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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by djbusby »

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #349

Like every social media platform the "community guidelines" are written to be purposely subjective and vague, such that the enforcement of the guidelines can be done arbitrarily, per the whim of the company and their agents.

Not just social media. Stripe and Square have similar wiggle-room and it's a demonization felt pretty directly. Amazon, Etsy and others - their policies give room to pick and choose winners - and change policy on a whim - and apply it inconsistently.

Corporate Overlords don't have to engage on Rights - it's all in the Privilege realm.

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

#502

Post by beebmam »

cmiles74 wrote: post #437

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.

The less money that creators get from YouTube, the better. Content becomes a swamp when content gets monetized for the creator. The internet was so much better before everything was monetized. The platform should always be pocketing all the money.

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

#504

Post by Plasmoid »

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.

There's this really neat section of law known as administrative law. One of the tenants is that you are allowed to have pretty much any rule that you want to have but you have to apply it in a reasonably impartial and fair manner. This means, you can setup random rules that you enforce capriciously.

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

#505

Post by hinkley »

aidenn0 wrote: post #500
hinkley wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allegedly. If a bunch of people come forward accusing you of assault, odds are pretty good you did it. However, private businesses punishing people for having charges brought against them but not yet tried? That's judge, jury and executioner, which is incompatible with the set of laws that the US is built on - for which the source material was English Law, and precedent even older than that. So an American company pr…

By the definition of "punish" that you are implicitly using, private businesses in America used to be able to punish people for anything ("we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"). Now there are certain things they cannot punish people for (e.g. being black). Are you suggesting that the time has come to mandate that companies may not discriminate against customers for other reasons as well?

I'd rather we sorted out what 'the commons' means in an online context, but failing that? Yes. Because we're essentially privatizing all discourse and those companies can do pretty much whatever they want - as long as they don't piss off other companies too badly (eg, Twitter being demonetized because of Nazis).

We've lost the idea of broadcasting in the public interest decades ago, and there's no PBS for the internet (Just PBS on the Internet)

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

#506

Post by turquoisevar »

cmiles74 wrote: post #437

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.

YouTube has been doing this for a while.

If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours.

This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you.

Load of BS of course.

Either content is good enough to place ads on, revenue of which is shared, or your content isn’t good enough to place ads on. Making profit over someone else’s content (however abhorrent the person might be) is just dirty imho.

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

#507

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#508

Post by djur »

jahsome wrote: post #92
nickthegreek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned? I found a page of other unfair practices that google is using to steal our cash: https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent to allow…

> Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.

Monetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.

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

#509

Post by judge2020 »

turquoisevar wrote: post #506
cmiles74 wrote: post #437

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.

YouTube has been doing this for a while. If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours. This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you. Load of BS of course.…

consider it ads on UGC to operate the service.
Post reply on HN