YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by jvickers » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

perfect-blue wrote: post #315

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,…

It's an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately boils down to one point. YT gets to do whatever they want. The terms of service are designed so they can be selective in their enforcement. Is it bad policy? Yes. Does it allow for flexibility in a world that is never black and white? Also yes. Honestly, if there was a better solution, what would it be? The questions are endless once you start down this rabbit ho…

No, in my view Youtube can not do whatever they like with this kind of thing, at least as far as my potential outrage is concerned. If Youtube gives a false reason (to me as well as others) about the reason for demonetising someone then I have a problem with that.

When some content is banned from Youtube, it's got positives and negatives. Like when Alex Jones was banned, I was annoyed that I could no longer watch Alex Jones on Youtube if I ever wanted to, but more than that glad that he'd never appear in my autoplay or recommended videos. While I think there is some truth that YouTube can do as it likes, people talking about what their rules are, complaining about them, lobbying Youtube even, is all fair too. A fair complaint would be that the user does not get enough control over what gets recommended. If enough people are talking about that issue, it could motivate Youtube or a competitor to provide that kind of control, as it would be a signal that it would attract an audience to that platform and keep them engaged if recommendation control was a major concern of theirs.

Also, in some circumstances I could be quite annoyed with Youtube for not demonetising or banning some content. It could be something I don't want to watch personally, or more likely something I feel disgusted by such as Elsagate type scandals where the 'protect the children' type argument or instinct in my opinion or feelings override free speech concerns.

People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website, and which Youtube and anyone else who reads the comments can use.

Also, discussing how such a system works produces what would be considered 'prior art' when it comes to patents.

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

#422

Post by globular-toast » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #144

efitz wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

People like curation, not censorship. Big difference.

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

#423

Post by spacebanana7 » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

nateglims wrote: post #295

mrtksn wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if YouTube takes into consideration local values when doing this. For example, nudity and other controversial stuff can have much different standards on what's acceptable and what's not. If this is not baked into the formula, then it's likely that YouTube is pushing cultures to align with SV or some managers in Google. I'm not going to defend Russel Brand, just making a point about YT's impact. This time aro…

YouTube had to appease its advertisers to make money. I can’t think of a utility that has this revenue model.

Modern auction based ad platforms are much less economically sensitive to the pressure of advertiser ethics than traditional ad platforms like cable TV.

If one advertiser pulls out for ethical reasons their placement goes to the next bidder at an infinitesimally smaller price. And at the back of the line there’s always a game developer willing to pay a couple of dollars per install.

This is why the Facebook ad boycotts were so ineffective. Especially compared to the impact of the Twitter ad boycott - with Twitter having never developed a modern auction based platform.

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

#424

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

agentgumshoe wrote: post #366

Wow so much focus in the comments on the individual instead of YouTube's ability to randomly remove whoever they dislike, reminding us of the problems with large corporate companies controlling essentially public services. Just imagine if Tencent decided to buy YouTube from Google, would get real interesting.

[deleted]

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

#425

Post by awb » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:38 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #297

zztop44 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the courts are legally empowered to lock someone in a cage for years. So they should be working by a different standard than a company firing someone.

Firing someone for a horrific accusation might not be that different to locking the person in a cage.

I don’t know many people that would prefer the later, since being locked in a cage also comes with losing your job, a horrible accusation proven true (or admitted to) in court and a public criminal record.

Losing your income and being publicly shamed sucks, but you still can rely on close friends and family, a public safety net and lawsuits (if you’ve been defamed or illegally fired), while enjoying sunshine, fresh air and freedom of movement.

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

#426

Post by wmf » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:38 PM UTC

0xDEF wrote: post #397

Danjoe4 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk has greatly accelerated green energy innovation through EVs, battery technology, and solar. Are these actions appropriately described as "alt-right"?

When people today talk about Elon Musk's political views they mean his sudden right-wing radicalization in 2022 that happened exactly when he was tipped off about sexual harassment allegations coming his way.

Nah, it was caused by his kid turning trans.

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

#427

Post by leptons » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:38 PM UTC

agentgumshoe wrote: post #366

Wow so much focus in the comments on the individual instead of YouTube's ability to randomly remove whoever they dislike, reminding us of the problems with large corporate companies controlling essentially public services. Just imagine if Tencent decided to buy YouTube from Google, would get real interesting.

> controlling essentially public services.

Youtube is not and never was a "public service". It's their platform and they are free to do with it as they want, with very little exception. It's not any different than a mom and pop store having a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign and enforcing that. It's their store, it's private property, it's their rules.

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

#428

Post by serf » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:39 PM UTC

c7DJTLrn wrote: post #246

itsoktocry wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can say the same thing about Jordan Peterson, no? Content from 5-10 years ago was interesting. Now I have him muted on X.

I'm convinced that these platforms are a huge driver, if not the main driver of social and political polarisation.

the money/power/fame are the drivers, the social media platforms open up the search for those things to a much wider audience while espousing the importance.

that is to say : social media isn't innocent, but it's a co-factor in the larger human-dominating infinite search for power and fame.

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

#429

Post by pvg » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:39 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #385

sneak wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His means of supporting himself has not been cancelled, just his ability to get paid from YouTube. Don't conflate them.

Do any of us know what percentage of his income is from YouTube currently? I think the point stands in the abstract. It doesn't even matter for him specifically, because there are people whose income is primarily/entirely from YouTube. And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income.

You can get fired from a job that is 100% of your income. In many places/occupations, for no reason at all.

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

#430

Post by corinroyal » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 10:40 PM UTC

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…

So if I run a social media site, I would be required by law to carry hate speech, incitement to overthrow the government, rape threats, heretical religious statements, fascist propaganda, and covid conspiracy videos? That's gonna be a no from me. Freedom of speech does not imply a mandate for others to broadcast your speech.