71–80 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satire and commentary is covered under Fair Use.
>100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized. Doesn’t sound like satire or commentary to me
How do you think any news media functions?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a protected class. > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up This, however, t…
> There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Should a private company have those rights? We meed corporate reform in America.
We already have a well-established mechanism for reigning in companies that are too powerful: anti-trust law. All we need to do is enforce it.
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
When 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of 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…
> they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a protected class. > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up This, however, t…
Google is a public company
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized. Doesn’t sound like satire or commentary to me
Clips of public figures saying things are fair use, period. How do you think any news media functions?
If you are commentating on it and making significant changes, then it can be fair use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're innocent, it's already too late.
Just 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?