[flagged]
YouTube does not have the power to assign guilt. They are exercising a contractual privilege agreed to by Mr. Brand when he decided to upload videos to their platform.
YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
31–40 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#32[flagged]
> 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.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#33When 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?
They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.
Hosting isn't free and they're not forcing anyone to host it there, there are alternative platforms.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#34Advertising companies hate controversy.
I think Google still sells ads against his videos, they just don't give him the money they make.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#35If what they're saying isn't true, why doesn't he just sue them for defamation?
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.
Hosting isn't free and they're not forcing anyone to host it there, there are alternative platforms.
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...
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#37Advertising companies hate controversy.
Nit: 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.
Nay: 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?
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#38Advertising companies hate controversy.
Nit: 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.
The only ads I see on X these days are from Apple. There used to be more variety.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#39When 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?
YouTube ads are a tiny % of revenue. Celebrities on YT make their money from brand deals, not ads. Remember "Adpocalypse" and the beginning of all this ultra clean PC talk online? Before all that, sure you could make a living from YT ads, but many channels don't even have them on because it's cents. For example I have over 50k views on some videos, but the ad revenue is nothing.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#40[flagged]
It'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.
But 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.