5 ms·

They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.

by realce 3y ago

tmikaeld 3y ago
Hosting isn't free and they're not forcing anyone to host it there, there are alternative platforms.
- jahsome 3y ago
  I 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 ago
    Well 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
      > Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
      - djur 3y ago
        Monetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.
        jahsome 3y ago
        But they're still running ads on the content, associating the content with advertisers. It's not "saving" their customers (advertisers). It's denying wages to the producer. I can't see it as anything other than virtue signaling, coupled with a profit.
        djur 3y ago
        Advertisers get to choose whether their ads run on "limited ads" videos or not.
  - SR2Z 3y ago
    They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit either." It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.
    - jsiepkes 3y ago
      You seriously think the amount of money YouTube makes from ads on those videos is not a magnitude it costs them to host them?
      - swores 3y ago
        Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I have as expenditure for doing the work.
        jsiepkes 3y ago
        Then why dispute YouTube is profiting from videos they themselves classify as harmful?
        swores 3y ago
        They didn't dispute that, they suggested a line of logic for the behaviour. It being a reply to your comment doesn't automatically mean it's an attempt to prove your comment wrong.
- realce 3y ago
  You're right, Youtube isn't forced to host the works of this horrid rule-breaker. They choose the position of platforming him and profiting off of him however.
- smcleod 3y ago
  I understand what you’re saying although Google (YouTube) has made it its mission to destroy alternatives and quash new ones as they appear.
- m000 3y ago
  Making the content isn't free either. If they don't like Russel Brand for whatever reason, they're free to deplatform him. Virtue signaling while lining your pockets is disingenuous.
- holoduke 3y ago
  There are no other platforms. None zero. Your response is wrong.
  - rwhyan 3y ago
    Can't tell if facetious Russell Brand has 1.4 million followers on Rumble
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sbuttgereit 3y ago
Agree. One can only interpret this as ham-fisted virtue signaling by YouTube management and perhaps with staff support. If they are continuing to host and serve the Brand videos, they are defacto saying, "content by this person doesn't hurt our platform in a material way, but we've decided this person is bad and we want to show ourselves punishing him." And the best part is they are tangibly rewarded in this by not having to pay the creator's share of the revenue. No matter what Brand may or may not be guilty of... continuing to stream his content without paying for it is despicable and immoral. Properly thought about, moral judgement of what YouTube is doing is completely independent of anything Brand had done.
- judge2020 3y ago
  > continuing to stream his content without paying for it is despicable and immoral. But he can private the videos at anytime. Even unlisting it would remove all ads while allowing people to find the videos (via links).
  - sbuttgereit 3y ago
    This is irrelevant as to how to morally judge Google's actions. If someone finds a way into my home, steals some stuff, and then I block the path that they took to get in or had the ability to block that path: the thief is still culpable of a moral transgression against me. Even if I didn't take the action I could to prevent the thief from entering my home again and they did so and stole more: the thief is still willful committing a moral transgression against me. It may be unwise for me to not take preventative measures, but it doesn't change the correctness of judging the thief as a miscreant. The thief's willful act to steal is all that matters in judging them and the same holds for Google here (again, assuming they are continuing to stream and profit from Brand's content without compensating him). To suggest otherwise is a different form of the old trope of the woman that gets raped, but dresses and acts suggestively is at fault. Her actions may not have been wise, but the moral (and criminal) judgment still goes against the perpetrator who acted willfully to commit the crime and it does so without regard to the woman's actions.
  - brigandish 3y ago
denton-scratch 3y ago
Indeed. If his videos are unacceptable, YT should have taken them down. If they're acceptable, then they should give him his money.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  Then people would claim he’s being censored. It’s exhausting.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Marsymars 3y ago
  I would put forward that a less morally dubious way for YT to handle this would be to pull ads, and send the creator a pay-for-hosting agreement that they're required to sign if they want to keep the content online.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gnicholas 3y ago
Interesting conflict of interest there.
thrwy_918 3y ago
>They're still hosting the videos, still running ads Please link to any example of one of Brand's youtube videos that is still running ads

