32 ms·
YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
- ulizzle 3y agoSo what happens if the allegations turn out to hold no weight? Does he get his channel back and the bureaucrat NPCs self-flagellate with hashtag mea culpas? I suppose not The culture wars are out of control
- pixl97 3y agoDo you get your job back if your 'right to work state' if your accused of being a sexual predator and your job fires you... no, you do not. Tomorrow everyone will be back at 'right to work' and 'freedom of association' around here on some other topic.
- ulizzle 3y agoIf you are accused, you don't lose your job; proof must be there first. Otherwise, you can sue for wrongful termination, and there will be hell to pay in dollars. HR's job is to protect the company first, so unless they catch someone in the act, they won't know or want to know unless it comes from you or the cops. But this is different because it's politics and a public person. It's different rules for them. Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard is an excellent example of how easily the mobs can be misled and manipulated. I don't think it's fair that allegations can destroy a man's life just because he's famous, but that's how the cosmic cookie crumbled. Technically, YouTube should only be able to demonetize Russel Brand once he's proven guilty, but pointing out hypocrisy makes one very unpopular nowadays
- pixl97 3y ago>you can sue for wrongful termination, and there will be hell to pay in dollars. Maybe in your state, or maybe in your country, but in "right to work" states, the best you'll get is unemployment.
- ulizzle 3y agoI’m a Texan so I am, for some people, in a fanatical place for “right to work”. Even here, If you get a DUI, only way you get fired is if they find out, which they shouldn’t. In that case you could sue and why it doesn’t happen is because of the legal consequences. Maybe they will, maybe you ran over some kids and their puppies and you come out in the news. But otherwise no one has the right or power to find out because all citizens have a right to privacy: innocent until proven guilty and due process. What we have here is a double standard in that public figures apparently don’t have that right, unless you toe the party line like Howard Stern or belong to the secular left priesthood like bill Clinton. Most people are perfectly ok with that because most people are driven by ideology. I’m sure that soon no one will have any right to privacy unless they have a good credit score and vote for whoever happens to be in power at the time
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y agoIt's a telling sign really. For everybody in here who is building a startup and is unsure about going tpe to toe with a tech giant. Do not be intimidated, these big organizations are afraid of everything . Favorable press and 'feel good statements' like this become more important than making money. This is true for companies buying ads too, the big automotive companies would absolutely make a fortune both in terms of money and advertisement by having their officially licensed cars in the Grand Theft Auto series, but they are afraid because oohhh the car would be shown with damage, protagonists can shoot at it and from it, they can drive like maniacs killing pedestrians...
- code_runner 3y agoah, the classic car-companies-dont-allow-officially-licensed-cars-in-old-violent-videogame argument for entrepreneurship. tough to argue with!
- vuln 3y agoChatGPT seems to agree. What are we missing? Automotive companies choose to license their cars in racing games like Forza or Gran Turismo for several reasons, while being more hesitant about the Grand Theft Auto series: 1. *Positive Representation*: Racing games are primarily about the celebration of cars, driving, and motorsport. Cars are shown in a positive light, focusing on their performance, design, and history. This aligns well with the image that car manufacturers wish to project. 2. *Brand Image*: Grand Theft Auto, while immensely popular, has themes of crime, violence, and other mature content. Car manufacturers might be hesitant about associating their brands with such content. 3. *Damage and Misuse*: In the GTA series, vehicles can be stolen, damaged extensively, used in criminal activities, or even destroyed. Such depictions might be unappealing to car manufacturers who want to maintain a certain prestige or image for their vehicles. 4. *Target Audience*: Racing games appeal to car enthusiasts and people interested in the automotive world, making them a fitting platform for car manufacturers to showcase their vehicles. 5. *Historical Precedence*: Racing games have a long history of featuring licensed cars, dating back many years. This has established a tradition and trust between game developers and car manufacturers. 6. *Feedback from Fans*: Fans of racing games often expect and appreciate the realism that comes with using licensed cars, whereas the GTA audience might not prioritize this as much. While the potential exposure in a game like GTA might be vast, automotive companies must weigh the benefits against the possible damage to their brand image.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- naasking 3y ago[flagged]
- boffinAudio 3y agoIts really atrocious on so many levels, and speaks to a real ethics issue we, in the West, are ill-prepared to address - first, that he could have gotten away with these alleged actions for so long, atrocity #1, but then - second, that he has had his livelihood completely upended on the basis of unproven allegations which have not yet been confirmed through the legal process that is a core issue in Western moral values, atrocity #2.. "I'm a celebrity, I can get away with this .. " combined with "He's a celebrity and doesn't deserve to make money because of the things he <allegedly> got away with .." makes for one hell of a distorted moral position. Either way, I hope that more people pay attention to the things he's communicating, because it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he's upsetting the power structures that propagate these sexcrime narratives, in the first place ..
- misja111 3y ago> it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he's upsetting the power structures that propagate these sexcrime narratives You're saying that there are 'power structures' that propagate 'these sexcrime narratives'. I'm obviously not casual observer enough because I don't know which power structures you are referring too. Could you please tell a bit more about them?
- andrekandre 3y ago> I don't know which power structures you are referring too. just a guess, but they might be referring to what he (brand) was talking about in his latest video about the accusations
- pauldenton 3y agoSure. Look at how #Metoo handled sexual allegations Then it died when Tara Reade allegations started threatening Joe Bidens power, and the power structure that was propagating #Metoo stopped exerting power and "suddenly everyone stopped caring about #Metoo, it's out of the news cycle"
- snoochyboochies 3y ago[flagged]
- VHRanger 3y agoI'm curious what your definition of "based" is? I imagine it's correlated with peddling conspiratorial nonsense?
- Synaesthesia 3y agoAdvertising companies hate controversy.
- yellow_postit 3y agoNit: Advertisers, or at least those with deep pockets, hate controversy. That drives advertising platforms to hate it. Though the fact that X hasn’t hemorrhaged even more money seems to be finding where that argument intercepts the value for views advertisers will place.
- Overtonwindow 3y agoNay: The Vox Populi hate controversy. Like any cancellation, the masses bombard something demanding a pound of flesh. To avoid controversy and pacify the masses, platforms cave. There is no downside for YouTube demonetizing someone that has been accused of anything. If it turns out to be completely false, then YouTube will say they were acting out of an abundance of caution. If then the exonerated person seeks redress, YouTube can just shrug and say where else are you going to host content?
- lern_too_spel 3y agoThe only ads I see on X these days are from Apple. There used to be more variety.
- smcleod 3y agoI almost only see ads on Twitter/X on the rare occasion I visit it anymore, I very rarely used to.
- LordDragonfang 3y agoReally? I wish I saw Apple ads, I mostly see a barrage of clickbait products that fall somewhere between "late night infomercial" and "obvious scam".
