12 ms·

> “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

> “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 ago
YouTube 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 ago
  In this case it looks like theyre essentially just keeping his money because they decided to.
- brk 3y ago
  I 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.
  - kaliqt 3y ago
    On purpose. Maximizes their control to censor what they don't like to craft a wider narrative.
    - FormerBandmate 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - threeseed 3y ago
      I find the idea that Youtube has a crafted narrative to be hilariously ridiculous. Everyone has a completely different view of what the site is depending on what your interests are.
      - marcusverus 3y ago
        While there’s no reason to believe some broad conspiracy exists, it’d be hilariously ridiculous to assume that the folks at YouTube are unaware of the power they have to influence the zeitgeist. If some number of them act to advance their individual worldview through their enforcement of policy (is there any doubt that this happens?), then it is perfectly reasonable to say that YouTube, as a result of the conscious or unconscious biases of its decision makers, advances a worldview (though perhaps not a specific narrative).
  - astro19238_ 3y ago
    Good Point. There is ofc tons of criminal youtubers making money. YouTube don't care as long as it's not publicly known. Hence the community part I suppose? It's no moral high ground but it's not illogical from that perspective.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- znpy 3y ago
  Community is an abused term nowadays
  - mongol 3y ago
    Very much so. It is used to make one's own arguments stronger. "Thank you for listening to the community" actually means "Thank you for listening to me".
- yreg 3y ago
  I agree in general, but in this case the company has nothing to protect from. The matter doesn't relate to them in any way.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- api 3y ago
  It’s 100% about protecting the brand. Twitter has lost something like 60% of its advertisers because it turns out Proctor and Gamble doesn’t want an ad for Dawn dish detergent next to someone called BasedFuhrer1488 posting about how the Holocaust didn’t happen. If it wasn’t for that all these platforms would let anything legal go as long as it drove engagement.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Well the “community” doesn’t include anyone outside of Google. So, it’s not really a “community” by definition.
surfingdino 3y ago
YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management / income stream protection. Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service.
- christkv 3y ago
  I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?
  - adrr 3y ago
    Every streamer out there? Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, Disney,ESPN, Tubi,Plex,Plutotv etc.
  - angulardragon03 3y ago
    They’ll just go to other forms of media, and/or skip long form videos altogether. With platforms like TikTok also being extremely popular, advertisers may simply choose to focus their budgets on these platforms instead of YouTube.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. They've been the target of that twice at least, in 2017 over hate speech [1], in 2019 over pedos[2]. Large brands spend insane amounts of money on advertising, and they do not want their content to appear next to people facing allegations of sexual misconduct or otherwise bad behavior. Hell just look at Twitter and how much advertising income they lost in the matter of a few months [4], as brands didn't want their ads to show up next to actual Nazis [3]. And instead of recognizing this and getting rid of the Nazis, Musk wants to sue the ADL [5]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advertisers-boycott-youtube--and-if-history-is-a-guide-theyll-be-back-soon/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advert... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter-ads-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk-sue-adl-x-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk...
perfect-blue 3y ago
It's an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately boils down to one point. YT gets to do whatever they want. The terms of service are designed so they can be selective in their enforcement. Is it bad policy? Yes. Does it allow for flexibility in a world that is never black and white? Also yes. Honestly, if there was a better solution, what would it be? The questions are endless once you start down this rabbit hole.
- jvickers 3y ago
  No, in my view Youtube can not do whatever they like with this kind of thing, at least as far as my potential outrage is concerned. If Youtube gives a false reason (to me as well as others) about the reason for demonetising someone then I have a problem with that. When some content is banned from Youtube, it's got positives and negatives. Like when Alex Jones was banned, I was annoyed that I could no longer watch Alex Jones on Youtube if I ever wanted to, but more than that glad that he'd never appear in my autoplay or recommended videos. While I think there is some truth that YouTube can do as it likes, people talking about what their rules are, complaining about them, lobbying Youtube even, is all fair too. A fair complaint would be that the user does not get enough control over what gets recommended. If enough people are talking about that issue, it could motivate Youtube or a competitor to provide that kind of control, as it would be a signal that it would attract an audience to that platform and keep them engaged if recommendation control was a major concern of theirs. Also, in some circumstances I could be quite annoyed with Youtube for not demonetising or banning some content. It could be something I don't want to watch personally, or more likely something I feel disgusted by such as Elsagate type scandals where the 'protect the children' type argument or instinct in my opinion or feelings override free speech concerns. People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website, and which Youtube and anyone else who reads the comments can use. Also, discussing how such a system works produces what would be considered 'prior art' when it comes to patents.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    > People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website. The only problem is that your ideal video hosting website doesn't work. You won't: a) Get enough users because most people want moderation. b) Raise enough revenue because most advertisers want moderation. c) Be able to legally operate because most legislators want moderation.
speak_plainly 3y ago
I don’t want to state the obvious but the part of the ecosystem being harmed is advertisers.
agentgumshoe 3y ago
It's a stupid excuse. I guess all those 'Fail' videos will be de-monitised now?
- djur 3y ago
  It's incredibly easy to get a video demonetized on YouTube now. I don't know what videos you're talking about, but I wouldn't assume that they haven't long since been demonetized.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  If only, that'd be fantastic. Same with the "prank" videos.
lr4444lr 3y ago
Liability. It all comes back to liability. I can't tell you what kind of cases have legal standing against YouTube for showing videos of an alleged abuser, but I trust that many smart and less scrupulous lawyers could.
