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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by nvm0n2 »

yellow_postit wrote: post #25
Synaesthesia wrote: post #6

Advertising companies hate controversy.

Nit: Advertisers, or at least those with deep pockets, hate controversy. That drives advertising platforms to hate it. Though the fact that X hasn’t hemorrhaged even more money seems to be finding where that argument intercepts the value for views advertisers will place.

That isn't it. Advertisers have repeatedly shown a huge willingness to court severe controversy. They use obese people to advertise swimwear, they run ads that tell men that they're toxic and terrible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gillette-woke-now-when-...

“These are smart people, they do so much research. They know they’re taking on a topic that could be controversial," said Rob Baiocco, co-founder and chief creative officer of BAM Connection, a New York-based marketing firm.

The actual thing motivating these people is simply hatred towards anyone who doesn't bend the knee to their new religion. That's it, that's all there is to it. Beyond that, there is no motivation.

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

#192

Post by grecy »

c7DJTLrn wrote: post #143

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 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.

I'm a YouTuber, and I want to be very clear on the above.

I know I would get way more views (and subscribers, and money) if I did more stupid clickbait stuff. But I don't want to, that doesn't make me happy. Also, professionals should not do that out of being professional.

A house painter would make more money if he did a rush job, and a TV reporter would get in the news more if he told blatant lies on live national TV. Just because a person can make more money short term doing something, it doesn't mean they should not take 100% of the blame for doing it.

I could very easily make videos of doing highly illegal stuff, which would likely get a zillion views. Am I then less responsible for doing it?

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

#193

Post by arpowers »

mrmincent wrote: post #155

Sexual assault is a serious allegation. In most media channels if an employee is accused of sexual assault they would be stood down and an investigation launched. He’s lucky they’re still giving him a platform to use.

While sexual assault is serious if true, it's also the only crime that can ruin someone's life and livelihood with no evidence or actual crime taking place.

Additionally there is often large financial incentive for accusers (and their lawyers) via lawsuits and it serves as a fantastic method of hurting people politically even if they are exonerated.

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

#194

Post by kube-system »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #74

Question to anybody who works in advertisement: Are people less likely to buy Nike apparel because for example Tiger Woods was caught with escorts and drinking booze? I am asking because from a distance it seems not a business decision as much as an opportunity for a CEO to dunk on an athlete/famous person

Brand image is a complicated concept but it consists of a lot of different pieces over a long period of time that build a public perception. Often, good or bad brand images are not due to any one single thing, but the totality of things that the public knows about a brand.

While a single bad apple might not sink a brand, if it starts to become a pattern, it can ruin brand image over time.

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

#195

Post by prometheus76 »

lesuorac wrote: post #137
jtbayly wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Uh, I guess one could phrase it that way but it's rather dishonest. It'd be akin to saying a police officer testifying that they saw X person shoot Y person as attempting to deplatform X person. -- Honestly the only thing questionable in the twitter files was the USG telling twiter which accounts were their cy-ops accounts so they wouldn't get banned. Twitter having a policy of you can't do Y on the platform and the…

Is government censorship via a third party not a problem for you?

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

#196

Post by plagiarist »

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?

You are reconsidering the wrong part. Let's have smaller companies that aren't able to control that much of society.

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

#198

Post by curiousllama »

nimos wrote: 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.

This is a very interesting point. Tech-media companies (Google, Meta, Tik Tok) increasingly serve a similar gatekeeper function for public discourse that TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) did 50 years ago.

This... actually is a hopeful insight to me.

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

#200

Post by rhcom2 »

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…

Everything would be overrun by spam. Even 4chan moderates spam and ads.
Post reply on HN