- nvm0n2 3y agoThat isn't it. Advertisers have repeatedly shown a huge willingness to court severe controversy. They use obese people to advertise swimwear, they run ads that tell men that they're toxic and terrible. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gillette-woke-now-when-brands-try-keep-times-n958996 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gillette-woke-now-when-... “These are smart people, they do so much research. They know they’re taking on a topic that could be controversial," said Rob Baiocco, co-founder and chief creative officer of BAM Connection, a New York-based marketing firm. The actual thing motivating these people is simply hatred towards anyone who doesn't bend the knee to their new religion. That's it, that's all there is to it. Beyond that, there is no motivation.
- keiferkif 3y agomost unsurprising cancelation ever. His whole schtick was being an impulsive, out-of-control drug and sex fiend.
- engineer_22 3y agoThat's not what he does on Youtube. His channel is focused on political and social commentary
- jahsome 3y agoWhat are you saying here?
- engineer_22 3y agoOut of control drug sex fiend is not the topic of his YouTube channel.
- jahsome 3y agoHow does that relate to the allegations or OPs comment?
- dazc 3y agoConspiracy nuttery, mostly
- badcppdev 3y agoThe rape allegations are from before he was on Youtube. Some allegations date back to 2003.
- sleepybrett 3y agohis channel is focused on woo and conspiracy.
- user3939382 3y ago
- mistrial9 3y ago[flagged]
- kumarvvr 3y ago[flagged]
- engineer_22 3y agoThat's an attitude the public conscience has long forgot.
- kumarvvr 3y agoI do understand the difficult position Youtube is in. However, this is a dangerous path that we are forging for ourselves. If RB's video content violated the TOS, they would have been deleted long ago. If he put up a video intimidating or threatening violence to the victims, I can understand the issue. But this seems to be something else.
- gdulli 3y ago> So, this is literally, "an allegation is enough" scenario. If you're a private entity without the investigative powers of law enforcement, then public knowledge and your best judgement better be enough, because they're all you have. > Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ? That's a standard of the legal system. Private parties have lesser powers of punishment and investigation, so correspondingly a less strict standard of proof. It would be an abridgement of a private party's freedom to decide, this person is sketchy I don't want to work with them. That's appropriate where protected statuses are involved, but by default there should be freedom.
- cameldrv 3y agoOf course the issue is that Google is not just a “private party” like you or I. It is a 190,000 person organization worth almost 2 trillion dollars. They have a huge market share for monetized video hosting. If there were 100 nearly equally sized video platforms your argument would me much more persuasive, but at YouTube’s size, to me, they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process. If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up.
- ultra_nick 3y ago[flagged]
- engineer_22 3y ago[flagged]
- Pet_Ant 3y agoIt's not a matter of guilt, it's a matter of profitability. If there were advertisers beating down their doors now to get their products placed alongside Russel Brand's face they'd leave him monetised. YouTube is truly neutral here, they are just revenue maximizing, don't mistake this for a moral position. If they make a statement later, it'll be for ROI as well.
- throw310822 3y agoCan't advertisers just explicitly ask not to have their ads run on RB's contents? Why would YT have to take this decision for them?
- Pet_Ant 3y agoWell it's an aggregate. Advertisers don't want to spend money on a platform that allowed Russel Brand to make money. The problem with advertiser's and the public is that platforms are seen as whole. Advertising on the platform is seen as a vague approval of the platform as a whole. There are plenty of rappers monetizing their videos. King Von was never demonetized despite being known to have killed at least 7 people. That is much worse than what Brand is alleged to have done. So this isn't a moral judgement, this is a business decision.
- Overtonwindow 3y agoBut that doesn't quite line up with what is going on. They did not remove his videos, they demonetized them. Youtube is still running ads on Brand's videos, so the content is still being paid for by advertisers. If advertisers were beating down their doors then there would be no advertising on those videos.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoOh god he's going end up broadcasting on Twitter isn't he.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway128128 3y agoHe's already on Rumble, getting paid by Peter Thiel. https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1634153760149602307 https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1634153760149602307
- somenameforme 3y agoSo has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with little to no major influence, is suddenly getting completely cancelled across an entire swath of avenues and platforms, based solely on accusations.
- JohnMakin 3y ago"innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action, this phrase is meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.
- Nextgrid 3y agoMaybe this should be reconsidered when a "private company" controls a large majority of humanity's social fabric and/or popular culture?
- klyrs 3y agoNo, antitrust laws should break them up.
- nova22033 3y agoThe way to reconsider this is to amend the constitution.
- miohtama 3y agoThis is why developer and hacker community should strive to build open networks, and then have them adopted. This was what early internet was like: Usenet, IRC, etc.
- 3y ago
- jahsome 3y agoWhen a channel is demonetized does that mean YouTube doesn't run ads at all on the channel's content, or do they still run ads and just don't pay out the share to the creator?
- realce 3y agoThey're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.
- tmikaeld 3y agoHosting isn't free and they're not forcing anyone to host it there, there are alternative platforms.
- jahsome 3y agoI think it's more curious they're willing to at least imply moral imperative and say "this bad guy can't make money on our platform" but continue to distribute and profit off his content themselves. It's not immediately clear to me which is worse...
- nickthegreek 3y agoWell they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned? I found a page of other unfair practices that google is using to steal our cash: https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent to allow all that has removed the ability from a user user to monetize his videos, but hasn't even silenced him. I don't know if shutting down his channel and removing all the videos (which Google has a legal right to do) would be better.
- jahsome 3y ago
- nimos 3y agoThe Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.
- woooooo 3y agoMatt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016. Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized.
- _mxdo 3y agoIf what they're saying isn't true, why doesn't he just sue them for defamation?
- theironhammer 3y agoIf you're innocent, it's already too late.
- _mxdo 3y agoJust like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard right? Oh wait Depp won, was awarded millions, everyone knew about it, and Amber Heard was mocked & laughed at until she faded off. Why doesn't Brand do what Depp did, if they are just making it all up?
- throw310822 3y agoWhat, are you expecting to do it, like, overnight? Depp's ordeal lasted years. I think in the end he got one million from Amber Heard, after losing maybe 50/ 80 million for movies he was removed from, plus the reputational damage, plus the psychological damage of being considered violent and abusive for years, plus having to go through two trials (one in England, at the end of which Heard's allegations were declared true), etc. Maybe Brand will do exactly what Depp did. But even if after years he turns out to be innocent, the damage- as in Depp's case- will never be undone.
- nickthegreek 3y agoAgreed Benny. The UK printed these allegations, and their defamation laws have a lower bar than the US.
- jstarfish 3y agoBecause they're not inherently lying. Brand has already admitted to banging one claimant who was 16 at the time. He's gross, but this extralegal retconning of all past sexual encounters needs to stop. It's pig-butchering by another name. The excuses for not filing a police report of rape at the time rarely withstand scrutiny. The aggrieved have no problems broadcasting their story on social media, but have every excuse prepared for why they can't formally document it within the statute of limitations in a venue that imposes consequences for lying. Go figure. Heard and Depp were a shitshow though. When two actors take the stand against each other, neither can be trusted. Michael Jackson is a better example.