gorwell 3y ago
We thought we were going to escape a CCP style social credit score in the US, but big tech has an exploitable loophole in the administrative layer.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Sabinus 3y ago
  Professional reputation is and has always mattered when engaging with large companies. Especially between 'media personalities' and media companies.
- enaaem 3y ago
  He is not being censored. Youtube ends their commercial partnership, because they think he doesn’t fit their brand image. But he can still upload videos, ask for patreon subscriptions, sell tshirts etc…
Waterluvian 3y ago
They’ve calculated that this is the right business decision. There is never anything more than that with corporations.
- mistermann 3y ago
  The government may offer them "advice" now and then as well. If I was running the American regime, I'd want him deplatformed due to his content.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Conversely, if I was a sleazy person with a big public profile I'd present myself as an unwavering ally of the common folk, because historically this schtick works incredibly well. Jimmy Saville was considered a living saint in the UK, and it was only after his death that the truth emerged.
  - liamwire 3y ago
    Given the whole First Amendment thing the USA has had for a hot minute now, I suspect not. Baseless speculation aside, if you have genuine examples of this occurring, please show the class.
- benjaminwootton 3y ago
  I think that’s a good way to look at these things. I went through a phase of getting angry at online censorship. In reality, I don’t think corporations will be spending much time debating morals and will simply look at their reputation and bottom line.
gooseus 3y ago
I'll make one point, which is that if you are a violent asshole who punches anyone in the face that looks at you wrong, you still can't actually harm anyone through Youtube except by trying to convince someone to come get their ass kicked by you. Russel Brand is accused of grooming a 16 year old girl while he was 31, if true, that means there is the very real possibility that Brand could be using the YT platform as a means for finding other victims.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  Or reddit. Or email. Maybe we should cut his power just to be sure he isn't maybe grooming some 16 year olds.
  - gooseus 3y ago
    So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again?
    - housemusicfan 3y ago
      That's generally the premise behind "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", as opposed to "guilty whenever the histrionic internet mob and its tech enablers deem it so".
      - gooseus 3y ago
        Except, and I know you must have read this somewhere else by now, that Youtube is not the State. Your employer (should you have one) doesn't need to wait until a court of law proves you guilty of a stealing paperclips before they fire you, and a restaurant doesn't have to wait until a court proves that you are being a public disturbance before they kick you out. A private corporation has the right to do whatever they want with their product/service unless they are compelled otherwise by the State. Russell Brand is free to sue Youtube in court if he believes he has been inappropriately damaged, as you do. Unfortunately for him and all his fans, this isn't hearsay from randos coming out of Reddit/Tumblr, it's a direct accusation with evidence and witnesses in an investigation being conducted by his former employers and the UK police.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean? This is beside the point, but I want to bring it up because I think it's important to remember we live in a bubble. A majority of people on earth are not Youtube users. Only ~60% of the world's population uses the internet[1], and of those, I'd assume a significant portion lack the bandwidth to stream video. Also, Youtube is blocked in China. --- 1: https://ourworldindata.org/internet https://ourworldindata.org/internet
- hx8 3y ago
  So Youtube will demonetize you if you hurt someone with an internet connection, but not if you hurt someone too poor to afford one?
  - palmer_fox 3y ago
    I doubt "we take action to protect the community" has a clear legal definition. Their "community" could be people without an internet connection too (e.g. everyone in Los Angeles because they have an office there). Since this is obviously not about their "community" but about protecting the brand, I doubt they have put much thought into defining any of the terms in the statement.
- musicale 3y ago
  2.7B youtube users is about 1/3 of the people on Earth, and a solid majority of internet users. India has the most youtube users at 570M+, though the US is highest in youtube traffic. Japan also has high youtube traffic per capita. https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/youtube-users-statistics/ https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/youtube-users-statis...
  - benj111 3y ago
    1/3 isn't a majority.
    - 867-5309 3y ago
jrflowers 3y ago
> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean? This is an interesting question; why hasn’t anyone verified that these women are YouTube users? Since we have established that “ecosystem” is a word that means “app developers” and not a broad term that could be interpreted to mean the general environment in which YouTube does business with advertisers and users, this means that YouTube is acting in defense of its users. Furthermore this announcement gets even more confusing as punching someone in a bar is not something that can faithfully or objectively be separated from (alleged) rape by any community standards or legal bodies, YouTube is in even further hot water here
- pixl97 3y ago
  >YouTube is in even further hot water here No they really aren't.
rayiner 3y ago
I’m 100% in favor of cleaning house with that generation of musicians and performers that openly preyed on women. But is that what YouTube is doing? When is Aerosmith getting demonetized? https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/steven-tyler-sexual-assault-lawsuit-lawyer-response-1234712150/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/steven-tyl... How has it taken YouTube this long, anyway? Hasn’t much of this stuff been openly known for a decade or more? Is YouTube literally just reacting to the media cycle and nothing more?
- ikt 3y ago
  yeah it's odd, if they do it for brand does that mean they'll now do it for all? of course not and they haven't, this feels unusual for them, so why target brand specifically? this is going to make his conspiracy's seem true like they are targeting him but it could be as simple as advertisers don't care about aerosmith because it's bigger than steven tyler, whereas brand is purely a youtube based opinion show and he is the main star of the show
- camillomiller 3y ago
  Same here, but tbh the accusations against Brand are quite moot. Regardless of that, why is YouTube to decide and not a court of law? Of course a private platform can do whatever they want, but when their decision is basically the same as a court issuing fine or damages in the way it affects a person’s livelihood, shouldn’t their decisions be regulated accordingly?
  - watwut 3y ago
    Does the same thing applies to Budweiser and everything tainted with trans when right wing machine targets them?
    - ghilly 3y ago
