Creators of Youtube: Why do you put up with it?

Look at this video and tell me you don't have the numbers to seize the power to change YouTube's policies on how it treates creators:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZQuE0wfjzf0

This is right out of Alinsky. You have the powerbase. The enemy didn't know you had it and took a shot. They failed, and you won. Now take the power you have and attack them back. Change the rules. If YT is going to enjoy the privileges of being a platform (specifically Section 230 of the CDA), then they should grant their users the the right to be free from arbitrary censorship. Otherwise, let them regard themselves as a publisher and allow admit to liability for the content posted and promulgated by their website. But they'll never do that.

They're a platform. Let's make them act like one in all respects.

This is why I don't buy into the whole "blackpilled" thing. I get it. Grimdark despair porn has its appeal, but it doesn't actually reflect the battle that's going on. These people, like buttfucking Maza and his supporters, are cocking this up right and left. They're degenerates, and degenerates are shit at tactics. The CEOs they kvetch to are shit at tactics as well, and only respond out of fear. I don't care how evil you think Susan Wojcicki and her types are. These people are middle managers who have risen too high for their competency by default. Wojcicki is a legacy hire who's toeing the line she thinks is the path of least resistence because she's too stupid to understand the people she's up against. Let's remind her.

Attached: youtube.0.jpg (1200x800, 28K)

Money.

Crowder made 2 million off YouTube last year.

99% of reason these e celebs try to get famous is money not to fight for freedom. Dealing with some obstacles online beats wage cucking

This

The negotiation strategy is pretty straigforward if you've been following the thread tho.
>Option 1.
Force YT to explicitly treat itself as a platform under Section 203 of the CDA and thereby ensure a fairness in dealing with content. If not, force it to style itself as a publisher and therefore incur liabilities.
>Option 2.
Force YT to treat its ToS as a contract, the breach of which would be liability. Similar protections that occur for employees/unjust termination would apply for content creators and censorship without cause.
>Option 3.
Force antitrust action. Break up YT/Facebook/Twitter's monopoly on speech. This is the most extreme option obvs.

A lot of blackpilled soiboys will kvetch about "we can't *force* YT to do anything."
Spoiler alert: You can. You have the power. BPS' reinstatement has proven it. Now leverage it or be lost.

Attached: 11017024_658393684315890_3964155497158685572_n.jpg (880x573, 81K)

In the end, I think YT benefits from a inconsistency in the law, where it has all the privileges of a publisher, but none of the liabilities. From an eagle-eye POV, that's the development of the law that's at stake right now, but that that's necessarily relevant to the task at hand. But good to know. The task at hand is to force them into a position that guarantees creators their rights not to be censored.

Attached: 10985966_658393667649225_1386610450502179446_n.jpg (880x587, 73K)

And now they're all getting demonetized.

I don't see it being in their interest to keep putting up with it to last this long.

Bumpity.
Fuck the CIA slide threads.

Attached: 1560450723923.jpg (2056x668, 134K)

Yeah. They're trying to bury all this stuff.

I've noticed Bitchute has been having a lot more traffic lately. I think youtube is on it's decline. I'm old enough to remember when AOL was dominating the interwebz so I don't think any of these companies are fail proof.

I think the strategy here is that YouTube is betting it has enough money and power to survive chasing all of its content creators away. This isn't just about censorship, it's about making YT a platform exclusively for corporate controlled legacy media.

The problem is, this is a platform built not by Steven Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel, but by creators. They never could have built the platform on its own, so they let you build it, and now they're running you off of it and taking the spoils.

honestly, I'd love to see youtube without its "creators". Youtube used to be comfier before they occured. Now you have tons of actual retards acting like they are the shit because some other retards prefer them over TV (which isn't really a feat).

It would become like television.

I like making videos. I upload them on Youtube and back them up on Bitchute.
It'll either get better, and nothing changes for me, or it'll get worse, and I'll just be on Bitchute. My content is apolotical, but I know I'm still under the boot.
I enjoy making videos, I think it's fun. I don't have a following, and I don't do it for money.

But there are people who do. And many of those have done some serious redpilling in a very short time.

More power to them. I think everyone should have access to video sharing platforms unrestricted.
I just know that my apolitical content gets swept up in Youtube's attempts to shit on political content.

meh, I used youtube to discover music mostly and still do, for the most part.

bump

soundcloud is better for this desu

You stupid motherfucker. You still believe that people give about anything else than shekels?
gtfo trans normie faggot.

But can you get paid doing it?

>soundcloud is better for this desu
I'll try it out