531–540 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know that’s only certain protected classes of people, in that you can’t discriminate in the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.
Agree. One can only interpret this as ham-fisted virtue signaling by YouTube management and perhaps with staff support. If they are continuing to host and serve the Brand videos, they are defacto saying, "content by this person doesn't hurt our platform in a material way, but we've decided this person is bad and we want to show ourselves punishing him." And the best part is they are tangibly rewarded in this by not h…
But he can private the videos at anytime. Even unlisting it would remove all ads while allowing people to find the videos (via links).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a lawyer (barrister?), but no. Generally, businesses are not obligated to do business with folks they dislike.
This is not true. Courts continually hold that a business must serve persons they don't like or agree with.
In the US, at least, generally only when the act at issue would discriminate on a specific, enumerated, legally protected basis that applies to the business and business transaction in question, and if the business does not have some right (including its First Amendment rights) that trump the specific application of the law in question in the context of the actual act at issue.
The exception is for the fairly narrow set of businesses to which stricter neutrality regulations apply, like phone companies, but that’s a very small set of businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. They've been the target of that twice at least, in 2017 over hate speech [1], in 2019 over pedos[2]. Large brands spend insane amounts of money on advertising, and they do not want their content to appear next to people facing allegations of sexual misconduct or otherwise bad behavior. Hell just look at Twitter and how much advertising in…
I’m pretty sure YouTube still shows ads on demonetized channels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
YT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. They just don't share in the take with the creator. What a principled stance... "I will make even more money because you did something bad somewhere else!"
It seems pretty clear that there are no in-video ads running on Brand's channel currently. People are welcome to check for themselves:
When a channel is demonetized does that mean YouTube doesn't run ads at all on the channel's content, or do they still run ads and just don't pay out the share to the creator?
They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.
Please link to any example of one of Brand's youtube videos that is still running ads
> “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,…
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…
>is the beginning of another level of dystopia none of us wants This 'dystopia' is called freedom of association and I can confidentially tell you that I personally support the rights of any business to choose who they enter contracts with and not to do business with a likely sex offender, so I think you ought to speak for yourself. There is no basis on which to compel a private business to host everyone's content an…
And if you are wrong, are you also willing to apologize for hasty decision making? Or will you hide behind the crowd and say 'well everyone else said X!'
Because that's what is happening right now. People's lives are ruined on the assumption of someone being the big bad. Then when it turns out the situation is far more nuanced and delicate, the social damage is already done. Not just the big guys like Brand, who got enough millions to throw lawyer after lawyer at the case should he be innocent, but also the small guys who have a far weaker position socially and financially.