      The backlash Budweiser got was from purchasers of its beer who were turned off by its marketing message. How is that comparable to this?
    - 3y ago
hinkley 3y ago
Allegedly. If a bunch of people come forward accusing you of assault, odds are pretty good you did it. However, private businesses punishing people for having charges brought against them but not yet tried? That's judge, jury and executioner, which is incompatible with the set of laws that the US is built on - for which the source material was English Law, and precedent even older than that. So an American company pre-punishing a Brit based on a news article is the beginning of another level of dystopia none of us wants.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  By the definition of "punish" that you are implicitly using, private businesses in America used to be able to punish people for anything ("we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"). Now there are certain things they cannot punish people for (e.g. being black). Are you suggesting that the time has come to mandate that companies may not discriminate against customers for other reasons as well?
  - hinkley 3y ago
    I'd rather we sorted out what 'the commons' means in an online context, but failing that? Yes. Because we're essentially privatizing all discourse and those companies can do pretty much whatever they want - as long as they don't piss off other companies too badly (eg, Twitter being demonetized because of Nazis). We've lost the idea of broadcasting in the public interest decades ago, and there's no PBS for the internet (Just PBS on the Internet)
    - pirate787 3y ago
      Your "broadcasting in the public interest" is also "government funded propaganda with limits on free speech"
      - hinkley 3y ago
        I think you have a very different u sweats don’t of broadcasting history than I do.
madrox 3y ago
I believe this is about protecting the ecosystem. YT has basically stopped ads from playing on his content…no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. If YT didn’t take this action, it’s likely advertisers would pull back on spend because they don’t want to risk being seen along side his content. YouTube, afaik, doesn’t just let advertisers blacklist individual channels.
- CapricornNoble 3y ago
  > no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. I see this sentiment all the time and I just don't understand it. If I sold razor blades, or if I was Stephen He's dad and sold Beijing Corn, I would want EVERYONE buying my product. Communists, Fascists, Russians, Ukrainians, Israelis, Palestinians, Antifa, Proud Boys, Prince Andrew, Andrew Tate, etc.... They may all hate each other but they should all agree that I make the best damn razor blades / canned corn on planet Earth, and everyone should buy it. This weird era of conspicuous consumption, "lifestyle" branding, and virtue-signaling faux-activism can't end soon enough.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >This weird era of conspicuous consumption, "lifestyle" branding, and virtue-signaling faux-activism can't end soon enough. This weird era... See this is what blows my mind. Like boycotts are not something that's happened pretty much forever. There is currently a particular group that has been bearing the brunt of boycotts due to their socially unacceptable behavior and they seem a little ticked that the power they once unilaterally wielded is now leveraged against them.
    - worthless-trash 3y ago
      Neh, but in this case its the platform itself that is doing the boycotting, not the individuals choice.
  - TheGigaChad 3y ago
    [dead]
croes 3y ago
>If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem It's just a euphemism for people.
anigbrowl 3y ago
if I am YT creator and I punch someone in a bar I don't think it matters if the other person has a YT subscription. If you create videos about, say, beekeeping and you get in a random bar fight, no, probably not. IF you're some sort of 'influencer' and your public persona is all about being a tough-talking badass, such that your getting into a bar fight makes you the Main character in the entertainment/gossip pages for several days, then they might dump you because they don't want next weeks story to be 'YouTube subsidizes karaterobot's hard-drinking combat LARP.' It's not a balanced appraisal of facts and harms and injury allocation like in a tort lawsuit; more a seat-of-the-pants executive judgement call on 'does hanging out with this guy commercially make us look bad?' If the answer is yes, then you suddenly no longer have a commercial relationship. It's similar to the 'morals clauses' in the contracts of TV and movie stars, but with the difference that tech firms basically set contractual terms unilaterally and the network effects are so strong that that no individual performer has any kind of leverage to request anything different. It's worth understanding that the incredible concentration of corporate power on digital platforms is due to a mix of technological moats, the first-mover advantage of preferential attachment, and a philosophical shift away from breaking up monopolies, on the theory that large entities often deliver greater consumer benefits than a competitive market place, a viewpoint famously summarized here: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4863&context=penn_law_review https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- flerovium 3y ago
  The comparison to 'morals clauses' is apt: it was used mostly to force Christian, anti-Communist, and later pro-China stances on actors lest they harm the 'reputation' of the studio. It's not a good thing.
KKKKkkkk1 3y ago
What kind of weird lawyerly nitpicking is this. YouTube does not want to be associated with an alleged rapist. Is that so hard to understand.
- QuantumG 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TheHappyOddish 3y ago
    ...which never worried them in the past, and they were happy to make money from.
    - QuantumG 3y ago
      Oh I see, you seem to think he hasn't had this treatment before. I guess you missed the dozen previous times he's complained about the system trying to silence him. It's totally on-brand for Brand.
- marcell 3y ago
  It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. YouTube, in their statement, is pretending they have an objective standard that is fairly applied to everyone. In reality, there is no uniform standard. They ban people when business interests dictate it. So their policy reads as “we have an objective standard,” but reality is “we ban when we feel like it.” YouTube could fix this contradiction by changing their policy to something like “we will ban creators for any reason, at our discretion.”
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. ??? You are conflating all the different legal systems of the US. US criminal law is the one of beyond reasonable doubt. US civil law on the other hand is an entire other bag of worms and 'potential' contractual obligations. On top of that private property has a pretty massive leeway in reasons you can ban people from said properties. There is no contradiction here. "Fuck you, your tie sucks" is a completely valid reason to remove you from their private property. Said person being a dick to others is what is typically considered an exceptionally valid reason to remove them from the property. If we want to follow a broad social convention, then it is be nice to others, how about that for a start?
