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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by marcell »

pixl97 wrote: post #587
marcell wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. YouTube, in their statement, is pretending they have an objective standard that is fairly applied to everyone. In reality, there is no uniform standard. They ban people when business interests dictate it. So their policy reads as “we have an objective standard,” but reality is “we ban when we feel l…

>The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. ??? You are conflating all the different legal systems of the US. US criminal law is the one of beyond reasonable doubt. US civil law on the other hand is an entire other bag of worms and 'potential' contractual obligations. On top of that private property has a pretty massive leeway in reasons you can ban people from said prop…

If the policy is “Fuck you, your tie sucks”, then that should be written into the policy.

YouTube’s policy does not say “Fuck your, your tie sucks.” They say they remove people for harm to users. But there are many creators who harm users who are not being removed. So that is not the policy.

They can easily fixing this by changing the policy to “fuck you, your tie sucks” or “we ban for any reason at our discretion.”

Until they make that change, it’s perfectly fair to point out the contradiction.

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

#622

Post by rwhyan »

dragonwriter wrote: post #591
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.

> It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement, so Google won’t make the money in the first place, as it will contribute neither to advertising revenue nor to the marginal benefit from the Premium users derived compared to non-Premium users in avoiding ads. Since Google pays creators less…

> If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement

Not necessarily true. YouTube definitely runs ads on demonetized videos and channels.

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

#623

Post by sneak »

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.

He is not dependent on YouTube to support himself even if 100% of his income today comes from YouTube.

He could get banned from all social media and he would still be able to support himself.

Any party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent to the transaction at any time with or without cause.

If you are a programmer and you work for me and I fire you, I have not destroyed your ability to support yourself. I've only removed your ability to do business with me.

Freedom of association is powerful and important.

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

#624

Post by rwhyan »

holoduke wrote: post #273
tmikaeld wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hosting isn't free and they're not forcing anyone to host it there, there are alternative platforms.

There are no other platforms. None zero. Your response is wrong.

Can't tell if facetious

Russell Brand has 1.4 million followers on Rumble

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

#626

Post by georgespencer »

poorbutdebtfree wrote: post #520
droptablemain wrote: post #185

Anonymous allegations from more than a decade ago, procured by a fishing reporter, should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves. This is absurd, regardless of whether the accusations are ultimately true or not. Beyond the absurdity, this is tyrannical. Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. There's simply very little of substance here.

[flagged]

Andrew Tate has been indicted on charges of rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. He is by his own admission a violent misogynist and, in his own words, "probably 40% of the reason" he moved to Romania was the perceived ease of evading rape charges there: "I'm not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free." That's the same Romania which is known as one of the sex trafficking capitals of the world.

Given that there are many many more individuals with similar credentials (i.e. - none) doing the "just asking questions" schtick about vaccines, Ukraine, big pharma, etc. who have not been accused of rape or criminally indicted, why do you think that two people -- who constantly and openly discuss their predatory behaviour -- and have multiple accusers with independent witnesses, and documentary evidence, are being "silenced" for not conforming to the status quo?

It's self-evidently more likely that these are two predators who happen to truck in conspiracy theories, and they've been caught. Plenty of morons abound on Rumble and elsewhere, and frankly Tate and Brand's audience is nowhere near large enough (or, honestly, intelligent enough) that any government or organisation would orchestrate a fabricated "take down" to silence them.

I can tell that you're a conspiracy theorist, so let me state it plainly: very few people care about what you think as much as you do, and nobody holds your idols in the sort of esteem which would necessitate them being deliberately silenced for their opinions about "war/ukraine" or "pfizer/moderna".

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

#628

Post by TheHappyOddish »

QuantumG wrote: post #551
KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of weird lawyerly nitpicking is this. YouTube does not want to be associated with an alleged rapist. Is that so hard to understand.

[flagged]

...which never worried them in the past, and they were happy to make money from.

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

#629

Post by sneak »

turquoisevar wrote: post #511
newsclues wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people whose main income is YouTube and if YouTube can do this to famous people, surely they can do it to smaller creators who are paying their bills with YouTube money. Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.

The precedent has already been established well before YouTube made this decision. In most places in the US you can lose your livelihood for any reason or no reason at all, safe for protected classes. I’d rather see this energy be used to end fire at will and protect employees in general from losing their livelihood on a whim than to use this to pander to celebrities with questionable pasts under the guise of “it cou…

Losing one job is not remotely close to losing your livelihood.

They didn't saw off his hands, they demonetized him. He can go do stage shows or wash dishes or something if he wants to eat. He's famous and popular, he has a million ways of making an income.

People are acting like YouTube robbed him of something he was owed. They did no such thing.

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

#630

Post by pixl97 »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #540
Barrin92 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>not to do business with a likely sex offender 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 d…

Suddenly this is the thread that has snapped for you and said this is wrong? For most of modern history an accusation was all that was needed to have you removed from your job. The cops showing up at your office and just 'questioning' your behavior around minors without even making accusations is generally enough to ensure you don't come back the next day. It's one of the reasons I don't post as little information about myself online as I can. Doxxing can have terrible outcomes.
Post reply on HN