451–460 of 1001 posts
Did I read this correctly? It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. That doesn't seem right to me. If they were to cease hosting his material, that would maych their corporate-speak blurb. This sounds to me like more money for YouTube.
My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brand could argue he was discriminated as a man, in the sense that he was assumed as guilty of rape because he's a man.
He could argue he was discriminated against because he's actually secretly a butterfly; both arguments would hold similar weight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but we need to go to the dumb wire days of the telephone companies who couldn't control what people say on the phone and if their services were used to do bad things it was the law enforcements job to deal with it. That is today. You do not get to control Google’s computers. Buy your own server(s), buy your own bandwidth, and do what you please. Lobby your representatives to make symmetric fiber internet a utility…
This is like saying that if you don't like the planet Earth, find yourself a planet suitable to terraform, go there terraform it, populate it the way you like and live there. Sure, you can do that but you can also solve the problem at hand. Ownership, money, property etc. are all constructs based on a social contract, Sundar Pichai by himself can't have control on more than a suitcase and a vehicle maybe - he can con…
I can’t fly to another planet and terraform it. I can (and do) host my own video streams however.
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?
Unlikely, since uploaders don't really have a contractual relationship with YouTube. Platform operators can just arbitrarily kick people off with no recourse or accountability or even a clear explanation. There's no workaround for this except through regulation, aka government overreach into the free market destroying jobs and freedoms (as objections are usually phrased).
Did I read this correctly? It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. That doesn't seem right to me. If they were to cease hosting his material, that would maych their corporate-speak blurb. This sounds to me like more money for YouTube.
My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Community is an abused term nowadays
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> based solely on accusations This is not true. The independent corroborating evidence is also material. Contemporaneous records from a rape clinic is powerful evidence. More generally, innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a social one. From a social perspective, that's never been the standard, nor should it be. Bad folks have often been shunned without convictions - that's why the norm has been "resi…
> innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a social one Yes, legalism is often taken too far, but that doesn't mean that mob rule is a good thing. > Bad folks have often been shunned without convictions Are you sure about that? I'd sooner say that only losers get "shunned". Powerful politicians don't get "shunned" for their corruption, actually sometimes it seems to help with their popularity. Likewise wi…
Richard Nixon would like a word. As would Anthony Weiner, Roy Moore, John Edwards, and a few others.
Have often != are always.
I'm pointing out the long-term existence of a common second standard, not its consistent application.
> Whether they're lynching and necklacing their neighbors or "canceling" minor celebrity cranks.
It seems you have some big feelings you should confront, to compare YouTube demonetization to historical racial violence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like saying that if you don't like the planet Earth, find yourself a planet suitable to terraform, go there terraform it, populate it the way you like and live there. Sure, you can do that but you can also solve the problem at hand. Ownership, money, property etc. are all constructs based on a social contract, Sundar Pichai by himself can't have control on more than a suitcase and a vehicle maybe - he can con…
Symmetric fibre internet exists in many European countries, and is readily available to a large bulk of citizens in those countries already. I pay $25pm for 500Mbps symmetric today. I can’t fly to another planet and terraform it. I can (and do) host my own video streams however.