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

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

Post by tredre3 »

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…

> So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty?

Yes. But to be fair it wouldn't be out of character for Russel, if you actually know who he is, so maybe that's why the internet finds it so easy to ignore silly things like "evidence" and "proof".

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

#112

Post by nova22033 »

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?

The way to reconsider this is to amend the constitution.

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

#113

Post by runarberg »

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 a legal framework, it has nothing to do with popular actions, and never has. All it basically says is that Russell Brand cannot go to jail until he is proven guilty.

There are no laws requiring the public to treat an accused person as if they never committed a crime until said crime has been proven. It is up to the public whether they believe the victim or the accused. In this case youtube has decided to believe the victim. Perhaps youtube—like so many others—have deemed the accusations credible, and they are in their full right to act on these believes.

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

#115

Post by stuaxo »

coldtea wrote: post #91
mikhailfranco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mer…

Dunnow, being cracked out your mind and chasing your ex around your locked bedroom when she's asked to leave, mounting and grinding here, all while your naked is a bit a much ?

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

#116

Post by miohtama »

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?

This is why developer and hacker community should strive to build open networks, and then have them adopted.

This was what early internet was like: Usenet, IRC, etc.

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

#117

Post by throwaway128128 »

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…

On X you can get "cancelled" on even flimsier pretexts.

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

#118

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by m000 »

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.

Making the content isn't free either. If they don't like Russel Brand for whatever reason, they're free to deplatform him. Virtue signaling while lining your pockets is disingenuous.

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

#120

Post by c420 »

_mxdo wrote: post #39
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?

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.

You are incorrect:

"“He is most likely making £2,000 to £4,000 per video, not taking into account any affiliate deals and brand sponsorships that might be running in the background,” she said.

Based on five videos a week, this could easily produce the best part of a £1m a year."

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/how-russell-...

Post reply on HN