If you penalize your own employees for being censored by Big Tech, you are punishing them, harming them, and kowtowing to Big Tech.
Except there’s no evidence of this happening.
If DW and Crowder both lose revenue due to YouTube censorship, how is this “punishment”? All the terms say is that a percentage of Crowder’s “salary” is based on social media revenue. This is extremely common in these types of contracts. There are entire industries where compensation is split between guaranteed salary and performance based compensation.
Crowder isn’t an idiot. He knows all this. He’s built his livelihood on YouTube. Crowder self-censors to remain on YouTube. He knows exactly what DW was proposing; that’s the entire crux of his statement that DW should change their business model.
All the terms say is that a percentage of Crowder’s “salary” is based on social media revenue.
It's a fixed cut, not a revenue share. I doubt 10% from his salary comes from Instagram or whatever, but he'll still get $5,000,000 less if he is banned there.
Maybe, maybe not. We’re not really in a position to say since we don’t know the figures he gets on add reads or other advertising. Either way, details like this are why this wasn’t a contract but a boiler plate terms sheet meant to start negotiate.
EDIT: Either way, this minor point is beside the fact that Crowder misrepresented DW’s position and edited both his videos to show himself in the most favorable light possible despite the facts portraying a very different picture. None of the claims he makes stands up to scrutiny. The biggest legit criticism of DW is that they should have given him more favorable terms up front given his size and ego. This hardly warrants Crowders behavior.
I’ve researched this to death. The best take on the internet is that given by Actual Justice Warrior (both videos). He’s fair, objective and thorough.
Except there’s no evidence of this happening.
If DW and Crowder both lose revenue due to YouTube censorship, how is this “punishment”? All the terms say is that a percentage of Crowder’s “salary” is based on social media revenue. This is extremely common in these types of contracts. There are entire industries where compensation is split between guaranteed salary and performance based compensation.
Crowder isn’t an idiot. He knows all this. He’s built his livelihood on YouTube. Crowder self-censors to remain on YouTube. He knows exactly what DW was proposing; that’s the entire crux of his statement that DW should change their business model.
It's a fixed cut, not a revenue share. I doubt 10% from his salary comes from Instagram or whatever, but he'll still get $5,000,000 less if he is banned there.
Maybe, maybe not. We’re not really in a position to say since we don’t know the figures he gets on add reads or other advertising. Either way, details like this are why this wasn’t a contract but a boiler plate terms sheet meant to start negotiate.
EDIT: Either way, this minor point is beside the fact that Crowder misrepresented DW’s position and edited both his videos to show himself in the most favorable light possible despite the facts portraying a very different picture. None of the claims he makes stands up to scrutiny. The biggest legit criticism of DW is that they should have given him more favorable terms up front given his size and ego. This hardly warrants Crowders behavior.
I’ve researched this to death. The best take on the internet is that given by Actual Justice Warrior (both videos). He’s fair, objective and thorough.