They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.

by realce 3y ago

They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.

tmikaeld 3y ago

Hosting isn't free and they're not forcing anyone to host it there, there are alternative platforms.

jahsome 3y ago
I 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 ago
  Well 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
    > Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
    - djur 3y ago
      Monetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.
      - jahsome 3y ago
        But they're still running ads on the content, associating the content with advertisers. It's not "saving" their customers (advertisers). It's denying wages to the producer. I can't see it as anything other than virtue signaling, coupled with a profit.
        djur 3y ago
        Advertisers get to choose whether their ads run on "limited ads" videos or not.
- SR2Z 3y ago
  They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit either." It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.
  - jsiepkes 3y ago
    You seriously think the amount of money YouTube makes from ads on those videos is not a magnitude it costs them to host them?
    - swores 3y ago
      Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I have as expenditure for doing the work.
      - jsiepkes 3y ago
        Then why dispute YouTube is profiting from videos they themselves classify as harmful?
        swores 3y ago
        They didn't dispute that, they suggested a line of logic for the behaviour. It being a reply to your comment doesn't automatically mean it's an attempt to prove your comment wrong.
realce 3y ago
You're right, Youtube isn't forced to host the works of this horrid rule-breaker. They choose the position of platforming him and profiting off of him however.
smcleod 3y ago
I understand what you’re saying although Google (YouTube) has made it its mission to destroy alternatives and quash new ones as they appear.
m000 3y ago
Making the content isn't free either. If they don't like Russel Brand for whatever reason, they're free to deplatform him. Virtue signaling while lining your pockets is disingenuous.
holoduke 3y ago
There are no other platforms. None zero. Your response is wrong.
- rwhyan 3y ago
  Can't tell if facetious Russell Brand has 1.4 million followers on Rumble

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sbuttgereit 3y ago

Agree. One can only interpret this as ham-fisted virtue signaling by YouTube management and perhaps with staff support. If they are continuing to host and serve the Brand videos, they are defacto saying, "content by this person doesn't hurt our platform in a material way, but we've decided this person is bad and we want to show ourselves punishing him." And the best part is they are tangibly rewarded in this by not having to pay the creator's share of the revenue. No matter what Brand may or may not be guilty of... continuing to stream his content without paying for it is despicable and immoral. Properly thought about, moral judgement of what YouTube is doing is completely independent of anything Brand had done.

judge2020 3y ago
> continuing to stream his content without paying for it is despicable and immoral. But he can private the videos at anytime. Even unlisting it would remove all ads while allowing people to find the videos (via links).
- sbuttgereit 3y ago
  This is irrelevant as to how to morally judge Google's actions. If someone finds a way into my home, steals some stuff, and then I block the path that they took to get in or had the ability to block that path: the thief is still culpable of a moral transgression against me. Even if I didn't take the action I could to prevent the thief from entering my home again and they did so and stole more: the thief is still willful committing a moral transgression against me. It may be unwise for me to not take preventative measures, but it doesn't change the correctness of judging the thief as a miscreant. The thief's willful act to steal is all that matters in judging them and the same holds for Google here (again, assuming they are continuing to stream and profit from Brand's content without compensating him). To suggest otherwise is a different form of the old trope of the woman that gets raped, but dresses and acts suggestively is at fault. Her actions may not have been wise, but the moral (and criminal) judgment still goes against the perpetrator who acted willfully to commit the crime and it does so without regard to the woman's actions.
- brigandish 3y ago

denton-scratch 3y ago

Indeed. If his videos are unacceptable, YT should have taken them down. If they're acceptable, then they should give him his money.

throwaway5959 3y ago
Then people would claim he’s being censored. It’s exhausting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Marsymars 3y ago
I would put forward that a less morally dubious way for YT to handle this would be to pull ads, and send the creator a pay-for-hosting agreement that they're required to sign if they want to keep the content online.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gnicholas 3y ago

Interesting conflict of interest there.

thrwy_918 3y ago

>They're still hosting the videos, still running ads Please link to any example of one of Brand's youtube videos that is still running ads