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Yay for extra-judicial, pre-conviction punishment! Even better, if acquitted he still won't be re-instated!!!
- happytiger 3y ago
  Nobody seems worried about how this standard gets applied down the road. They all seem focused on the case study but don’t see how this example applies directly to them so obviously. I am genuinely confused how so many smart people can be so short sighted.
Sophistifunk 3y ago
It doesn't really matter what their argument is, they simply need to have one. It's their sandbox, and they have chosen an advertiser-friendly ratchet as the driver of policy. YouTube will get more and more bland and samey as people fear the banhammer, which will get used on less and less extreme content and producers, as the "cancelling machinery" has been built and will always find the next-most-evil^tm on which to focus. Until YouTube becomes boring and enough interesting people end up together somewhere else, and then all the users will leave at once (in internet time). Doctorow huffs his own farts at a James Cameron level, but he's right about this.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  >In England and Wales, more than 99% of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult. https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scor... An alternative interpretation of what's going on here is that the mainstream justice system is failing, and people are cobbling together an alternative justice system, where public shaming and demonetization are the punishments. I think building in redundancy to reduce single points of failure is generally a good thing.
  - Sophistifunk 3y ago
    If you think advertiser sensibilities and internet mobs should play any sort of part in a just justice system, I don't know what to tell you.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    I get where you’re coming from, but YouTube doesn’t care about justice. They care about reputational harm and ultimately profits. So if that means demonetizing a victim because that’s what’s profitable, they’ll do that. If it means demonetizing an innocent but unpopular person, they’ll do that. A guilty person not being punished isn’t the only failure mode.
nvy 3y ago
>so what the heck does that even mean? It means they'll ban anyone who is high profile enough to expose YouTube to PR risk.
lofaszvanitt 3y ago
All these actions will eventually lead to the birth of another video platform.
- technick 3y ago
  I can't wait for that to happen
cornfutes 3y ago
They had no problem keeping the Logan brothers on the platform despite their toxic behavior.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kornhole 3y ago
'Community' is defined by them. It does not mean us. It could mean the government, military industrial complex, biopharmaceutical complex, the board of Alphabet, and anybody else they wish to include in it.
emodendroket 3y ago
I think the idea is that being known as a platform that gives money to unsavory characters harms their ecosystem.
akira2501 3y ago
> I'm just wondering about the argument they are making, You are witnessing the slow merging of Silicon Valley with the Security State. Buckle up. It gets super fun after this.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  Is that really the right way to think about it? Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? Seems more accurate to say Youtube is building an alternative security state. Heck, it's rather anarcho-capitalist if you ask me.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > Is that really the right way to think about it? That's the way I think about it based upon my perspective and experience. > Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? Remains to be seen. The police have been "urged" to investigate, according to the AP. Perhaps the "right way to think" hasn't revealed itself yet? > Seems more accurate to say Youtube is building an alternative security state. I see no reason to be so certain the government had no involvement in this case, which you would have to be in order to consider this more accurate than literally any other theory. > Heck, it's rather anarcho-capitalist if you ask me. Oh.. it's a "cool" way to undermine human society. I didn't realize.
  - username332211 3y ago
    > Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? No, he's punished without the due process of law. And that's how most dictatorial regimes usually deal with miscreants. If you bad-mouthed Breznev nobody would bother with a show-trial unless there was some specific benefit of making you an example. In 9/10 cases they'd fire you from any semi-decent job and won't let your kids finish high school with more than 2.0 GPA.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      Let's check for political bias here. Suppose I rewrote your comment so instead of talking about Russell Brand, I'm talking about the right-wing Budweiser boycott. Those right-wingers are punishing Budweiser without due process of law. Just like most dictatorial regimes. How worried are you?
a2800276 3y ago
>we take action to protect the community,” the spokeswoman said. This really exposes Google's hypocrisy, though. If they were worried about protecting the community, surely they would remove his content and not his ability to monetize it. They must mean that "community" is being harmed by the content and not by the ads (else the responsible thing would be to shut down altogether ...) That said, I think Brand's videos are a big pile of barf, though again, if that were the standard, YouTube would have to throw out 90+% of their content...
belter 3y ago
Meet Pedrinho Matador YouTube Channel... - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBnh_1CLNa5rF3dmoDKIt3w https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBnh_1CLNa5rF3dmoDKIt3w https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Rodrigues_Filho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Rodrigues_Filho
hasmanean 3y ago
“Ecosystem” means advertisers.
lenkite 3y ago
All this doesn't matter. There is a Social Credit System and Scoring that is implicitly implemented in the Land of the Brave and Free. If you anger the Lords of The Traditional Orthodoxy by shaking your Chains, they will ensure that Sufficient Character Assassination is carried out to reduce your score to pitiful levels. Once that is done, you are deemed as Unfit For Society and then slowly Cancelled and Censored Out Of Existence.
soundnote 3y ago
It's simply an excuse to engage in political censure. It's worth remembering that in these people's parlance it's "denying someone's existence" to disagree with their political program or one counter-reality belief they hold, and they do demonetize for it.
YeBanKo 3y ago
Trying to dig into their statement is a moot point: R Kelly on Youtube Music is alive and well. You can argue, that it's separate from Youtube. But then here is a search result for R Kelly https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=r+kelly https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=r+kelly I assume those those videos that come up copyrighted content and someone gets monetization for it? And he his not been merely accused, but convicted. There are other examples if you dig. This Brand is a tool and can't stand him, but this all happens conveniently right when he gained a little bit of traction by being an outspoken critique of the government.

