alt Hacker NewsYep, if anyone didn't want their videos to be on our site, we would take it down.
Just watched the video, I don't initially agree with his take completely but do totally respect the viewpoint and think a payment split to the creator whenever someone summarizes the video makes sense.
Yes we do offer the option to summarize content without creator buy-in, although it seems a bit different since we're also augmenting the content with questions etc. which should drive users to watch the video even more as opposed to skip it and just read the summary.
But you're right it's not perfect. If we ever have creators who don't want their stuff on our site we'd totally respect their wishes, but that hasn't been the case right now so this seems like the best thing to do.
Replies
> Yep, if anyone didn't want their videos to be on our site, we would take it down.
Do note that this behavior of "opting creators into a program without their consent, justifying it via revenue share, and CYA with a 'they can opt out if they want to!' shield" is still... awful optics.
The whole Brave scandal (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736888) is a good case study on how laypeople will perceive this. It's not popular at all.
I do think the fact that your product is likely to drive views makes this less of a concern than what YT is doing.
From a creator’s point of view, I think the concern would be about how true this remains as the product grows/evolves.
But as long as there’s an opt-out, that seems like a reasonable approach.