9k:RD/CapitalEatsLife 02 (Q28,21 #2)

Prompt

How can YouTube creators organize against bad AI management?
Recently there has been an ongoing incident where animators on YouTube have gotten upset about AI moderation.
What happens is that YouTube has two separate AI filters, one of which scans every video for whether it was "made for kids", but erroneously labels a lot of animation for adults as made for kids, and one of which scans every video for whether it contains "misleading family content", and demonetizes videos which were incorrectly labeled as "made for kids". The combination of these filters often ends up stacking up to YouTube scanning for all animated videos and then demonetizing them.
One popular sentiment about this is that creators need to join together and sue YouTube in a class-action lawsuit for having "destroyed their livelihoods". Another popular sentiment is that creators need to join together and "form a union" to stop "wage theft". Both of these similar but different plans revolve around the concept that YouTube should have to pay people if it promised that there was a program where they could be paid. But for either plan to have any hope of success people would have to know what the actual class relationship between YouTube and creators is.
As far as I can tell, if an animator has created an animated series on their own without any help from YouTube, in that specific case the monetization relationship exists because the animator is able to create a small area of capital that can be added onto YouTube's overall enclosed territory of capital; although traditional studios would also try to own all the material in the animation ("intellectual property") whenever they can, the most basic way for a corporation to absorb capital from people outside it is simply to absorb projects or teams and the overall scope of what that team is doing, as in the case of a project director who agrees to create a TV show for a corporation, and agree to pay the people on the team in order to be able to extract some of that money back into itself and also control the final product. So, the animator creates capital without YouTube, which is actually an activity that either petty production or workers would do, in that a studio structure (in general) is still relying on skilled workers to create everything through their own power — only sometimes does a generalized studio structure actually provide anything helpful to production such as recording rooms, while sometimes publishers can really just become parasitic, offering a capability to distribute things which is comparable to smaller independent corporations and yet they take their portion anyway.
In some cases, large corporations can create enclosed agoras where a lot of small producers operate "independently" and compete for business, but those producers are all blatantly doing an unskilled task, so there is no real difference between them and traditional employees, and Uber drivers can form a union and get classified as workers. But the environment on YouTube is stranger. There are some channels which are small producers with no employees, and there are some channels which are very blatantly small or large corporations running a channel because they can, and YouTube as an online platform makes no meaningful distinction between these apart from a thin distinction between "individuals" and "non-individuals" (brand accounts, which were originally designed for corporations made of many people). So, this to me makes the task of forming a "YouTuber union" a little fraught, because it would be necessary to actively separate out collections of workers from collections of workers and owned corporations. I think because of the "animation director" dynamic in traditional studios there is an argument to be made that even if small creators started as owners of their projects they have been turned into skilled workers if they are still periodically making new videos while YouTube nominally holds the borders of their project and claims to be paying them, and these people may be able to organize.
But the part of this that confuses me is the AI filtering. The popular wisdom among *almost everybody* who makes videos on YouTube or leaves comments is simply "AI filter bad, human good". A lot of people are calling for YouTube to "hire human reviewers" to solve the problem. (Sometimes quoting the old IBM manual that said not to let the computer make decisions.) But none of those people are currently in control of how YouTube wields capital and whether it hires more people or whether it keeps them. It would seem to me like the workers with the power to change YouTube would be organizing against YouTube firing humans and replacing them with AI filters, but the power to fire moderators would have come from YouTube collecting enough capital (the LLM) that at the moment it doesn't need humans to create more, thus the power to organize goes away unless humans know the exact needs of industry as its own inanimate process. So what happened here? Did it become reactionary to be a worker when machines should be used instead? When it comes to workers trying to stop cashiers from being replaced with machines that check people out faster and lead to fewer cashiers with back problems, that makes sense to me. But here I do not even know what is happening. It seems like corporations have a lot of technology and workers don't have much — what is becoming really popular now is artists bragging about making things manually on low budgets despite that being hard — and the once-owners-turned-skilled-workers who can actually organize and stop the process of everyone getting reduced to independent contractors have to tolerate everyone standing against technology in order to form a union in the first place. Yet if YouTube as an overall structure doesn't want to stop applying more and more technology then it will do everything to keep them from fully becoming workers or getting hired as moderators / reviewers. Does this whole body of people need an AI expert skilled enough to fix the existing AI moderation before it can do anything?

Motifs or claims from response

• The presence of newspapers in a capitalist economy changes the analysis of every single other product -> shame on you, Trotskyism. I thought I was completely done making fun of you for amplifying bourgeois concepts that the press estate is real and newspapers are a form of government.
• YouTube's human moderators and AI moderation are performing almost exactly the same task, which is being capital's weapon of control [1] [2]
• Do not confuse machines themselves with the process of capital (Trotskyism) -> I think I obeyed that in this question.
• The power loom won -> that is actually a very powerful proposition despite it having brought it up multiple times. ok, adding that one.
• Do not confuse machines themselves with the specific process of owners controlling capital -> I might be guilty of that one. but the response to this prompt did it too?? it literally referred to things that should be termed 'capital' or 'corporate structures' with the word "machine", Deleuze style. so I find the answer it gave me this time highly dubious.

618. Q618/Q618IMT deepities / Trotskyist deepities -> the motif of the International Marxist Tendency / Revolutionary Communist International (IMT/RCI) spouting 'answers' that are highly connected to all their central talking points but do not actually explain anything.
618. Q618/Q618permanent revolution will fix it / permanent revolution will surely fix it
     IMT deepities + permanent revolution (Trotskyism) = permanent revolution will fix it.

Usage notes

• You are allowed to post LLM prompts as prototype pages (the part you wrote manually), as long as they stay in one of the ... talk: (pronounced Talk) namespaces and there are no direct quotes from generated text. Concisely describing abstract propositions that turn up several times inside response text — or quoting source texts written by humans — is fine.
• It's recommended you include all of the AI's "references", such that each prompt becomes a sort of 'combination nickel' that becomes a convenient place for collecting twenty or so links that answer the question. If any of the pages referenced are already nickel pages, you should link the nickel page.
• None of the commentary on these pages after the motif names / arrows is AI.

Ideologies, fields, topics, or search engines

4699. Q4699/Q46,99IV (pronounced Trotskyism) / Socialism AI
4104. Q4104/Q41,04IV (pronounced Fourth) / Trotskyism
618. Q618/Q618IV (pronounced Fourth) / International Marxist Tendency