Live data from Hacker News

YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

nytimes.com

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#162
post #67

No clue whether Brand is innocent or guilty before the law, but if he's exonerated would he have grounds to sue YouTube/Google or do the terms of service allow YouTube to demonetize people based on accusations even if they turn out to be false at a later time?

Unlikely, since uploaders don't really have a contractual relationship with YouTube. Platform operators can just arbitrarily kick people off with no recourse or accountability or even a clear explanation. There's no workaround for this except through regulation, aka government overreach into the free market destroying jobs and freedoms (as objections are usually phrased).

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

#163

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 outr…

Is it even "the algorithm" or is it simply just how people prefer to click crazy shit? We see it with news and pretty much anything else where clicks equal money.

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

#164

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…

The court of public opinion has never followed the rules which apply to courts of law.

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

#165
post #55

[flagged]

Innocent until proven guilty is a standard for court proceedings. I am not a court, and I can even disagree with what a court decides. I can use my own judgment to draw conclusions and form opinions. For example, I can be confident that OJ is a murderer even though be was not convicted and was declared not guilty.

This is a category error. Courts use a methodology that's the best one we have for discovering the truth. They don't always do it well (e.g. the OJ case) and you as an individual can use the same methodology to understand if something happened or not. It's the methodology, not the "being a court" that is key.

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

#166

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 outr…

The difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understand.

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

#167

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satire and commentary is covered under Fair Use.

>100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized. Doesn’t sound like satire or commentary to me

It's almost certainly fair use. The Copyright Act explicitly allows the use of copyrighted material for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and the like. Courts have historically been sensitive to First Amendment concerns when copyrighted materials are used for transformative purposes. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the transformative nature of parody as a form of commentary, giving it a wide berth under fair use.

Now, onto the crux of your argument about implicit commentary. Even if a work does not contain explicit commentary, the juxtaposition of clips alone can function as a form of critique or commentary. This is especially relevant when highlighting inconsistencies or ironies in public discourse. While there isn't direct commentary, the act of selectively piecing together these clips communicates a larger point or message. Courts often look at the 'purpose and character' of the use, and if it is transformative—adding new meaning or context—it's generally favored under fair use.

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

#170
post #30

The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.

It's really what advertisers are willing to put up with. Unfortunately most companies are run by cowards and I know for a fact that having your ad presented alongside something controversial doesn't imply the brand supports it

Unfortunately, there's a load minority who try to push this when this far from the truth.

Post reply on HN