After the YouTube Shooting, Another Tech Reckoning?

Let me say this first - YouTube is NOT responsible for the horrific violent act of this past week at its Bay Area HQ.

Having said that, the YouTube shooting represents the latest major tech reckoning. A wake-up call. While Facebook's Cambridge Analytica debacle represents social media's re-thinking of its relationship and policies with (and responsibilities to) its massive user base, the tragic YouTube shooting represents social media's reckoning and re-thinking of its relationship and policies (and responsibilities) to its massive Creator base. This massive and frequently anonymous Creator base -- which together builds the content upon which YouTube relies -- represents a new kind of workforce in this age of social platforms. Not just a distributed workforce. Rather, a super-distributed workforce. One in which many "workers" (Creators) have come to rely upon the platform to express themselves as part of their daily lives (sometimes for money, but mostly for a whole host of other reasons).

And this means that -- just like Facebook (and all other social platforms) are now forced to re-think their privacy policies, as well as their responsibilities to and communications with their user base -- YouTube (and all other social platforms) are now forced to re-think their responsibilities to and communications with their Creator base (and the policies that inform all of them). The tragic events of this past week represent the most extreme form of employee "grievances" being used as a justification for a "reaction" in the new world super-distributed workforce -- an appalling and completely unforgivable deadly reaction.

"Grievances" are impossible to avoid in the new socially-driven, super-distributed workforce -- just like in any workforce. In YouTube's case, YouTube faced tremendous Creator backlash previously when it introduced YouTube Red and demanded that Creators sign up for content exclusivity to be part of it (without giving sufficient notice or satisfying justification in the minds of many Creators). In another example, the company faced significant backlash after the LGBTQ content from many Creators was automatically placed into "Restricted Mode" (again, without sufficient notice or justification in the minds of many Creators). But, as we have seen this week, "worker" grievances take on terrifying new risks in a largely anonymous super distributed workforce where it is logistically impossible to vet all individuals in that workforce.

But, can YouTube (and other social platforms) take any action to at least minimize the risks of extreme "reaction" to Creator policies that transform the status quo upon which those Creators have relied upon for various reasons? First, once again, let's be clear. YouTube is NOT responsible in any shape or form for the YouTube Shooter's unjustifiable violent actions. And, second, let's face it, our society's overall culture -- the entire Zeitgeist -- is such that these kinds of horrific gun-driven actions have now tragically become commonplace. And, equally tragically, it is impossible to prevent every kind of potential violent act or every deranged killer (although gun control without question will have a real impact here over time, as we have seen in Australia).

Nonetheless -- in this new tech reckoning -- YouTube and all other social platforms must re-think their overall policies and communications with their Creators. YouTube and all other social platforms must try to proactively communicate out to its super-distributed workforce "better" (for example, new policy changes, and the rationale for those changes). And YouTube and all other social platforms must try to listen to its super-distributed workforce "better" (for example, new ways to proactively solicit feedback and optimize policy changes for both YouTube and its Creators). These are fair constructive critiques amidst the madness.

At the end of the day, YouTube (and other social platforms) are open and largely unrestricted for any of us to become its Creators/workers. They open the door to all -- and that is a fundamental part of the DNA of these services that will never change.

But, as I said to the Los Angeles Times yesterday when asked about the YouTube shooting and what it means, "As an open platform ... What we saw is a new kind of workplace violence. It shows again that these democratizing platforms come with all the good and the bad. The promise is that they give everyone a voice. The danger and challenge is that they give everyone a voice."