211–220 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're innocent, it's already too late.
Just like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard right? Oh wait Depp won, was awarded millions, everyone knew about it, and Amber Heard was mocked & laughed at until she faded off. Why doesn't Brand do what Depp did, if they are just making it all up?
[flagged]
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…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a court of law. I can say whatever I want. What happened to freedom of speech?
I never said you weren't free to say what you want. Clearly you don't intend to argue in good faith though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Immediately following crises everyone talks about making the network more resilient and so on, but it never fully recovers because everyone intuitively knows that establishing consus is slow and bumpy, and that major restructuring/retooling efforts are way easier to accomplish unilaterally. So people start drifting away because unless there's a quick technical fix that can be deployed within a month or two, It's Over. Distributed systems always lose against coherent attackers with more than a threshold level of resources because the latter has a much tighter OODA loop.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
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 want to show your content on the internet? Start your own hosting service or find one that will allow your content. Nobody owes you anything.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a private platform. If you want better accountability argue for an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas" bullshit.
At some point the private platform becomes so influential over the information environment and politics that it can no longer be considered merely a private platform. It is now also a public square. It’s not unreasonable at that point to require it to adhere higher standards of evidence, law, and reason. In this case, I’m no fan of Brand, but I’m even less a fan of YouTube’s apparent policy of “guilty till proven inn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In the beginning YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. You could watch illegal streams of many films and movies and you could find some porn before it’d be taken down. Advertisers are what demand moderation not users so as to protect their bottom line. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise and ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-...