In the long-lasting debate about the ethics of participation and the monetization of user-generated content, Google has taken a new step. After reading the terms of service for many platforms, from social networking sites like Facebook to media sharing sites (or call it fake sharing sites like Youtube compared to actual sharing sites like blip.tv) it was always clear that the companies left the options open to do whatever they please with the content that users uploaded. Many producers/users did not care much about the legal small print but now that may change as Google's Youtube just announced that it will start monetizing user-contributed content through advertising layered on top of the videos (initially only selected videos but followed by a wided spread introduction). This is what it'll look like according to Google:

• 15 seconds into the video, an overlay ad appears on the bottom 20 percent of a video

• The overlay animates for up to 10 seconds and is 80 percent transparent

• The overlay then closes automatically

• A user can replay ad by clicking button

I use YouTube videos a lot in my teaching, and I'm glad that I downloaded them as this new policy will make videos on Youtube problematic for teaching purposes unless you are willing to serve your students this intrusive uncalled-for content. Would you want an explanation of the way wikis work intruded upon by the Geico frog?

The pervasive market logic says that the 1.6 billion dollars that Google paid for Youtube need to made back now. And yes, it costs unbelievable amounts of money to sustain all those server farms that make this media sharing possible. What about those users, however, who uploaded more than 60.000 videos a day *not knowing that their videos will be used this way*?

Did they know that their content will be put to work as backdrop for corporate content? I'd argue that most of them did not (there are empirical studies that'd back that up). The ethical issue is the corporate breach of the social contract. If YouTube would have been transparent in their approach from the get-go by making sure that people who upload videos know that the popularity of their home-made creativity will be monetized, than I'd not see much of a problem. The question is not if Google is evil, though their corporate slogan makes that assertion tempting, but the substantial problem is one of informed consent of users (transparency) in the case of their very life being put to work. Now, that witty chat or amusing tween attempt at identity formations through karaoke becomes monetized. Will this spoil the fun of YouTube? For me it will.

There are, of course, many other media sharing sites, which allow at least users who are not part of a Youtube community to migrate to another platform if they wish. Their videos, however, will be stuck with Youtube as there is no feature that allows people to easily export their contributions. Now it becomes clear that the allegedly free service was by no means free and also Facebook just announced that it’d start introducing personalized advertising. I'm curious to see if the majority of those who made these platforms such a success will accept this. the question in the end will be if the tradeoff will be perceived as fair. Do I get enough fun out of this to keep up with the ads? American youth is very tolerant if comes to the commercialization of their everyday life. They are used to it, they may see the glass as being half full, not empty. But there may come a point where they say "enough already."