Yes, this is the monopoly part of the argument. There are no real and practical alternatives for content creators, it seems.
If there is a single customer, it is not a monopoly, but a monopsony:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopsony&oldid=9...
Would the "average" Google employees really care about this? I would rather imagine that only executive level employees of Google could be happy about this. And these people play much deeper political games than caring about a wrong word.
Killing small businesses definitely counts as a market distortion. Good luck arguing it doesn't.
And there is no competitive service, because YT is an audience provider, and not specifically a video hosting provider.
In fact these problems would go away if YT offered a paid tier - with proper support - for content providers.
But YT and Google are averse to treating anyone else as an equal partner, so that's never going to happen.
Ad-revenue you receive doesn't even make you a contractor. It's basically like working for free and then being tossed something at the end for your efforts. There is no legal agreement or obligation to continue paying you.
It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.
I disagree. I think that people have convinced themselves that they are customers of YouTube.
There is a lot of projection on things like YouTube and Facebook, then people get mad because it actually isn't that after all.
Not for nothing - platform usage costs money. It's for the average per-user cost of building and running the platform.
This might be right if they were a mom and pop store with 5 others within a couple of blocks. There is no viable alternative to Youtube so they don't get to make these calls.
As a parent stated, the content creators are NOT the clients. Client is the one who pays you money. So advertisers need to be kept happy. If this guy goes down, the guitar makers will advertise on the next guy/lady in line. And the (true) client (advertiser) will be happy.
One of the reason that Google is making crazy money is that they cut plenty of corners in support. And it serves THEM (YT) right to do so.
This video has less than 100k views. "Charlie bit my finger" has 876 Million views.
In work I use the phrase "it is not a Problem until it becomes one".
One content creator (or a thousand) complaining is NOT a problem for YT. A Problem is if YT drops from 100M views per day (or whatever that number is) to 20M views per day.
If you ask me, YouTube is having it good. And if this content creator goes down, his followers will jump on the next guitar player teacher person.
Apologies if my comment seems to cold. I believe it reflects the mentality of YT.
In a sense, they are Google's products.
Youtube does not order contractors but offers a service for production and consumption of content- so they have customers creating content and others just consuming- both being customers of their service.
It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer because that customer is the most profitable, would you pity them when they are fired by that customer? Or would you call them bad at business for failing to diversify?