- mikece 3y agoNo clue whether Brand is innocent or guilty before the law, but if he's exonerated would he have grounds to sue YouTube/Google or do the terms of service allow YouTube to demonetize people based on accusations even if they turn out to be false at a later time?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y agoUnlikely, since uploaders don't really have a contractual relationship with YouTube. Platform operators can just arbitrarily kick people off with no recourse or accountability or even a clear explanation. There's no workaround for this except through regulation, aka government overreach into the free market destroying jobs and freedoms (as objections are usually phrased).
- awb 3y agoSmall nit: YouTube has to adhere to it’s Terms of Service and any other “click to agree” policies. However, those documents and policies are incredibly broad like you mentioned.
- corbezzoli 3y ago> YouTube has to adhere to it’s Terms of Service Which say very clearly that they can kick you off at any time for any reason, similar to those “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” (unless the reason is racism, religion and other protected categories)
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago>regulation, aka government overreach // I think you're mocking those who say this is overreach? But the tone is hard for me to be sure about. In any case, regulation would seem to protect jobs here (jobs of content creators), although what it does to freedoms is much harder to analyse.
- 3y ago
- denton-scratch 3y agoThe swiftness of Youtube's action makes my head spin. /s Brand was kicked off the BBC fifteen years ago, for his disgraceful on-air abuse of Andrew Sachs ("Manuel" from Fawlty) and his daughter. Since then, he's only become more extreme and objectionable.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y agoQuestion to anybody who works in advertisement: Are people less likely to buy Nike apparel because for example Tiger Woods was caught with escorts and drinking booze? I am asking because from a distance it seems not a business decision as much as an opportunity for a CEO to dunk on an athlete/famous person
- beej71 3y agoI'm not an expert, but I'd suspect that people were more likely to buy Nike because they cut Woods loose. Lots of press there.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y agoA sport apparel company abandoning an athlete is the type of press that sells shoes?
- beej71 3y agoI'm just speculating from the "no such thing as bad press" dept.
- kube-system 3y agoBrand image is a complicated concept but it consists of a lot of different pieces over a long period of time that build a public perception. Often, good or bad brand images are not due to any one single thing, but the totality of things that the public knows about a brand. While a single bad apple might not sink a brand, if it starts to become a pattern, it can ruin brand image over time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- swores 3y agoMost people: no. Some people: yes. If Tiger Woods was the only way Nike could think of advertising then they likely would've considered him worth keeping, but when they have so many alternative good options for sponsorships it tips the balance in favour of not sponsoring somebody that even 0.1% of your customers might think badly of you for.
- coldtea 3y ago[flagged]
- mikhailfranco 3y agoHe was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many years in that 90s-00s period. He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were, and continue to be, illegal in the UK; perhaps sex-addicts are always close to the edge of criminality. However, all those potential crimes are a long time ago. The police and his accusers have chosen to stay silent for a long time. Some potentially self-incriminating stories have come from his own rehabilitation narrative. It remains to be seen if the accusations can be upheld in a court of law, but the timing is suspicious. It is only after a few years of criticizing the MSM and government overreach that someone has decided to dig up those old potential offences. I do not like Brand's act or lifestyle. He always appeared to be (and gloried in) the persona of a silver-tongued charismatic saviour, a hippy version of a loquacious Renaissance Jesus, complete with long hair and (now salt'n'pepper) beard. However, the timing remains interesting, and I suspect, not coincidental with his rising anti-establishment fame - not to mention a YT pot of money to attract plaintiffs and their lawyers. There is a fading tide of cancel culture, perhaps Brand will be just become some flawed flotsam or jetsam on that ebbing swell.
- coldtea 3y ago>He was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many years in that 90s-00s period And even as such, had no complaints against him who bothered to go to the police and file/sue, not even at the height of me-too. Then only things I've read are things like "he make lewd comments". Then, on 2019 (? and they release now?) they get anonymous accusations, and even those to the press, not the police (the police merely says they are aware of "media reporting of a series of allegations"), from what the news say, for things that cannot be really verified aside from he-said/she-said anymore over 10 or 15 years after. >He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were, and continue to be, illegal in the UK Well, if he was investigated (by the police, not the press, like now) for drug use that would be relevant (even though still suspicious due to the timing and the focus on some individual where close to a million people use illegal drugs in the UK every day). >It is only after a few years of criticizing the MSM and government overreach that someone has decided to dig up those old potential offences And also where he's a nice "thought crime" target for all mainstream media types.
- GaryNumanVevo 3y agoCurrent events aside, kinda insane how a Youtube channel with 6.6 million subscribers can get less than 500k views on a month old video
- sakopov 3y agoNot really insane because it's not evergreen content.
- resoluteteeth 3y agoI don't think it's unusual for creators who put out videos on various topics extremely frequently when most of their subscribers aren't watching every video. It basically just means that the average subscriber is watching ~2 of his videos a month.
- mrguyorama 3y agoYoutube turned subscription numbers into a gameable metric for some time, so they got heavily inflated, so then Youtube basically made them meaningless. Youtube rarely even shows your subscribers your new videos nowadays, and for many creators, subscribers are about 20% or less of their total views.
- ToDougie 3y agoI'm subscribed to hundreds of channels, and I rarely see their content in my feed. It is so bizarre.
- resoluteteeth 3y agoIn general it seems like if you keep ignoring videos from a given channel you're subscribed to, they will stop appearing most of the time in the default view despite the fact that you are subscribed, although they'll still appear if you go to the "subscriptions" view. Basically in the default view I'm not sure it even makes much difference whether you're actually subscribed to a given channel or not; it seems like it's more about whether or not you've viewed the channel's videos recently.
- sleepybrett 3y agoI thought he was 100% rumble already.
- modzu 3y ago[flagged]
- camhart 3y agoX/twitter is going to explode (in user count) if other platforms continue behaving this way.
- jimnotgym 3y agoThis is difficult for me. I'm not pro censorship, but I would like a way to not have to hear about Russell Brand at all. Is that possible? I don't want to hear from him or about him. I don't want to hear from people that like him. I didn't want to hear Radio 4 talking about it this morning. I don't want to stop his free speech, I just want to avoid him
- jimnotgym 3y agoInteresting...I didn't expect my weird meta comment about how celebrity 'news' has become Real News to be quite so unpopular!
- nsajko 3y agoAll kinds of vote manipulation are possible, don't take the downvoting to heart.
- Manuel_D 3y ago> I'm not pro censorship, but I would like a way to not have to hear about Russell Brand at all. Is that possible? Yes: don't watch his videos and don't read or watch news coverage about him.
