6 ms·

No 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

by mikece 3y ago

No 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 ago
Unlikely, 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 ago
  Small 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.
- kwere 3y ago
  youtube is a de facto utility (like most of other Google products) and should be regulated accordingly
curiousllama 3y ago
Not a lawyer (barrister?), but no. Generally, businesses are not obligated to do business with folks they dislike.
- all2 3y ago
  This is not true. Courts continually hold that a business must serve persons they don't like or agree with.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    As far as I know that’s only certain protected classes of people, in that you can’t discriminate in the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.
    - toyg 3y ago
      Brand could argue he was discriminated as a man, in the sense that he was assumed as guilty of rape because he's a man.
      - curiousllama 3y ago
        He could argue he was discriminated against because he's actually secretly a butterfly; both arguments would hold similar weight.
        toyg 3y ago
        That's sadly dismissive of an actual problem. In matters of sex crimes, men are effectively assumed guilty until proven otherwise, and even if they're eventually found innocent they get their lives destroyed. The bar is much, much higher for female rape to be considered realistic.
        curiousllama 3y ago
        You are correct that is a problem; it's also rather clearly not the case here. I'd encourage you to learn the details. It is equally evil to wrongly dismiss a true accusation as it is to wrongly believe a false one. 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...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mytailorisrich 3y ago
Yes if YouTube demonetized in breach of their T&Cs, which may not depend on whether the accusations are ultimately shown to be false.
Manuel_D 3y ago
Not really, YouTube can terminate your account for any reason. If the accusations are false, and if they're the reason why he lost monetization, he could sue the accusers for damages.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  The more powerful these platforms become, the more this is a problem..
Airsinner 3y ago
In addition to the contracts, YT could easily say even the implication he may have done wrong is not good for their business to associate with. He needn't be convicted in a court of law for it to be bad business to continue to work with him.
K0balt 3y ago
Probably would have to go after the false accusers for defamation and damages incurred… probably not worth it. That said, mere unsupported allegations leading to serious material consequences is a dystopian quagmire and should be actionable in a legal sense without regard to the absurdly inequitable stipulations put forth in the T&C.

by mikece 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 3y ago

Unlikely, 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 ago
Small 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.
kwere 3y ago
youtube is a de facto utility (like most of other Google products) and should be regulated accordingly

curiousllama 3y ago

Not a lawyer (barrister?), but no. Generally, businesses are not obligated to do business with folks they dislike.

all2 3y ago
This is not true. Courts continually hold that a business must serve persons they don't like or agree with.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  As far as I know that’s only certain protected classes of people, in that you can’t discriminate in the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Brand could argue he was discriminated as a man, in the sense that he was assumed as guilty of rape because he's a man.
    - curiousllama 3y ago
      He could argue he was discriminated against because he's actually secretly a butterfly; both arguments would hold similar weight.
      - toyg 3y ago
        That's sadly dismissive of an actual problem. In matters of sex crimes, men are effectively assumed guilty until proven otherwise, and even if they're eventually found innocent they get their lives destroyed. The bar is much, much higher for female rape to be considered realistic.
        curiousllama 3y ago
        You are correct that is a problem; it's also rather clearly not the case here. I'd encourage you to learn the details. It is equally evil to wrongly dismiss a true accusation as it is to wrongly believe a false one. 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...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mytailorisrich 3y ago

Yes if YouTube demonetized in breach of their T&Cs, which may not depend on whether the accusations are ultimately shown to be false.

Manuel_D 3y ago

Not really, YouTube can terminate your account for any reason. If the accusations are false, and if they're the reason why he lost monetization, he could sue the accusers for damages.

ChatGTP 3y ago
The more powerful these platforms become, the more this is a problem..

Airsinner 3y ago

In addition to the contracts, YT could easily say even the implication he may have done wrong is not good for their business to associate with. He needn't be convicted in a court of law for it to be bad business to continue to work with him.

K0balt 3y ago

Probably would have to go after the false accusers for defamation and damages incurred… probably not worth it. That said, mere unsupported allegations leading to serious material consequences is a dystopian quagmire and should be actionable in a legal sense without regard to the absurdly inequitable stipulations put forth in the T&C.