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

91–100 of 1001 posts

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

#91

Post by coldtea »

mikhailfranco wrote: post #82
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 stor…

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

And even as such, had no complaints against him who bothered to go to the police and file/sue, not even at the height of me-too.

Then only things I've read are things like "he make lewd comments".

Then, on 2019 (? and they release now?) they get anonymous accusations, and even those to the press, not the police (the police merely says they are aware of "media reporting of a series of allegations"), from what the news say, for things that cannot be really verified aside from he-said/she-said anymore over 10 or 15 years after.

>He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were, and continue to be, illegal in the UK

Well, if he was investigated (by the police, not the press, like now) for drug use that would be relevant (even though still suspicious due to the timing and the focus on some individual where close to a million people use illegal drugs in the UK every day).

>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

And also where he's a nice "thought crime" target for all mainstream media types.

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

#92

Post by jahsome »

nickthegreek wrote: post #87
jahsome wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too?

Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.

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

#93

Post by cameldrv »

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…

There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric, water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service providers, etc.

The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons might be will vary depending on the business, but would generally not include being accused of a crime. The electric company is not allowed to cut off your power if you are accused (or even convicted) of sexual assault, as long as you pay your bill on time and don't vandalize their equipment etc.

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

#94

Post by coldpie »

cameldrv wrote: post #93
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 is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric, water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service providers, etc. The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons might be will vary dependi…

No matter how much you want it to be, YouTube is not a utility. Antitrust law is the right remedy here. Solve this through market competition by breaking up the big companies, not speech stifling regulations.

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

#96

Post by pauldenton »

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…

Have you ever had your phone call interrupted because the phone company didn't like what you were talking about?

Have you ever had your TV get disabled because your cable company didn't like the content you were watching?

140 years ago in the age of telegram, I suspect they weren't censoring messages they didn't like either.

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

#98

Post by sleepybrett »

engineer_22 wrote: post #11
keiferkif wrote: post #9

most unsurprising cancelation ever. His whole schtick was being an impulsive, out-of-control drug and sex fiend.

That's not what he does on Youtube. His channel is focused on political and social commentary

his channel is focused on woo and conspiracy.

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

#99

Post by waffleiron »

cameldrv wrote: post #47
gdulli wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

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…

> If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up.

If the people or the state want google to do this the should make a law to require it to do so.

If they don’t comply then, please break them up, sue them, fine them.

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

#100

Post by SR2Z »

woooooo wrote: post #71
kouru225 wrote: post #68

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?

The public figure can't copyright their appearance, but whoever recorded the clip absolutely has a copyright on it.

The funniest thing about copyright issues is that whenever they come up, people are so confidently wrong about the actual law. Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example.

Post reply on HN