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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by paganel »

curiousllama wrote: post #132
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…

> based solely on accusations This is not true. The independent corroborating evidence is also material. Contemporaneous records from a rape clinic is powerful evidence. More generally, innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a social one. From a social perspective, that's never been the standard, nor should it be. Bad folks have often been shunned without convictions - that's why the norm has been "resi…

[flagged]

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

#142

Post by afiori »

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.

"innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom of speech" are principles codified in law.

The position that only the government is bound by "freedom of speech" is, at the very least, weird in an international context where things that are not the US government are expected to respect people's freedoms.

It is also perfectly legal to do a lot bad things like e.g. buying the product of slave labor in other countries or blood diamonds or buying stocks of companies known to pollute with wild disregard.

Also in the US:

> "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law.

is misleading, the more precise version is that "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in criminal courts.

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

#143

Post by c7DJTLrn »

Putting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of his videos a few years ago and they were interesting discussions of the news with a particular emphasis on questioning everything which I see as a healthy habit. Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait videos were getting double the views. YouTube's algorithm plays a massive part in what goes into people's heads and they should be held more accountable.

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

#144

Post by threeseed »

efitz wrote: post #133
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.

Then let’s change the law. It’s obvious over the past few years that companies can’t be trusted with freedom of association or freedom of speech. Let’s strip them of both. If you are incorporated (and therefore benefit from government-provided protection from liability and lower tax rates) then you no longer get to choose your customers; you’re a common carrier and must provide the same service to all customers. You…

You need to understand that the majority of people simply don't agree with you.

They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and stay away from those that don't.

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

#145

Post by lesuorac »

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?

> How do you think any news media functions?

Why do you think all of the media responses to viral things on twitter are "Hey, I'm X from Y News Corp; can we use your footage"?

If it was fair use they wouldn't bother to ask.

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

#147

Post by adamsb6 »

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]

IIRC it was for election disinformation, not copyright.

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

#148

Post by robertlagrant »

snakeyjake wrote: post #125
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? I'm not a court. Are you a court? I hope you're not a court. Sentient buildings weird me out. If four employees came to me and accused someone of harassing them, I would weigh the evidence and if warranted, fire the employee. No court involved. When you are self-righteous prick as prickly as brand, it is extremely easy to believe the accuser…

> When you are self-righteous prick as prickly as brand, it is extremely easy to believe the accusers.

This is why courts use the only system that has a chance of finding the truth.

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

#150

Post by robertlagrant »

runarberg wrote: post #113
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 you…

> youtube has decided to believe the victim

Not the victim. The accuser, who may be a victim.

Post reply on HN