- jimnotgym 3y agoIf only...I have never watched his videos or read about him. I don't read tabloid news. I don't watch TV news. I only listen to 'serious' radio news stations. Yet somehow I know all about this story
- Manuel_D 3y agoBecause you aren't adherering to the above comment: you are reading stories about him, in fact you're also posting in the comment sections in said stories.
- 3y ago
- iandanforth 3y ago[flagged]
- robertlagrant 3y ago[flagged]
- tjrgergw 3y agoI have an incredible sleaze radar. The first 10 seconds I saw this guy some 10 years ago I immediately knew he was a disgusting guy.
- c7DJTLrn 3y agoWhat happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
- tjrgergw 3y agoI'm not a court of law. I can say whatever I want. What happened to freedom of speech?
- corinroyal 3y agoIt stayed where it belonged--out of conversations on the social consequences of rape allegations.
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago...anyone else on your radar we should know about (before the allegations start)? How often have you been in/ correct?
- tjrgergw 3y agoFrankly I can't tell you anyone off the top of my mind, since this isn't a subject I find interesting enough to bother keeping a list. There also aren't that many "celebrities" that I'm aware of. I guess you're doubting that I would've said what I said before the allegations started. There's nothing you I can do prove anything to you.
- c7DJTLrn 3y agoPutting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of his videos a few years ago and they were interesting discussions of the news with a particular emphasis on questioning everything which I see as a healthy habit. Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait videos were getting double the views. YouTube's algorithm plays a massive part in what goes into people's heads and they should be held more accountable.
- wilg 3y agoIs it even "the algorithm" or is it simply just how people prefer to click crazy shit? We see it with news and pretty much anything else where clicks equal money.
- HenryBemis 3y ago"The algorithm" and/or the people behind it noticed that if User1 watches VideoA and then we show him B-C-D, he stays on the platform for 10 minutes. BUT when we showed a User2 the videos X-Y-Z (after videoA), then User2 stayed "engaged" for 3 hours. And the new sequence was just established. The 'machine' is constantly doing A/B and other tests, and it learns, adapts, and continues. The machine just learns what people like and feeds it to them. We can't blame the machine for giving the users what they want.. can we? :)
- madeofpalk 3y agoSome of "the algorithm" is a person at youtube making a concious decision to make "the algorithm" prioritise, for example, longer videos.
- josefx 3y agoI think the algorithm simply suffers the same problem as googles search algorithm: it was gamed years ago. I usually have to block a dozen or so of crazy or low effort content farms for every type of content I watch on youtube and after that the recommendations seem mostly acceptable.
- mrmincent 3y agoSexual assault is a serious allegation. In most media channels if an employee is accused of sexual assault they would be stood down and an investigation launched. He’s lucky they’re still giving him a platform to use.
- arpowers 3y agoWhile sexual assault is serious if true, it's also the only crime that can ruin someone's life and livelihood with no evidence or actual crime taking place. Additionally there is often large financial incentive for accusers (and their lawyers) via lawsuits and it serves as a fantastic method of hurting people politically even if they are exonerated.
- curiousllama 3y ago> While sexual assault is serious if true, it's also the only crime that can ruin someone's life and livelihood with no evidence or actual crime taking place. This is true. Along with this, it's important to note that there is, in fact, a significant amount of high-quality evidence about this particular allegation (some of which is contemporaneous to the assault itself). I'd also note that failing to believe & punish a true/credible allegation is itself an abhorrent act. There's no easy defaults in a situation like this: it's A Very Bad Thing to be incorrect in either direction.
- ShamelessC 3y agoNot that I’m curious to watch that evidence myself, and I trust you’re taking the truth but can you clarify what high quality evidence means here?
- curiousllama 3y agoRecords from a rape clinic one woman went to shortly afterwards, indirect witnesses (e.g., someone who heard one of the women screaming from outside Brand's home during the assault), and exchanges shortly after the fact alluding to the assault (including by Brand). There are apparently many other allegations, but four have relevant supporting evidence. Here's a summary: https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/9/18/23878706/russell-brand-sexual-assault-allegations https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/9/18/23878706/russell-brand...
- wilg 3y agoSeems like there should be guidelines for what you can and cannot do to get YouTube monetization (that people can squabble over). Seems very ad-hoc to do it this way. It surprises me that being accused of a crime would be a good or fairly enforced rule.
- droptablemain 3y agoAnonymous allegations from more than a decade ago, procured by a fishing reporter, should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves. This is absurd, regardless of whether the accusations are ultimately true or not. Beyond the absurdity, this is tyrannical. Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. There's simply very little of substance here.
- sneak 3y agoHis means of supporting himself has not been cancelled, just his ability to get paid from YouTube. Don't conflate them.
- newsclues 3y agoThere are people whose main income is YouTube and if YouTube can do this to famous people, surely they can do it to smaller creators who are paying their bills with YouTube money. Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.
- turquoisevar 3y agoThe precedent has already been established well before YouTube made this decision. In most places in the US you can lose your livelihood for any reason or no reason at all, safe for protected classes. I’d rather see this energy be used to end fire at will and protect employees in general from losing their livelihood on a whim than to use this to pander to celebrities with questionable pasts under the guise of “it could happen to you!”
- sneak 3y agoLosing one job is not remotely close to losing your livelihood. They didn't saw off his hands, they demonetized him. He can go do stage shows or wash dishes or something if he wants to eat. He's famous and popular, he has a million ways of making an income. People are acting like YouTube robbed him of something he was owed. They did no such thing.
- FlopadongCassD 3y ago[flagged]
- pengaru 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_brand#Sexual_misconduct_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_brand#Sexual_misconduc...
- zapdrive 3y agoI wish there was a viable alternative to everything Google (search, youtube, android, maps to name a few). I can't wait for Elon to buy Google and end this BS.
- freediver 3y agoI think there is (for search at least, I may be biased), the question is are we ready to pay for it, or we expect the same business model as Google's (ad-tech) to somehow produce a better product for its users?
- jalino23 3y agothis is your solution? for Elon to buy Google?
- logicchains 3y agoBing, Rumble, Apple, Apple Maps?
- shustovd 3y ago[flagged]
- user3939382 3y ago[flagged]
- karaterobot 3y ago> “If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,” the spokeswoman said. Putting aside the validity of the accusations—let's say he did everything he's accused of, for the sake of argument—is Youtube alleging that he assaulted Youtube employees, app developers who use the Youtube ecosystem, or Youtube users? I assume the latter. But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean? I have no dog in this fight, Russell Brand's fate is not of interest to me. I'm just wondering about the argument they are making, and how broad it seems. If any alleged crime takes place wherein the victim has watched at least one Youtube video at some point in their life, and the perpetrator has a monetized Youtube channel, will Youtube's policy be to step in and protect the victim? For example, if I am YT creator and I punch someone in a bar, and that someone has a Youtube subscription, does Youtube step in? That feels like the kind of policy that cannot be faithfully and objectively executed, which makes it a bad policy and a potential legal vulnerability for Youtube.