sneak 3y ago

YouTube 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 ago
In this case it looks like theyre essentially just keeping his money because they decided to.
brk 3y ago
I 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.
- kaliqt 3y ago
  On purpose. Maximizes their control to censor what they don't like to craft a wider narrative.
  - FormerBandmate 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - threeseed 3y ago
    I find the idea that Youtube has a crafted narrative to be hilariously ridiculous. Everyone has a completely different view of what the site is depending on what your interests are.
    - marcusverus 3y ago
      While there’s no reason to believe some broad conspiracy exists, it’d be hilariously ridiculous to assume that the folks at YouTube are unaware of the power they have to influence the zeitgeist. If some number of them act to advance their individual worldview through their enforcement of policy (is there any doubt that this happens?), then it is perfectly reasonable to say that YouTube, as a result of the conscious or unconscious biases of its decision makers, advances a worldview (though perhaps not a specific narrative).
- astro19238_ 3y ago
  Good Point. There is ofc tons of criminal youtubers making money. YouTube don't care as long as it's not publicly known. Hence the community part I suppose? It's no moral high ground but it's not illogical from that perspective.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
znpy 3y ago
Community is an abused term nowadays
- mongol 3y ago
  Very much so. It is used to make one's own arguments stronger. "Thank you for listening to the community" actually means "Thank you for listening to me".
yreg 3y ago
I agree in general, but in this case the company has nothing to protect from. The matter doesn't relate to them in any way.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
api 3y ago
It’s 100% about protecting the brand. Twitter has lost something like 60% of its advertisers because it turns out Proctor and Gamble doesn’t want an ad for Dawn dish detergent next to someone called BasedFuhrer1488 posting about how the Holocaust didn’t happen. If it wasn’t for that all these platforms would let anything legal go as long as it drove engagement.
happytiger 3y ago
Well the “community” doesn’t include anyone outside of Google. So, it’s not really a “community” by definition.

surfingdino 3y ago

YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management / income stream protection. Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service.

christkv 3y ago
I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?
- adrr 3y ago
  Every streamer out there? Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, Disney,ESPN, Tubi,Plex,Plutotv etc.
- angulardragon03 3y ago
  They’ll just go to other forms of media, and/or skip long form videos altogether. With platforms like TikTok also being extremely popular, advertisers may simply choose to focus their budgets on these platforms instead of YouTube.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. They've been the target of that twice at least, in 2017 over hate speech [1], in 2019 over pedos[2]. Large brands spend insane amounts of money on advertising, and they do not want their content to appear next to people facing allegations of sexual misconduct or otherwise bad behavior. Hell just look at Twitter and how much advertising income they lost in the matter of a few months [4], as brands didn't want their ads to show up next to actual Nazis [3]. And instead of recognizing this and getting rid of the Nazis, Musk wants to sue the ADL [5]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advertisers-boycott-youtube--and-if-history-is-a-guide-theyll-be-back-soon/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advert... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter-ads-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk-sue-adl-x-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk...

perfect-blue 3y ago

It's an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately boils down to one point. YT gets to do whatever they want. The terms of service are designed so they can be selective in their enforcement. Is it bad policy? Yes. Does it allow for flexibility in a world that is never black and white? Also yes. Honestly, if there was a better solution, what would it be? The questions are endless once you start down this rabbit hole.

jvickers 3y ago
No, in my view Youtube can not do whatever they like with this kind of thing, at least as far as my potential outrage is concerned. If Youtube gives a false reason (to me as well as others) about the reason for demonetising someone then I have a problem with that. When some content is banned from Youtube, it's got positives and negatives. Like when Alex Jones was banned, I was annoyed that I could no longer watch Alex Jones on Youtube if I ever wanted to, but more than that glad that he'd never appear in my autoplay or recommended videos. While I think there is some truth that YouTube can do as it likes, people talking about what their rules are, complaining about them, lobbying Youtube even, is all fair too. A fair complaint would be that the user does not get enough control over what gets recommended. If enough people are talking about that issue, it could motivate Youtube or a competitor to provide that kind of control, as it would be a signal that it would attract an audience to that platform and keep them engaged if recommendation control was a major concern of theirs. Also, in some circumstances I could be quite annoyed with Youtube for not demonetising or banning some content. It could be something I don't want to watch personally, or more likely something I feel disgusted by such as Elsagate type scandals where the 'protect the children' type argument or instinct in my opinion or feelings override free speech concerns. People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website, and which Youtube and anyone else who reads the comments can use. Also, discussing how such a system works produces what would be considered 'prior art' when it comes to patents.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website. The only problem is that your ideal video hosting website doesn't work. You won't: a) Get enough users because most people want moderation. b) Raise enough revenue because most advertisers want moderation. c) Be able to legally operate because most legislators want moderation.

speak_plainly 3y ago

I don’t want to state the obvious but the part of the ecosystem being harmed is advertisers.

agentgumshoe 3y ago

It's a stupid excuse. I guess all those 'Fail' videos will be de-monitised now?

djur 3y ago
It's incredibly easy to get a video demonetized on YouTube now. I don't know what videos you're talking about, but I wouldn't assume that they haven't long since been demonetized.
hughesjj 3y ago
If only, that'd be fantastic. Same with the "prank" videos.

lr4444lr 3y ago

Liability. It all comes back to liability. I can't tell you what kind of cases have legal standing against YouTube for showing videos of an alleged abuser, but I trust that many smart and less scrupulous lawyers could.

