Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#81

Post by samspenc »

kylebenzle wrote: post #50
jahsome wrote: post #23

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?

Just checked it. Went to YouTube.coms Russel Brand page, clicked the shortest video, let it play. After the video, ad played, then the next Russell Brand video. Next video was longer and included marked ads throughout the video, clearly pausing the ad content and labeled with a pop-up. Also, YouTube still has its pop up that say, "Video contains paid promotion," so they know he is profiting off the video and are stil…

I don't think this is quite right - as the other comments point out, Youtube will still play ads and they take 100% cut of the money. They have already announced that Brand is demonetized, so they will pay him 0% while taking 100% of the ad revenue for themselves.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#82

Post by mikhailfranco »

coldtea wrote: post #79

[flagged]

He was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many years in that 90s-00s period.

He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were, and continue to be, illegal in the UK; perhaps sex-addicts are always close to the edge of criminality.

However, all those potential crimes are a long time ago. The police and his accusers have chosen to stay silent for a long time.

Some potentially self-incriminating stories have come from his own rehabilitation narrative.

It remains to be seen if the accusations can be upheld in a court of law, but the timing is suspicious.

It is only after a few years of criticizing the MSM and government overreach that someone has decided to dig up those old potential offences.

I do not like Brand's act or lifestyle. He always appeared to be (and gloried in) the persona of a silver-tongued charismatic saviour, a hippy version of a loquacious Renaissance Jesus, complete with long hair and (now salt'n'pepper) beard.

However, the timing remains interesting, and I suspect, not coincidental with his rising anti-establishment fame - not to mention a YT pot of money to attract plaintiffs and their lawyers.

There is a fading tide of cancel culture, perhaps Brand will be just become some flawed flotsam or jetsam on that ebbing swell.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#83

Post by beej71 »

Izkata wrote: post #77
coldpie wrote: post #59

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. Google is a public company

It's a publicly-traded private company, not a government-owned public company.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#85

Post by beej71 »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #74

Question to anybody who works in advertisement: 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

I'm not an expert, but I'd suspect that people were more likely to buy Nike because they cut Woods loose. Lots of press there.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#86

Post by nickthegreek »

_mxdo wrote: post #66
theironhammer wrote: post #60

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?

Agreed Benny. The UK printed these allegations, and their defamation laws have a lower bar than the US.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#87

Post by nickthegreek »

jahsome wrote: post #36
tmikaeld wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

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.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#88

Post by jstarfish »

_mxdo wrote: post #66
theironhammer wrote: post #60

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?

Because they're not inherently lying. Brand has already admitted to banging one claimant who was 16 at the time. He's gross, but this extralegal retconning of all past sexual encounters needs to stop. It's pig-butchering by another name.

The excuses for not filing a police report of rape at the time rarely withstand scrutiny. The aggrieved have no problems broadcasting their story on social media, but have every excuse prepared for why they can't formally document it within the statute of limitations in a venue that imposes consequences for lying. Go figure.

Heard and Depp were a shitshow though. When two actors take the stand against each other, neither can be trusted. Michael Jackson is a better example.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#89

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

beej71 wrote: post #85
JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #74

Question to anybody who works in advertisement: 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

I'm not an expert, but I'd suspect that people were more likely to buy Nike because they cut Woods loose. Lots of press there.

A sport apparel company abandoning an athlete is the type of press that sells shoes?

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#90

Post by SmartJerry »

coldpie wrote: post #59
cameldrv wrote: post #47

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…

The way to enforce it is with with monopoly or collusion rules. Google has 39% of all digital advertising worldwide according to a quick Google search. However, I think digital advertising is too broad to even be considered a single category - you should have digital advertising of images, text, video, sound, and so on. Television and radio are different categories, why would you not do the same online? They have the capability to be a monopoly or collude with enough companies to exert monopoly power that they can abuse in some of those categories. Combine this with the fact that they receive special legal protections from liability for user posted content. Their protections against user content should be less if they are editorializing or treating content differently the content. I don't think they should be liable for user posted content, but they should have a responsibility to treat content equally, subject to fines. If they are going to demonetize or ban Russell Brand for a unverified news story, then if their CEO or even the president of the US receive an unverified news story against them (as the president has), they should get the exact same treatment. This is because rules enforced unequally harm content creators and users. The harm comes by way of lying to people. If every person who likes the color blue is getting demonetized, without notifying users of the rule, but every person who likes the color red gets promoted up, a user would be tricked into thinking the whole world likes red. That harm is tangible enough when it comes to important or political topics to deserve fines. The harm coming from not explicitly saying your rules. We protect a consumer from tobacco by forcing them to tell the truth about the product. THe same goes for tech. I'm sure some will say well these kind of lies aren't that bad, but they are, these are peoples lives and for many their source of income and to get treated differently on a whim tricks the content creators (essentially employees) as well as the users.
Post reply on HN