- sneak 3y agoYouTube is like HR - they are there to protect the company and the company's revenue streams, not you or "the community". This is why I think the term "community guidelines" for "censorship policy" is such abusive gaslighting. It's unilateral censorship, not community, and they are rules, not guidelines. It's the same deceptive drive that renamed "searching your bag" to "security screening" at airports.
- pydry 3y agoIn this case it looks like theyre essentially just keeping his money because they decided to.
- brk 3y agoI mostly agree but my argument against “rules” is that these things never seem to be unilaterally enforced. So it really is more like a guideline because enforcement is unpredictable in several aspects.
- tjrgergw 3y agohttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-3019301/Video-Russell-Brand-jokes-raped-killed-after.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-3019301/V...
- ammonammon 3y ago[flagged]
- threeseed 3y agoExcept that Brand hasn't been censored. His videos are still online.
- zo1 3y agoOf course it has, and we all know it. He's now been proven to be "that guy who had rape accusations" by "multiple women". Or the "controversial figure known for his wild antics and potentially non consensual dealings with women in the past". It's all just the start of a large machine thats been set in motion. Every news outlet that doesn't like him or doesn't want to portray him in a neutral or positive light will use this. They'll never say anything that can be factually proven wrong. This allows them to have selective bias which drives an agenda and is steering the thoughts of their readers into a specific direction.
- GenericPoster 3y agoWhat an absolutely deranged comment. Putting aside the fact that you're going up to bat for some random guy that you don't personally know. Instead of listening to the testimonies, let it go to court and then make a judgement. But the thought of preemptively supporting a stranger that's been accused of rape is actually insane. And if news outlets don't want to work with him then they can just stop inviting him to things. They don't need to accuse him of anything. Just stop giving him roles and he's out of the spotlight. He'll fade away into obscurity. Take your meds and get off the internet for a bit.
- threeseed 3y agoThis is the kind of delusional thinking that just doesn't work in the real world. Because in the real world there are defamation laws. There are serious consequences for news organisations that publish accusations that are not able to be corroborated. Especially so when the claims are so significant i.e. multiple rape/sexual assaults. Which is why despite apparently everyone in the comedy and entertainment industries knowing this was going on for 20+ years no allegations have made their way into the media.
- nothatscool 3y agoWhen YouTube does this it means that they tacitly endorse the behaviour of everyone who is currently monetised at the moment. I’m sure it would be easy to find many monetised channels with similar allegations as well as people who have actually been convicted of crimes. Edit: for example, someone like Chris Brown is convicted of domestic abuse as well as accused of many other incidents. He appears to be monetised on youtube. >If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action. So why does this apply to Russell Brand but not to Chris Brown who is convicted of violence against another YouTube user? It must mean that youtuber endorses the behaviour and criminal activity of Chris Brown.
- crazygringo 3y agoI think "endorse" is far too strong of a word. No, YT isn't "endorsing" Chris Brown. But it certainly raises the question of YT being arbitrarily punitive. Rather than endorsing, it ignores certain allegations while demonetizing others.
- dmix 3y agoIt’s never been that arbitrary at YouTube though. Pretty easy to spot patterns. It’s very obvious that it’s a small motivated human group doing this, not just a faceless process protecting their profits using some hyper capitalist risk projection with advertisers, where the news cycle comes in and the outputs go out.
- Tokumei-no-hito 3y agoBecause chris brown isn’t making anti-establishment content. It’s selectively applied and curiously both the accusations (10+ years old) and this fallout occur right around the start of election season. If his content was on the other side of the aisle he’d be defended not demonetized.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Capricorn2481 3y ago
- ministryoftruth 3y ago[flagged]
- pipeline_peak 3y agoAfter the sexual assault, allegations do you really think people will care what Russell thinks?
- swores 3y agoCertainly among his existing fanbase (and others), there will be some who believe his denials and claims that there's a conspiracy against him, and there will be others who despite believing the accusations think there's nothing wrong with rape and that he should still be admired for all the sex he's had. Hopefully neither of those groups will be a large number of people, but they'll certainly be more than a couple of people.
- Supply5411 3y agoThis reads like you're saying its a bad thing to prove the existence of these manipulative power structures because it happens to make someone more credible. Like "No, no, power structures, stay hidden, you're only helping him."
- rcarr 3y agoThe mainstream media are trying to frame the argument as Russell Brand is a sex offender and that his mainstream media critiques are thus null and void as a result. Personally, I find it more likely that he is both a sex offender* and he is also right about it being a targeted mainstream media attack. It's absolutely laughable seeing the BBC, The Guardian and particularly Channel4 amongst others trying to wash their hands of this when they practically encouraged all of this behaviour and created the 00s indie hedonistic culture from scratch with shows like Skins as well as encouraging his antics on Big Brother's Big Mouth. It's weird reading all of this as someone who was a teenager from the era who idolised Brand and other indie scene figures like Pete Doherty. I remember reading about Brand dating Peaches Geldoff in the paper but didn't realise how young she was and how old he was in comparison. I think I assumed he was in his 20s and assumed she was in late teens or twenties based on the fact the tabloid press showed them stumbling out of nightclubs together and no-one seemed to be batting an eyelid. Though looking back I, and many others, were sneaking in to nightclubs all the time underage with fake IDs. It still goes on to this day and parents just seem to accept it as normal part of growing up and even a celebrated and encouraged rite of passage but maybe we should be having a more serious conversation about it. I don't go out anymore, but in my 20s bouncers definitely seemed to be taking checking IDs a lot more serious than they did when I was 17 so at least that's a start. It wasn't uncommon in the 00s for school girls to be dating older guys who were no longer at school, Arctic Monkeys even wrote a song about it (Bigger Boys And Stolen Sweethearts) but someone over 30 dating a 16 year old definitely would have been considered weird and the fact the mainstream media wasn't batting an eyelid at it is damning. Why the Brand stuff is headline news but I've not seen a single mainsteam media article calling for the legal age to have sex to be raised to 18 is ridiculous. Teenagers are going to fuck regardless, but no-one is going to prosecute a 17 year old and a 15 year old having a relationship, and the police are smart enough not to waste time on an 18 year old and a 17 year old having a relationship but at least you then have a mechanism to protect 16 year olds from getting groomed like this. It also made me sad to find out that another of my indie heroes, Noel Fielding, was also doing the same thing - dating a 16 year old Pixie Geldoff when he was 33. I'm not justifying any of Brand's actions, he has to take responsibility for what he's done especially if there was no consent, but he's quite obviously a people pleaser and he wouldn't have done half the stuff he did if it wasn't for the mainstream media and the culture they created around him. People are trying to use old videos of him flirting with celebrities on talkshows to damn him and disregarding the fact that the entire audience is laughing and clearly signalling that the culture at large was OK with what he was doing. Stuff like Google demonetising Brand's videos just make me believe even more that at least some element of this is a targeted MSM culture war attack to take him down, even if a justified one. The problem is that at some point it's also going to take down people who don't deserve it - in fact it's no doubt already happened. I've read several mainstream articles where Jordan Peterson's ideas are completely misrepresented and character assassinated in a way that is completely unjustified. I agree with some of the things he says and I also disagree with others but there seems to be absolute no nuance or tolerance in the mainstream media any more, it's all tribalism - either you're good or you're bad and if you even agree with part of what one of the "bad" people say then you must be one of the bad ones. I honestly can't even debate any of Jordan Peterson's ideas with some people I know, even the ideas I dislike, because mentioning his name is like saying Voldemort and he's "The One Who Should Not Be Named". Mainstream media outlets clearly have agendas and will go after people who speak out against them and will use anything at their disposal to do it. It's completely ridiculous. *Obviously I would prefer for this to actually be settled in a court of law with evidence rather than public opinion, but the text message exchange and the rape clinic visit do look quite damning which is why I'm currently inclined to believe that at least that allegation is looking more likely than not on the face of it, even if some of the others turn out to be false.
