YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

Post by pydry » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:20 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #281

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 is like HR - they are there to protect the company and the company's revenue streams, not you or "the community". This is why I think the term "community guidelines" for "censorship policy" is such abusive gaslighting. It's unilateral censorship, not community, and they are rules, not guidelines. It's the same deceptive drive that renamed "searching your bag" to "security screening" at airports.

Post by jonny_eh » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:21 PM UTC

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

Post by agentgumshoe » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:21 PM UTC

Post by angulardragon03 » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:22 PM UTC

christkv wrote: post #348

surfingdino wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by lukeholder » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:22 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #351

roenxi wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... having far lower standards yourself ... How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger. Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot…

Journalism. Reaching out to involved parties for comment, boots on the ground, making retractions, reserving judgement, citing sources, seeking and contextualizing opposition and/or expertise, making an attempt to prefer observation over interpretation, pushing back on wild claims, etc etc etc. I was acutely aware of partisan bias in MSM but I didn't appreciate just how much they actually did get right until the delu…