Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That supposes the estate is even aware of such content. Which is the issue I am talking about. I would be fine if google disabled formerly free videos until someone agreeded to monetizing them, but to just arbitrarily make that change means it’s done without the possibility of consent.


> I would be fine if google disabled formerly free videos until someone agreed to monetizing them

That seems worse? All these videos that I uploaded become inaccessible just because I'm not around to approve monetization?

(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)


If I had explicitly removed monetization of a video then yes, I would prefer an explicit conformation of the change. If nothing else to avoid confusion.


It is not explicit: historically, videos were unmonetized by default




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: