Recently YouTube's policies have been so shitty, I wouldn't be surprised if even the more successful YouTubers stand in solidarity against it and refuse bribes (since the bribe wouldn't free them of a lot of the creative restrictions and controls set by YouTube, which is the issue here). I think the question is, if the union manages to get off the ground in the first place, can it maintain itself after certain demands are met? You occasionally do see this weird amount of solidarity between YouTubers, like when that guy tried to sue H3H3 and everyone suddenly got behind him.
Youtuber's union
Zachary Perez
Hudson Moore
They extract surplus from others by taking more labour-product out than they put in. They are parasitical and have a vested interest in class society.
Kayden Harris
I don't follow edrama, but "showing solidarity" did not cost them anything there or less than they got in good PR by showing what great people they are. Will they when they will have to sacrifice their own wealth and power?
Ryder Gray
This is where you're wrong. They all donated to a fund to help H3H3's legal case and helped found this sort of lawyer's group. They donated a lot. It wasn't just a "shout out".
Anthony Bell
Philantrop is a scam, they took all of it from others in the first place and are still rich. They were also not up against YouTube. In ny case, the upper middle class organising is not going to bring us any closer to a classless society.
I agree, but there is no indication of these youtubers having any desire in a consumer union existing.
Blake Wilson
Contrary to what retarded MTWs and Gonzaloites might claim, there is no obvious connection towards theoretically being compensated for more than you're worth and supporting class society. Even if they're compensated handsomely for their labors, more than said labor was actually worth, they lack bourgeois authority, and thus the real, visceral connection to class domination that would make them side with the bourgeoisie, nor any real compensation in proportion to that of the bourgeoisie that would make them necessarily associate their own success with the success of the bourgeois class.
Samuel Gutierrez
The current societal system is what enables them to live a life of fame and luxury with all its decadent indulgences. Mass media being listicles, reaction videos and video game streaming is a symptom of neoliberalism and not desirable. These ecelebs will fight against any real challenge that would lead to systematic change as it would threaten their privileged social position. At most you might get them on your side by promising an even more privileged place in the future hierarchy.
Zachary Russell
Their beef with YouTube is its increasing vicegrip on the community which is often completely arbitrary partially due to their insistence on doing everything by algorithm, partially due to them being a bitch to big name advertisers. This isn't really a money thing, though money has something do do with it since your videos can get demonetized or age-restricted practically on a whim, which is a big hit to a YouTuber's revenue.
There may be some truth to what you're saying, but it's the same "labor aristocrat" argument you see from Mautists and fails in the same areas where that argument typically fails, which is to establish where said labor aristocrats would draw a logical connection between their own success and the success of the bourgeois class. I think a better analysis of this group is that they've got comfortable and secure positions, and thus can easily be corralled into a non-threatening liberalism by social conformity and threats against said comfort and security, not the big leap that they somehow all identify with the bourgeois class and the greater class system when the connection isn't obvious.
Michael Bailey
Where would they stand on abolishi g copyright, which is to say expropriating digital objects and moving them back to the commons?
Austin Brooks
well there is no monolithic "youtuber" class, but a lot have expressed desire to curtail the power of IP and IP law at the very least because it intrudes on the creative process.