Control = Power and Money: Anything Else Is an Annoyance
June 17, 2025
I read “Self-Hosting Your Own Media Considered Harmful.” I worked through about 300 comments on Ycombinator’s hacker news page. The write up by Jeff Geerling, a YouTube content creator, found himself in the deadfall of a “strike” or “takedown” or whatever unilateral action by Google is called. The essay says:
Apparently self-hosted open source media library management is harmful. Who knew open source software could be so subversive?
Those YCombinator comments make clear that some people understand the Google game. Other comments illustrate the cloud of unknowing that distorts one’s perception of the nature of the Google magic show which has been running longer than the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act.
YouTube, unlike Google AI, is no joke to many people who believe that they can build a life by creating videos without pay and posting them to a service that is what might be called a new version of the “old Hollywood” studio system.
Let’s think about an answer to this subversive question. (Here’s the answer: Content that undermines Google’s power, control, or money flow. But you knew that, right?)
Let’s expand, shall we?
First, Google makes rules, usually without much more than a group of wizards of assorted ages talking online, at Foosball, or (sometimes) in a room with a table, chairs, a whiteboard, and other accoutrements of what business life was like in the 1970s. Management friction is largely absent; sometimes when leadership input is required, leadership avoids getting into the weeds. “Push down” is much better than an old-fashioned, hierarchical “dumb” approach. Therefore, the decisions are organic and usually arbitrary until something “big” happens like the 2023 Microsoft announced about its deal with OpenAI. Then leadership does the deciding. Code Red or whatever it was called illustrates the knee-jerk approach to issues that just go critical. Phase change.
Second, the connections between common sense, professional behavior (yes, I am including suicide attempts induced by corporate dalliance and telling customers “they have created a problem”), and consistency are irrelevant. Actions are typically local and context free. Consequently the mysterious and often disastrous notifications of a “violation.” I love it when companies judged to be operating in an illegal manner dole out notices of an “offense.” Keep the idea of “power” in mind, please.
Third, the lack of consistent, informed mechanisms to find out the “rule” an individual allegedly violated are the preferred approach to grousing. If an action intentional or unintentional could, might, did, would, will, or some other indicator of revenue loss is identified, then the perpetrator is guilty. Some are banned. Others like a former CIA professional are just told, “Take that video down.”
How does the cited essay handle the topic? Mr. Geerling says:
I was never able to sustain my open source work based on patronage, and content production is the same—just more expensive to maintain to any standard (each video takes between 10-300 hours to produce, and I have a family to feed, and US health insurance companies to fund). YouTube was, and still is, a creative anomaly. I’m hugely thankful to my Patreon, GitHub, and Floatplane supporters—and I hope to have direct funding fully able to support my work someday. But until that time, YouTube’s AdSense revenue and vast reach is a kind of ‘golden handcuff.’ The handcuff has been a bit tarnished of late, however, with Google recently adding AI summaries to videos—which seems to indicate maybe Gemini is slurping up my content and using it in their AI models?
This is an important series of statements. First, YouTube relies on content creators who post their work on YouTube for the same reason people use Telegram or BlueSky: These are free publicity channels that might yield revenue or a paying gig. Content creators trade off control and yield power to these “comms conduits” for the belief that something will come out of the effort. These channels are designed to produce revenue for their owners, not the content creators. The “hope” of a payoff means the content will continue to flow. No grousing, lawyer launch, or blog post is going to change the mechanism that is now entrenched.
Second, open source is now a problematic issue. For the Google the open source DeepSeek means that it must market its AI prowess more aggressively because it is threatened. For the Google content that could alienate an advertiser and a revenue stream is, by definition, bad content. That approach will become more widely used and more evident as the shift from Google search-based advertising is eroded by rather poor “smart” systems that just deliver answers. Furthermore, figuring out how to pay for smart software is going to lead to increasingly Draconian measures from Google-type outfits to sustain and grow revenue. Money comes from power to deliver information that will lure or force advertisers to buy access. End of story.
Third, Mr. Geerling politely raises the question about Google’s use of YouTube content to make its world-class smart software smarter. The answer to the question, based on what I have learned from my sources, is, “Yes.” Is this a surprise? Not to me. Maybe a content creator thinks that YouTube will set out rules, guidelines, and explanations of how it uses its digital vacuum cleaner to decrease the probability that that its AI system will spout stupidity like “Kids, just glue cheese on pizza”? That will not happen b because the Google-type of organization does not see additional friction as desirable. Google wants money. It has power.
What’s the payoff for Google? Control. If you want to play, you have to pay. Advertisers provide cash based on a rigged slot machine model. User provide “data exhaust” to feed into the advertising engine. YouTube creators provide free content to produce clicks, clusters of intent, and digital magnets designed to stimulate interest in that which Google provides.
Mr. Geerling’s essay is pretty good. Using good judgment, he does not work through the blood-drawing brambles of what Google does. That means he operates in a professional manner.
Bad news, Mr. Geering, that won’t work. The Google has been given control of information flows and that translates to money and power.
Salute the flag, adapt, and just post content that sells ads. Open source is a sub-genre of offensive content. Adapt or be deprived of Googley benefits.
Stephen E Arnold, June 17, 2025
Comments
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