- JacobThreeThree 3y agoLike every social media platform the "community guidelines" are written to be purposely subjective and vague, such that the enforcement of the guidelines can be done arbitrarily, per the whim of the company and their agents.
- djbusby 3y agoNot just social media. Stripe and Square have similar wiggle-room and it's a demonization felt pretty directly. Amazon, Etsy and others - their policies give room to pick and choose winners - and change policy on a whim - and apply it inconsistently. Corporate Overlords don't have to engage on Rights - it's all in the Privilege realm.
- withinboredom 3y agoI worked at a (big) company when they changed their policy to include this vagueness. It was all over this guy spreading mass disinformation and conspiracy theories that were actively harmful. There was a lot of discussion about “yeah, I agree this is bad… but, this is a slippery slope,” and “how can you think we should let him use OUR platform to do this,” type arguments. We were a privately held company at the time, and this is what the owner wanted to do. So we changed the terms. I felt like the T&S team (trust and safety) sighed a huge sigh of relief because they were having to deal with advertisers and bereft families complaining. Anyway, it became a very heavy hammer that was very rarely used except in extreme circumstances. I imagine not every company uses it as sparingly but it’s a much needed clause to deplatform certain kinds of charismatic people who are harmful to humanity. I don’t know anything about this particular case, nor do I want to know even a TL;DR. I’m just here for the comments and your comment chain struck a nerve.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoNature of the allogations aside, isn't this what possibly happened to Brand? He spoke things that many wished went unsaid. Eventually the "terms & conditions" were tweaked so to speak and now the critic is silenced, marginalized and humiliated. Of all the targets to pick, why Brand? Why now?
- mpsprd 3y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20230919111212/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/19/arts/russell-brand-youtube.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230919111212/https://www.nytim...
- agentgumshoe 3y agoWow so much focus in the comments on the individual instead of YouTube's ability to randomly remove whoever they dislike, reminding us of the problems with large corporate companies controlling essentially public services. Just imagine if Tencent decided to buy YouTube from Google, would get real interesting.
- Tokkemon 3y agoWhy do I have to waste brain space on this absurd hypothetical?
- agentgumshoe 3y agoIt's impossible, yes? Let's see what happens next US election as a good start, I can't imagine what becomes 'misonformation' or 'harmful,' no matter which party wins. And still you wasted brain space to respond, very witty.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y agoThey bought Reddit. YouTube was bleeding Google's profits for a long time at least (is it still? I don't actually know). It's not exactly absurd, just extremely unlikely.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- leptons 3y ago> controlling essentially public services. Youtube is not and never was a "public service". It's their platform and they are free to do with it as they want, with very little exception. It's not any different than a mom and pop store having a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign and enforcing that. It's their store, it's private property, it's their rules.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoI get that, and I've been in the camp warning people of that many times, but I think it's an interesting situation where so much essentially public data is on a private platform. What happens if YouTube shuts down tomorrow? A, would society accept it and B, would they be bailed out? For the latter, what happens next? Honestly, I would not be against one of these massive services failing spectacularly to 'teach us a lesson' about trusting all our important things to private corps.
- seydor 3y agoGoogle is not a monopoly. Youtube is not a monopoly. Google ads is not a monopoly.
- ovao 3y agoI don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to argue that YouTube has an effective monopoly in the video sharing space. Yes, there are certainly other platforms — Vimeo, Rumble, etc. — but purely in terms of reachability, YouTube absolutely holds near-absolute reign here. Trying to effectively monetize video content on other platforms, from what I understand, is extremely unlikely for the vast majority of creators. And while there’s a valid counter-argument in some of the numbers creators on X have put up (e.g., Tucker Carlson), those are really the exceptional cases. I could see Brand going straight over to X, but I don’t know if that’s sufficient to really argue that YouTube isn’t effectively a monopoly in the space.
- dadjoker 3y agoGuilty until proven innocent.
- WesternWind 3y agoIt's not like he's poor or anything.
- cmiles74 3y agoDid I read this correctly? It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. That doesn't seem right to me. If they were to cease hosting his material, that would maych their corporate-speak blurb. This sounds to me like more money for YouTube.
- JacobThreeThree 3y agoMy understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.
- znpy 3y agoStill keeping the engaged users though. Such users will see ads on other videos. So they’re still making profits off someone else’s work (without retribution)
- pseudosavant 3y agoYT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. They just don't share in the take with the creator. What a principled stance... "I will make even more money because you did something bad somewhere else!"
- fallingknife 3y agoWell so much for the "we censor because of the advertisers demands" excuse for their censorship then.
- ThatPlayer 3y agoThere's a bit more nuance to that. Some advertisers can choose to put ads on videos that are labelled undesirable. But because there's less advertiser demand for ads on such videos, they're generally very cheap.
- aa1234556 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Ecko123 3y ago[dead]
- nikau 3y agoSeems like ad revenue should go into a trust, if he is found innocent it gets paid to him, if guilty it goes to victim compensation or related charity.
- vuln 3y agoBut if he stops publishing to YouTube that will be held against him. He puts out less shows or ad revenue drops due to boycott it will be spun as “Brand is stealing from his victims/charity” it seems extreme but these days someone will spin it such a way.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- croes 3y agoI don't know his channel, did he spread conspiracy theories and misinformation on it too? So it's only a problem if you allegedly assault people?
- rcarr 3y agoThe amount of comments on this that are getting flagged whilst meeting the guidelines is making me question the state of HN as a platform for rational good faith debate. Has tribalism really took over here too?