gorwell 3y ago

We thought we were going to escape a CCP style social credit score in the US, but big tech has an exploitable loophole in the administrative layer.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Sabinus 3y ago
Professional reputation is and has always mattered when engaging with large companies. Especially between 'media personalities' and media companies.
enaaem 3y ago
He is not being censored. Youtube ends their commercial partnership, because they think he doesn’t fit their brand image. But he can still upload videos, ask for patreon subscriptions, sell tshirts etc…

Waterluvian 3y ago

They’ve calculated that this is the right business decision. There is never anything more than that with corporations.

mistermann 3y ago
The government may offer them "advice" now and then as well. If I was running the American regime, I'd want him deplatformed due to his content.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Conversely, if I was a sleazy person with a big public profile I'd present myself as an unwavering ally of the common folk, because historically this schtick works incredibly well. Jimmy Saville was considered a living saint in the UK, and it was only after his death that the truth emerged.
- liamwire 3y ago
  Given the whole First Amendment thing the USA has had for a hot minute now, I suspect not. Baseless speculation aside, if you have genuine examples of this occurring, please show the class.
benjaminwootton 3y ago
I think that’s a good way to look at these things. I went through a phase of getting angry at online censorship. In reality, I don’t think corporations will be spending much time debating morals and will simply look at their reputation and bottom line.

gooseus 3y ago

I'll make one point, which is that if you are a violent asshole who punches anyone in the face that looks at you wrong, you still can't actually harm anyone through Youtube except by trying to convince someone to come get their ass kicked by you. Russel Brand is accused of grooming a 16 year old girl while he was 31, if true, that means there is the very real possibility that Brand could be using the YT platform as a means for finding other victims.

bcrosby95 3y ago
Or reddit. Or email. Maybe we should cut his power just to be sure he isn't maybe grooming some 16 year olds.
- gooseus 3y ago
  So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again?
  - housemusicfan 3y ago
    That's generally the premise behind "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", as opposed to "guilty whenever the histrionic internet mob and its tech enablers deem it so".
    - gooseus 3y ago
      Except, and I know you must have read this somewhere else by now, that Youtube is not the State. Your employer (should you have one) doesn't need to wait until a court of law proves you guilty of a stealing paperclips before they fire you, and a restaurant doesn't have to wait until a court proves that you are being a public disturbance before they kick you out. A private corporation has the right to do whatever they want with their product/service unless they are compelled otherwise by the State. Russell Brand is free to sue Youtube in court if he believes he has been inappropriately damaged, as you do. Unfortunately for him and all his fans, this isn't hearsay from randos coming out of Reddit/Tumblr, it's a direct accusation with evidence and witnesses in an investigation being conducted by his former employers and the UK police.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago

> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean? This is beside the point, but I want to bring it up because I think it's important to remember we live in a bubble. A majority of people on earth are not Youtube users. Only ~60% of the world's population uses the internet[1], and of those, I'd assume a significant portion lack the bandwidth to stream video. Also, Youtube is blocked in China. --- 1: https://ourworldindata.org/internet https://ourworldindata.org/internet

hx8 3y ago
So Youtube will demonetize you if you hurt someone with an internet connection, but not if you hurt someone too poor to afford one?
- palmer_fox 3y ago
  I doubt "we take action to protect the community" has a clear legal definition. Their "community" could be people without an internet connection too (e.g. everyone in Los Angeles because they have an office there). Since this is obviously not about their "community" but about protecting the brand, I doubt they have put much thought into defining any of the terms in the statement.
musicale 3y ago
2.7B youtube users is about 1/3 of the people on Earth, and a solid majority of internet users. India has the most youtube users at 570M+, though the US is highest in youtube traffic. Japan also has high youtube traffic per capita. https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/youtube-users-statistics/ https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/youtube-users-statis...
- benj111 3y ago
  1/3 isn't a majority.
  - 867-5309 3y ago

jrflowers 3y ago

> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean? This is an interesting question; why hasn’t anyone verified that these women are YouTube users? Since we have established that “ecosystem” is a word that means “app developers” and not a broad term that could be interpreted to mean the general environment in which YouTube does business with advertisers and users, this means that YouTube is acting in defense of its users. Furthermore this announcement gets even more confusing as punching someone in a bar is not something that can faithfully or objectively be separated from (alleged) rape by any community standards or legal bodies, YouTube is in even further hot water here

pixl97 3y ago
>YouTube is in even further hot water here No they really aren't.

rayiner 3y ago

I’m 100% in favor of cleaning house with that generation of musicians and performers that openly preyed on women. But is that what YouTube is doing? When is Aerosmith getting demonetized? https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/steven-tyler-sexual-assault-lawsuit-lawyer-response-1234712150/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/steven-tyl... How has it taken YouTube this long, anyway? Hasn’t much of this stuff been openly known for a decade or more? Is YouTube literally just reacting to the media cycle and nothing more?

ikt 3y ago
yeah it's odd, if they do it for brand does that mean they'll now do it for all? of course not and they haven't, this feels unusual for them, so why target brand specifically? this is going to make his conspiracy's seem true like they are targeting him but it could be as simple as advertisers don't care about aerosmith because it's bigger than steven tyler, whereas brand is purely a youtube based opinion show and he is the main star of the show
camillomiller 3y ago
Same here, but tbh the accusations against Brand are quite moot. Regardless of that, why is YouTube to decide and not a court of law? Of course a private platform can do whatever they want, but when their decision is basically the same as a court issuing fine or damages in the way it affects a person’s livelihood, shouldn’t their decisions be regulated accordingly?
- watwut 3y ago
  Does the same thing applies to Budweiser and everything tainted with trans when right wing machine targets them?
  - ghilly 3y ago
    The backlash Budweiser got was from purchasers of its beer who were turned off by its marketing message. How is that comparable to this?
  - 3y ago

hinkley 3y ago

Allegedly. If a bunch of people come forward accusing you of assault, odds are pretty good you did it. However, private businesses punishing people for having charges brought against them but not yet tried? That's judge, jury and executioner, which is incompatible with the set of laws that the US is built on - for which the source material was English Law, and precedent even older than that. So an American company pre-punishing a Brit based on a news article is the beginning of another level of dystopia none of us wants.

