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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by zo1 »

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.

It's a principle we hold as a society.

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

#342

Post by gorwell »

rcxdude wrote: post #166
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 difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understand.

It's amusing they recognize NPCs that uncritically repeat the establishment narrative and question nothing, but don't recognize they are doing the same thing in reverse.

"I Support The Current Thing" vs "I Oppose The Current Thing"

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

#343

Post by hotnfresh »

pauldenton wrote: post #96
coldpie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a protected class. > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up This, however, t…

Have you ever had your phone call interrupted because the phone company didn't like what you were talking about? Have you ever had your TV get disabled because your cable company didn't like the content you were watching? 140 years ago in the age of telegram, I suspect they weren't censoring messages they didn't like either.

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/09/archives/nixon-critics-co...

I was able to read at least part of the article without a subscription. Folks wanted to send Nixon some pointed complaints (go figure, who could have imagined) and telegraph operators weren’t letting them. Seems telegraph companies left matters of decency up to the discretion of the operator, at least by 1970 (and I bet you’d get a lot of “you may take your business elsewhere” for various sorts of messages you tried to send, before that, to the point that much speech was de-facto banned)

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

#344

Post by jmfldn »

cgio wrote: post #325
jmfldn wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His decent into outrage-bait, alt-right friendly nonsense struck me as abrupt. One minute his channel was reasonable enough, the next it was totally nuts. Part of me wonders whether this was calculated once he knew that a major expose was circling. I have zero evidence for this, but you can see the logic. Court a following that is sceptical of everything, and that will see an investigation by the 'mainstream media' a…

I cannot see how the army would be of any use in the eventuality of the major expose. There was this other person with huge following among scepticals of everything (sorry I don't remember the name exactly) who got a huge fine recently. I don't believe justice would look the other way, if anything, it may be attracting scrutiny with attention.

Sure, it just a theory. I had thought several times in recent months how odd his transformation had been though, and this is one possible cause of it.

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

#345

Post by jonny_eh »

0xDEF wrote: post #309
jmfldn wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His decent into outrage-bait, alt-right friendly nonsense struck me as abrupt. One minute his channel was reasonable enough, the next it was totally nuts. Part of me wonders whether this was calculated once he knew that a major expose was circling. I have zero evidence for this, but you can see the logic. Court a following that is sceptical of everything, and that will see an investigation by the 'mainstream media' a…

He pulled an Elon. Elon Musk also came out as an alt-right troll when he was tipped that an expose about sexual harassment of a flight attendant was coming his way.

It's a point of no return. They know they'll never be accepted in polite company again, so they go rude.

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

#346

Post by swores »

pipeline_peak wrote: post #310
ministryoftruth wrote: post #298

[flagged]

After the sexual assault, allegations do you really think people will care what Russell thinks?

Certainly among his existing fanbase (and others), there will be some who believe his denials and claims that there's a conspiracy against him, and there will be others who despite believing the accusations think there's nothing wrong with rape and that he should still be admired for all the sex he's had. Hopefully neither of those groups will be a large number of people, but they'll certainly be more than a couple of people.

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

#347

Post by WendyTheWillow »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #332
Airsinner wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that government (e.g. US Constitution). Once you venture into private parties evaluating other private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's still freedom of speech and association to…

> government doesn't itself have civil rights Neither do corporations. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine you refuse to talk to Trump supporters - most people would say that's your right. > It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people imagine the outrage if Tomorrow YouTube deletes accounts for anyone that supported Trump

Corporations are owned by people who do have civil rights.

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

#348

Post by christkv »

surfingdino wrote: post #308
karaterobot wrote: post #243

> “If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,” the spokeswoman said. Putting aside the validity of the accusations—let's say he did everything he's accused of, for the sake of argument—is Youtube alleging that he assaulted Youtube employees, app developers who use the Youtube ecosystem, or Youtube users? I assume the latter. But the thing is,…

YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management / income stream protection. Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service.

I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?

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

#350

Post by swores »

jsiepkes wrote: post #201
SR2Z wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit either." It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.

You seriously think the amount of money YouTube makes from ads on those videos is not a magnitude it costs them to host them?

Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I have as expenditure for doing the work.
Post reply on HN