- judge2020 3y agoHave some examples? The few I see are things like victim-blaming (37576676 37576735) or just "innocent until proven guilty" which adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
- bluedays 3y agoYour observation underscores a fundamental challenge in public discourse: determining which contributions substantively further a conversation. While the repeated mentions of "innocent until proven guilty" or instances that may appear as victim-blaming can feel redundant or unproductive to some, for others, these comments might encapsulate deeply held beliefs or concerns. Recognizing this, it's crucial to appreciate the multiplicity of perspectives. However, true progress in any debate relies on a collective willingness to delve deeper, to move beyond surface-level assertions and to engage with the nuanced complexities of the issue at hand. Dismissing certain viewpoints as merely "adding nothing" can inhibit this deeper exploration. We should endeavor to foster an environment where contributors feel empowered to expand upon their initial sentiments, illuminating the reasons behind them. Only then can we bridge understanding and foster a richer, more productive dialogue.
- yieldcrv 3y agoThere should be an insurance product for this
- bluedays 3y agoWhile it's not my place to adjudicate his innocence or guilt, the decisions by platforms like YouTube and the BBC to immediately curtail his revenue streams are ethically contentious. Such actions, rooted in the pursuit of reputational safety for these organizations, inadvertently presuppose guilt, potentially skewing public perception and compromising the accused's ability to muster an adequate defense, particularly in terms of securing robust legal representation. For high-profile figures like Brand, while the financial impact may be substantial, they often have other resources at their disposal. However, for smaller creators, who might be living on the edge, this could be devastating. We need to remember that behind every headline are real people with real lives. Ensuring fairness and empathy in our responses, especially when the stakes are this high, is crucial.
- bluedays 3y agoBefore reflexively expressing disagreement through a downvote, I invite and encourage a thoughtful discourse on the matter. It's disheartening to observe dissent without accompanying dialogue, as meaningful engagement fosters mutual understanding and growth.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago[flagged]
- bluedays 3y agoI find that intellectual engagement often makes for the most memorable soirées. Perhaps you'd like an invite next time?
- palmer_fox 3y agoWhat you express is so perfectly reasonable that the downvotes are likely just an emotional reaction, not something people would be able to articulate clearly as a logical argument.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- barelysapient 3y agoAh, the old "guilty until proven innocent". And it pads the pockets of shareholders. That's what we call a win win.
- georgespencer 3y agoYouTube is not a court and Brand has not been found guilty of anything. YouTube is enforcing its ToS, which Brand freely agreed to when he chose to begin using their platform to post his conspiracy theories. > And it pads the pockets of shareholders YouTube runs adverts on videos which are not part of the partnership program, but it is unclear (as far as I can see from this thread) whether they run adverts on de-monetised videos. Do you have a source either way? In any case, YouTube did $29.9 billion of revenue in FY2022. The Guardian estimated that Brand's YouTube videos, of which there are five per week, likely gross him (pre-tax) in the order of $5,000. That's around $1.3m a year. So yes, if YouTube is still running ads against Brand's YouTube videos then "the shareholders" are benefitting from an additional $1.3m per year which would otherwise have been paid out to Brand, but now that you know the aggregate benefit to YouTube constitutes 0.000044% of the service's annual revenue, I'm curious as to whether you think this had any bearing whatsoever on the decision to demonetise him, in line with their Terms of Service?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tomohawk 3y agoSmells like a class action lawsuit to me. The class is anyone who has been demonetized, and yet youtube/google is still profiting off of them, when no due process has been applied. Google doesn't get to be judge, jury, and executioner.
- TheCaptain4815 3y agoLet’s go down the list of rappers and professional athletes and see how much harm they’ve caused women. Once again, another coincidence in which side of the political aisle gets censored.
- CapricornNoble 3y agoDon't forget to add male feminists to the list. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/when-men-claim-to-be-feminists-just-to-abuse-women-20170314-guxt14.html https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/when-men-claim-to-be-femini... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/schneiderman-abuse-feminist-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/schneiderman-abus...
- random6754478 3y agoThey get a free pass as long as they stay on the plantation.
- aCoreyJ 3y agoI don't get it, do they have monetized YouTube channels?
- TheCaptain4815 3y agoThey are all part of organizations / corporations which have monetized channels, yes. You think if Russell Brand joined up with a company he’d get a free pass all of a sudden? They’d just ban the entire company.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- brokenmachine 3y agoYouTube, World police. YouTube will still share his videos, but keep the ad revenue. Thanks so much for protecting us, YouTube. I guess I'd rather it this way because I hate it when videos are removed, but it just seems inconsistent.
- StrangeSmells01 3y agoKevin Spacey was just acquitted of all charges in a court of law...but he was tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion. Russel Brand hasn't even been to COURT yet....
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoElon has settled out of court to silence misconduct allegations. Surely Google will stick to their principles and demonetize all content featuring him and others since a conviction in court is apparently not necessary?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shadowtree 3y agoHuge opportunity for X to continue to become the safe haven for "cancelled" content. Tucker Carlson, etc.
- WiSaGaN 3y agoI am not sure how long X can keep doing this. Elon is under tremendous pressure from the establishment. It's likely that he will either align with Facebook and YouTube's policies or be compelled to relinquish control of X.
- georgespencer 3y agoPerhaps a moral opportunity if you believe that people credibly accused of and under investigation for rape (Brand) or spreading white supremacist dog whistle conspiracy theories (Carlson) is a moral imperative. Not such a great opportunity when you consider that the audience for this sort of content is poorly-educated, credulous, reactionary, and anathema to advertisers who can actually support the businesses behind the platforms. This is the most surprising thing about Elon's lurch to the right: it has already cost him c.40% of Twitter's ad revenue because, huge surprise, nobody wants to be associated with conspiracy theorists even when they aren't rapists or racists.
- decremental 3y agoTo say the kinds of things you're saying betrays that you just blindly believe whatever you're told. How can you say that and then seemingly unaware go on to call others credulous and poorly-educated? It's remarkable.
- georgespencer 3y ago> the kinds of things you're saying Be much more specific, please.
- andrei_says_ 3y agoOr even an exclusive, paid platform - like Rogan on Spotify. One I’d be doubly happy to continue not paying for.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoOff-topic, I think, writing this down to see if the logic is sound: If YouTube can demonetise a content creator at the discretion of YouTube (because they can), then surely it follows that an individual can de-monetise a content creator at their own discretion (because they can). A platform demonetising someone is surely of much greater impact than an individual doing it. A platform owns their platform, from which the content is being delivered and so their discretion is justification enough. An individual owns the hardware and bandwidth upon and through which the content is being played, and so their discretion is justification enough. Am I performing the mental gynastics of denial to make that leap? Part of the differentiation I'm making in using the word "discretion" is that it's not illegal content that's being demonetised. Agree or disagree or find it as morally reprehensible as you feel the need to, the content itself (the very thing being demonetised) is not illegal. And, in fact, had been happily monetised for the past however long.