aidenn0 3y ago
By the definition of "punish" that you are implicitly using, private businesses in America used to be able to punish people for anything ("we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"). Now there are certain things they cannot punish people for (e.g. being black). Are you suggesting that the time has come to mandate that companies may not discriminate against customers for other reasons as well?
- hinkley 3y ago
  I'd rather we sorted out what 'the commons' means in an online context, but failing that? Yes. Because we're essentially privatizing all discourse and those companies can do pretty much whatever they want - as long as they don't piss off other companies too badly (eg, Twitter being demonetized because of Nazis). We've lost the idea of broadcasting in the public interest decades ago, and there's no PBS for the internet (Just PBS on the Internet)
  - pirate787 3y ago
    Your "broadcasting in the public interest" is also "government funded propaganda with limits on free speech"
    - hinkley 3y ago
      I think you have a very different u sweats don’t of broadcasting history than I do.

madrox 3y ago

I believe this is about protecting the ecosystem. YT has basically stopped ads from playing on his content…no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. If YT didn’t take this action, it’s likely advertisers would pull back on spend because they don’t want to risk being seen along side his content. YouTube, afaik, doesn’t just let advertisers blacklist individual channels.

CapricornNoble 3y ago
> no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. I see this sentiment all the time and I just don't understand it. If I sold razor blades, or if I was Stephen He's dad and sold Beijing Corn, I would want EVERYONE buying my product. Communists, Fascists, Russians, Ukrainians, Israelis, Palestinians, Antifa, Proud Boys, Prince Andrew, Andrew Tate, etc.... They may all hate each other but they should all agree that I make the best damn razor blades / canned corn on planet Earth, and everyone should buy it. This weird era of conspicuous consumption, "lifestyle" branding, and virtue-signaling faux-activism can't end soon enough.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >This weird era of conspicuous consumption, "lifestyle" branding, and virtue-signaling faux-activism can't end soon enough. This weird era... See this is what blows my mind. Like boycotts are not something that's happened pretty much forever. There is currently a particular group that has been bearing the brunt of boycotts due to their socially unacceptable behavior and they seem a little ticked that the power they once unilaterally wielded is now leveraged against them.
  - worthless-trash 3y ago
    Neh, but in this case its the platform itself that is doing the boycotting, not the individuals choice.
- TheGigaChad 3y ago
  [dead]

croes 3y ago

>If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem It's just a euphemism for people.

anigbrowl 3y ago

if I am YT creator and I punch someone in a bar I don't think it matters if the other person has a YT subscription. If you create videos about, say, beekeeping and you get in a random bar fight, no, probably not. IF you're some sort of 'influencer' and your public persona is all about being a tough-talking badass, such that your getting into a bar fight makes you the Main character in the entertainment/gossip pages for several days, then they might dump you because they don't want next weeks story to be 'YouTube subsidizes karaterobot's hard-drinking combat LARP.' It's not a balanced appraisal of facts and harms and injury allocation like in a tort lawsuit; more a seat-of-the-pants executive judgement call on 'does hanging out with this guy commercially make us look bad?' If the answer is yes, then you suddenly no longer have a commercial relationship. It's similar to the 'morals clauses' in the contracts of TV and movie stars, but with the difference that tech firms basically set contractual terms unilaterally and the network effects are so strong that that no individual performer has any kind of leverage to request anything different. It's worth understanding that the incredible concentration of corporate power on digital platforms is due to a mix of technological moats, the first-mover advantage of preferential attachment, and a philosophical shift away from breaking up monopolies, on the theory that large entities often deliver greater consumer benefits than a competitive market place, a viewpoint famously summarized here: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4863&context=penn_law_review https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

flerovium 3y ago
The comparison to 'morals clauses' is apt: it was used mostly to force Christian, anti-Communist, and later pro-China stances on actors lest they harm the 'reputation' of the studio. It's not a good thing.

KKKKkkkk1 3y ago

What kind of weird lawyerly nitpicking is this. YouTube does not want to be associated with an alleged rapist. Is that so hard to understand.

QuantumG 3y ago
[flagged]
- TheHappyOddish 3y ago
  ...which never worried them in the past, and they were happy to make money from.
  - QuantumG 3y ago
    Oh I see, you seem to think he hasn't had this treatment before. I guess you missed the dozen previous times he's complained about the system trying to silence him. It's totally on-brand for Brand.
marcell 3y ago
It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. YouTube, in their statement, is pretending they have an objective standard that is fairly applied to everyone. In reality, there is no uniform standard. They ban people when business interests dictate it. So their policy reads as “we have an objective standard,” but reality is “we ban when we feel like it.” YouTube could fix this contradiction by changing their policy to something like “we will ban creators for any reason, at our discretion.”
- pixl97 3y ago
  >The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. ??? You are conflating all the different legal systems of the US. US criminal law is the one of beyond reasonable doubt. US civil law on the other hand is an entire other bag of worms and 'potential' contractual obligations. On top of that private property has a pretty massive leeway in reasons you can ban people from said properties. There is no contradiction here. "Fuck you, your tie sucks" is a completely valid reason to remove you from their private property. Said person being a dick to others is what is typically considered an exceptionally valid reason to remove them from the property. If we want to follow a broad social convention, then it is be nice to others, how about that for a start?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Yay for extra-judicial, pre-conviction punishment! Even better, if acquitted he still won't be re-instated!!!

happytiger 3y ago
Nobody seems worried about how this standard gets applied down the road. They all seem focused on the case study but don’t see how this example applies directly to them so obviously. I am genuinely confused how so many smart people can be so short sighted.

