite finish) with the thesis that you could tie the rise of workplace shootings to an increase in worker precarity.

Is Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond the book you were thinking of?

(Thanks for the recommendation in any case.)

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Col...

Yes.

> you could tie the rise of workplace shootings to an increase in worker precarity.

Funny, outside of the US even in countries with high unemployment nobody goes around and shoots anyone.

Which countries do you have in mind here? Is it not the case that most of them have either less access to guns or better social programs for the unemployed (or both)?

That's a complicated question, and I suspect it has a lot of dimensions.

I can't speak for the culture of other countries, but Americans have a deep-seated sense of worth tied to profession. Having your livelihood stripped raises existential questions about whether you have any value as an American (to understand this phenomenon better, it may be worth also comparing suicide rates in the US after a job loss to suicide rates in other cultures in similar situations).

... but in addition, the US has a pretty deep-seated cultural mythos that when your worth is taken by someone, you take it back, using violence if necessary. Witness the Revolutionary War and the recent phenomenon of a conservative political group naming itself after an economic rebellion against the East India Company.

More importantly, in many places in the USA, what would be medium inconveniences in other countries (illness, company folding) can quickly and easily destroy a life.

> Which is all true even if the company was within its rights to fire you.

What point are you trying to make then? People get angry because they feel it's unfair, so...?

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")

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com