- crmd 3y agoI’m not following…what would it mean in practice if I, as an individual, decided to demonetize him?
- artificialLimbs 3y agoIt means you don’t watch or block the content.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoThe way I intended to frame it, into your sentence: "It means you block the monetisation component of the content"
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoSorry, I didn't realise I didn't mention the context of my thought process: ad blocking. The content remains, but the monetisation does not.
- fortran77 3y agoThere are no actual charges against him. Nobody has said under oath that anything has happened. The most recent allegation is for something that happened 10 years ago. I'm of the opinion (and I know the law disagrees with me in the U.S.) that you should not be able to bring charges against someone for a non capital offense, where all the evidence is he-said/she-said. a decade after the event happend. Our memories just aren't good enough for that.
- Capricorn2481 3y agoThat's all well and good, but it's weird to see automatically HN conclude that people distancing themselves from Brand are overreacting to a few allegations and not the more likely scenario: that there are more stories like this of Brand and it's been an open secret in entertainment for years. Since these accusations, several famous people who have worked with him have come out with stories consistent with this behavior. Could it all be untrue, and there's some kind of witch hunt on Brand? I guess, but if it truly was an open secret, it makes perfect sense that people would distance themselves from him now when it comes out to the public.
- gorgoiler 3y agoNo one has the right to win the popularity contest of celebrity. If the world wants to turn their back on you then you cannot force them not to. It would be as foolish as feeling aggrieved about not winning an election (an example that’s hard to use nowadays.)
- fortran77 3y agohUH? I'd have the same opionion against some poor non-celebrity if someone were to make he-said/she-said charges a decade later. Even if it were to happen to you!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rabbits_2002 3y agothen ban him instead of taking his money you cant claim the moral high ground while profiting off them
- 99_00 3y agoIt's probably just a coincidence that Brand is one of the biggest names and promotors of YouTube competitor Rumble.
- m3kw9 3y agoThey way they semi-cancel brand by getting all his profit is simply policy that increases profit while looking like the good guy
- throwll 3y ago[flagged]
- throwll 3y agoYouTube let's scammers to use their platform willingly.. these guys are evil pretending to be great humanists
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoYeah, whenever I mistakenly use the ad-ridden normal youtube app / website, I'm inundated with ads for investment scams and get-rich-quick-selling-ebooks-on-amazon scams and various other things that just would not pass television advertising standards. It's so strange that this is some kind of acceptable default behaviour.
- Cypher 3y agoSounds like another 2016 mass cancel culture event
- EGreg 3y agoSounds like they don’t want Russell damaging their Brand…
- oblib 3y agoPersonally I don't think YouTube should have any restrictions on who they let use their platform. If I started a platform for Bluegrass musicians to upload their music and someone started uploading videos of shooting guns I should be able to cut them off without any interference at all. And they should be able to start their own website that lets folks upload videos of people shooting their guns. YouTube is pretty liberal in the range of content they allow. They didn't boot Brand off the platform, the just quit paying him for using it. That doesn't bother me a bit.
- jongjong 3y agoYouTube is a scam. The SEC needs to shut them down. The government needs to seize it without compensation and nationalize it such that it can be run in a legal, non-discriminatory way which is consistent with the principles of democracy which made it possible for YouTube to exist in the first place. Surely that's the last straw. Nationalize YouTube.
- akira2501 3y agoI'd sooner nationalize the network they abuse rather than their business and all the attendant problems it's collected over the past two decades. The internet has been monopolized and we're all poorer for it.
- TheGigaChad 3y ago[dead]
- technick 3y agoI think some of the things coming out of Russel Brand is lunacy, however I'm also 10000% against censorship. Youtube stepping against Russel Brand is virtue signalling at it's finest, when Russel Brand has not been convicted of any crimes. A small group of people can claim X did something evil against them, and Youtube will run with it blindly.
- tibbydudeza 3y agoIt is pretty clear considering his past behavior and own admissions to the effect he was lewd drug addict and turned a new leaf a few years back. But justice must still take it's course - even decades later - the truth will no doubt come out during the investigation. What is maddening is his cult on YouTube who did not bother to watch the documentary and the testimony of the accusers before jumping all in to defend him.
- wtcactus 3y agoIn the name of consistency, YouTube must now demonitize anyone that is accused of any crime by anyone else.
- fieldbob 3y agoGuilty with contaminating earth human consciousness with propaganda designed to cause conflict fear and doubt
- epolanski 3y agoSo Youtube is now judge, jury and executioner.
- dusted 3y agoI don't have any opinion on his guilt, that is for the court to decide. However, I do believe it's wrong to start sanctioning people for a crime they've not yet been found guilty of.
- yungporko 3y agomore importantly, they've not even been charged for. personally i'd be surprised if the guy wasn't a rapist, he spent a decade virtually admitting it and acting like one, but it's absolutely fucked that that all somebody (person, newspaper, content creator, whatever) needs to do to completely and permanently take away someone's livelihood is call them a rapist on the internet. our society is irreparably broken at this point, there's no coming back from any of this.
- xchip 3y agoJust by being accused with no proofs? Bad YouTube.
- bjpless 3y agoAs a disclaimer, I’m not a Brand content consumer and I’m also not commenting on the validity of the claims. I’m aware that he’s a popular populist and the slippery slope is obvious here, independent of the particulars of the specific case. The playbook to silence a relatively loud political voice is now obvious from the YT response. It is a given that cynical actors on all sides will evolve to further exploit this strategy, especially so if accusers do not have to testify under oath. YouTube, on a common sense basis, should have recognized that political reality today and tred more carefully — much more so than for a travel influencer, for example. The long term game theory here, like brand boycotts, is hopefully that the exploitation of this strategy by all political players would lead to the strategy losing power due to general fatigue and whataboutisms.
- ngetchell 3y agoI don't think "loud political voices" have the right to make money off of YT. YT seems generous to keep Brand on the platform during this odd period between accusation and conviction.
- bjpless 3y agoI’m not raising a question about his rights or generosity. He and other independent political pundits have large audiences and as a result generate valuable content for the platform. If the game theory above plays out and cynical actors act cynically, it will ultimately hurt YT in the long term run and drive users to other platforms (I’d assume Twitter). I think YT may be opening a can of worms for themselves.
- noam_compsci 3y agoI don’t see what YT did wrong here even remotely. It’s their platform. There is no right to access. It’s not a public place. The hard core libertarians who say that Brands “free speech” is being reduced… well YT has freedom too and they should be free to deplatform. We have freedom from government oppression but when you are on someone else’s property, you should have no/low rights.
- Slava_Propanei 3y agoA lunch counter cannot limit its customers- it is a public space. But a global peer-to-peer communication platform is NOT a public space. Curious.
- soundnote 3y agoThere apparently were letters sent by the UK Parliament to politely inquire if Brand is able to earn money on the recipient's platform. No requests or threats of course, oh no, just asking... https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118 https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118