Sophistifunk 3y ago

It doesn't really matter what their argument is, they simply need to have one. It's their sandbox, and they have chosen an advertiser-friendly ratchet as the driver of policy. YouTube will get more and more bland and samey as people fear the banhammer, which will get used on less and less extreme content and producers, as the "cancelling machinery" has been built and will always find the next-most-evil^tm on which to focus. Until YouTube becomes boring and enough interesting people end up together somewhere else, and then all the users will leave at once (in internet time). Doctorow huffs his own farts at a James Cameron level, but he's right about this.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>In England and Wales, more than 99% of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult. https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scor... An alternative interpretation of what's going on here is that the mainstream justice system is failing, and people are cobbling together an alternative justice system, where public shaming and demonetization are the punishments. I think building in redundancy to reduce single points of failure is generally a good thing.
- Sophistifunk 3y ago
  If you think advertiser sensibilities and internet mobs should play any sort of part in a just justice system, I don't know what to tell you.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  I get where you’re coming from, but YouTube doesn’t care about justice. They care about reputational harm and ultimately profits. So if that means demonetizing a victim because that’s what’s profitable, they’ll do that. If it means demonetizing an innocent but unpopular person, they’ll do that. A guilty person not being punished isn’t the only failure mode.

nvy 3y ago

>so what the heck does that even mean? It means they'll ban anyone who is high profile enough to expose YouTube to PR risk.

lofaszvanitt 3y ago

All these actions will eventually lead to the birth of another video platform.

technick 3y ago
I can't wait for that to happen

cornfutes 3y ago

They had no problem keeping the Logan brothers on the platform despite their toxic behavior.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kornhole 3y ago

'Community' is defined by them. It does not mean us. It could mean the government, military industrial complex, biopharmaceutical complex, the board of Alphabet, and anybody else they wish to include in it.

emodendroket 3y ago

I think the idea is that being known as a platform that gives money to unsavory characters harms their ecosystem.

akira2501 3y ago

> I'm just wondering about the argument they are making, You are witnessing the slow merging of Silicon Valley with the Security State. Buckle up. It gets super fun after this.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
Is that really the right way to think about it? Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? Seems more accurate to say Youtube is building an alternative security state. Heck, it's rather anarcho-capitalist if you ask me.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > Is that really the right way to think about it? That's the way I think about it based upon my perspective and experience. > Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? Remains to be seen. The police have been "urged" to investigate, according to the AP. Perhaps the "right way to think" hasn't revealed itself yet? > Seems more accurate to say Youtube is building an alternative security state. I see no reason to be so certain the government had no involvement in this case, which you would have to be in order to consider this more accurate than literally any other theory. > Heck, it's rather anarcho-capitalist if you ask me. Oh.. it's a "cool" way to undermine human society. I didn't realize.
- username332211 3y ago
  > Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? No, he's punished without the due process of law. And that's how most dictatorial regimes usually deal with miscreants. If you bad-mouthed Breznev nobody would bother with a show-trial unless there was some specific benefit of making you an example. In 9/10 cases they'd fire you from any semi-decent job and won't let your kids finish high school with more than 2.0 GPA.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    Let's check for political bias here. Suppose I rewrote your comment so instead of talking about Russell Brand, I'm talking about the right-wing Budweiser boycott. Those right-wingers are punishing Budweiser without due process of law. Just like most dictatorial regimes. How worried are you?

a2800276 3y ago

>we take action to protect the community,” the spokeswoman said. This really exposes Google's hypocrisy, though. If they were worried about protecting the community, surely they would remove his content and not his ability to monetize it. They must mean that "community" is being harmed by the content and not by the ads (else the responsible thing would be to shut down altogether ...) That said, I think Brand's videos are a big pile of barf, though again, if that were the standard, YouTube would have to throw out 90+% of their content...

belter 3y ago

Meet Pedrinho Matador YouTube Channel... - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBnh_1CLNa5rF3dmoDKIt3w https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBnh_1CLNa5rF3dmoDKIt3w https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Rodrigues_Filho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Rodrigues_Filho

hasmanean 3y ago

“Ecosystem” means advertisers.

lenkite 3y ago

All this doesn't matter. There is a Social Credit System and Scoring that is implicitly implemented in the Land of the Brave and Free. If you anger the Lords of The Traditional Orthodoxy by shaking your Chains, they will ensure that Sufficient Character Assassination is carried out to reduce your score to pitiful levels. Once that is done, you are deemed as Unfit For Society and then slowly Cancelled and Censored Out Of Existence.

soundnote 3y ago

It's simply an excuse to engage in political censure. It's worth remembering that in these people's parlance it's "denying someone's existence" to disagree with their political program or one counter-reality belief they hold, and they do demonetize for it.

YeBanKo 3y ago

Trying to dig into their statement is a moot point: R Kelly on Youtube Music is alive and well. You can argue, that it's separate from Youtube. But then here is a search result for R Kelly https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=r+kelly https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=r+kelly I assume those those videos that come up copyrighted content and someone gets monetization for it? And he his not been merely accused, but convicted. There are other examples if you dig. This Brand is a tool and can't stand him, but this all happens conveniently right when he gained a little bit of traction by being an outspoken critique of the government.