I can't adequately express in a tweet my disgust with @YouTube taking irrelevant-to-them amounts of money away from small BookTubers who passionately promote reading/literacy and NEED that comparatively meager amount of money, some of them to survive.
It's @YouTube being indefensibly punitive, greedy, callous, and the fact it comes about two seconds after they actively promoted Logan Paul's dead body/ha-ha-suicide video, did literally NOTHING about that video, and then wrist-slapped him only after the backlash is stunning.
I don't know if @YouTube has become so big there's no one at the wheel anymore, or if their mindset is, "We have no competition. We'll do whatever we want." Or if they're just a pack of capitalist sociopaths who don't care about the people who ACTUALLY built their platform.
But evvvvvvvvvery big creator-related decision they've made as of late has been bad. Not just bad, but damaging to @YouTube as a platform, community, and medium. They're actively making all of those things worse for everyone involved.
And whether they realize it or not, when @YouTube continues to reward garbage like the Pauls who only create by destroying, and penalizing people like BookTubers, they're sending a clear message about what's important to them and what they want the platform to be.
They're saying all they care about is grabbing as many 14-year-old views as possible and delivering them to the basest of advertisers. And that's it. If their entire platform becomes Jackass as its sole medium of content, @YouTube is FINE with that. That's the message.
Most social platforms have had some terrifying realizations, recently: 1) They're actually publishers. 2) Publishing is hard, and involves actual responsibility. 3) This is not the responsibility they wanted.
And I can't think of a more brutal message to send to all the creators who aren't that who gave their platform value, and to the myriad communities that have formed there. Get your shit together, @YouTube. Your children are drowning and your boot is on their foreheads.
It seems like none of these platforms assumed they'd have the same ownership/hierarchy in 10 years. The goal was to build and sell. And now even the buyers have no clue what to do. It's like developing bad condo towers.
Yes, Virginia: HIGH RISE was right. About the Internet. theguardian.com/books/2015/oct…
Thanks! I'm surprised I hadn't thought of it this way before, given the language around "development" and "speculation" and so on.
The inverse of this is a co-op model, which is why you've seen a return to listservs, mailing lists, etc. It's also why, after events like Strikethrough, the founders of AO3 made hard but smart decisions about community responsibility.
It's not a perfect metaphor, but when you consider the Internet as real estate, many of its current problems make more sense. Property managers are rarely community stewards.