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

101–110 of 1001 posts

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

#101

Post by JohnMakin »

somenameforme wrote: post #20

So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…

"innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action, this phrase is meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.

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

#102

Post by smcleod »

somenameforme wrote: post #20

So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…

YouTube isn’t the internet… it’s Google.

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

#105

Post by Nextgrid »

JohnMakin wrote: post #101
somenameforme wrote: post #20

So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…

"innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action, this phrase is meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.

Maybe this should be reconsidered when a "private company" controls a large majority of humanity's social fabric and/or popular culture?

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

#106

Post by SR2Z »

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...

They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit either."

It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.

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

#107

Post by jtbayly »

kouru225 wrote: post #62
woooooo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016. Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized.

[flagged]

The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG telling social media companies which people should have their speech censored.

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

#108

Post by smcleod »

tmikaeld wrote: post #33
realce wrote: post #26

Earlier 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 understand what you’re saying although Google (YouTube) has made it its mission to destroy alternatives and quash new ones as they appear.

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

#109

Post by mattficke »

somenameforme wrote: post #20

So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…

“Innocent until proven guilty” is an incredibly high burden of proof that we reserve for criminal trials. In other contexts, this is not the appropriate standard —- civil suits, for example, use a “preponderance of evidence” standard. Non-state actors using a lower burden of proof is entirely appropriate.

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

#110

Post by klyrs »

Nextgrid wrote: post #105
JohnMakin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action, this phrase is meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.

Maybe this should be reconsidered when a "private company" controls a large majority of humanity's social fabric and/or popular culture?

No, antitrust laws should break them up.
Post reply on HN