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

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

#651

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:20 AM UTC

gorwell wrote: post #398

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,…

We thought we were going to escape a CCP style social credit score in the US, but big tech has an exploitable loophole in the administrative layer.

[deleted]

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

#652

Post by TryIntegrity972 » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:21 AM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #615

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.

Your comment seems either mistaken or disingenuous to me: > Anonymous allegations The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same thing as an anonymous allegation. The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand. > from more than a decade ago Utterly irrelevant. > procured by a fishing reporter It's unclear what you mean by this. I can't find anyt…

[dead]

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

#653

Post by judge2020 » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:22 AM UTC

bluedays wrote: post #563

judge2020 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have some examples? The few I see are things like victim-blaming (37576676 37576735) or just "innocent until proven guilty" which adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Your observation underscores a fundamental challenge in public discourse: determining which contributions substantively further a conversation. While the repeated mentions of "innocent until proven guilty" or instances that may appear as victim-blaming can feel redundant or unproductive to some, for others, these comments might encapsulate deeply held beliefs or concerns. Recognizing this, it's crucial to appreciate…

do AI-generated comments add to the discussion?

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

#654

Post by harshreality » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:22 AM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #597

nimos wrote: post #30

The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.

This is how ad-subsidized media has always worked. You worked for a television network has a team of censors that protected it from reputational damage. You had to listen to them if you wanted your show to air.

Curated vs non-curated content. Apples and oranges.

Why can't social media add flags to accounts? Discusses weapons, discusses police shootings, violence, under accusation of , trans/queer promotion, terf or anti- trans/queer, then advertisers can select which flags they don't want to be associated with?

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

#655

Post by fortran77 » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:23 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #488

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,…

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…

> If a bunch of people come forward accusing you of assault, odds are pretty good you did it.

I sure hope you're never on a jury!

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

#656

Post by BlargMcLarg » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:23 AM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #630

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ab…

>Suddenly this is the thread that has snapped for you and said this is wrong?

How about we take our own advice, stop making assumptions and "be nice" as you put it, hm?

>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.

I'd like you to honestly think deeply about this a few times. Has this really been the same as it was a few decades ago? Why do some countries or areas feel far more comfortable with leaving children around with men, while it seems the US in particular has trouble even imagining a dad wants to spend time with his kids? And why is it primarily the men, when it's become more and more obvious women are just a much perpetrators?

Yes, false accusations and ruining people's lives over them has been a thing since we exist. You ever wonder why so many people freak out the moment they are accused, despite being innocent? But as a society, we can fight and be critical about this. Just like we got rid of witch hunts, so too can we think twice about companies facing next to zero repercussions by hiding in the crowd despite their disproportional power.

All I'm saying is, if you're the coward throwing others under the bus over your own gain, don't be surprised if a rebel fed up with your cowardice decides to do the same. Turnabout's fair play, after all.

And for real: it's just an apology. I'm not telling these companies to pay damages or get dragged to court. It's just a 5 minute effort to say "Oh we were too quick in our judgment, sorry about that". It isn't enough, but it's the bare minimum they can do without having to drag them to court to force it or threatening to take away their position of power. The fact they can't even do that speaks volumes.

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

#657

Post by georgespencer » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:24 AM UTC

barelysapient wrote: post #570

Ah, the old "guilty until proven innocent". And it pads the pockets of shareholders. That's what we call a win win.

YouTube is not a court and Brand has not been found guilty of anything.

YouTube is enforcing its ToS, which Brand freely agreed to when he chose to begin using their platform to post his conspiracy theories.

> And it pads the pockets of shareholders

YouTube runs adverts on videos which are not part of the partnership program, but it is unclear (as far as I can see from this thread) whether they run adverts on de-monetised videos. Do you have a source either way?

In any case, YouTube did $29.9 billion of revenue in FY2022. The Guardian estimated that Brand's YouTube videos, of which there are five per week, likely gross him (pre-tax) in the order of $5,000. That's around $1.3m a year.

So yes, if YouTube is still running ads against Brand's YouTube videos then "the shareholders" are benefitting from an additional $1.3m per year which would otherwise have been paid out to Brand, but now that you know the aggregate benefit to YouTube constitutes 0.000044% of the service's annual revenue, I'm curious as to whether you think this had any bearing whatsoever on the decision to demonetise him, in line with their Terms of Service?

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

#658

Post by qup » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:24 AM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #615

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.

Your comment seems either mistaken or disingenuous to me: > Anonymous allegations The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same thing as an anonymous allegation. The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand. > from more than a decade ago Utterly irrelevant. > procured by a fishing reporter It's unclear what you mean by this. I can't find anyt…

>> from more than a decade ago

>Utterly irrelevant.

I disagree. It's relevant to me. It's not absolution, but it's relevant.

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

#659

Post by BLKNSLVR » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:25 AM UTC

Off-topic, I think, writing this down to see if the logic is sound:

If YouTube can demonetise a content creator at the discretion of YouTube (because they can), then surely it follows that an individual can de-monetise a content creator at their own discretion (because they can).

A platform demonetising someone is surely of much greater impact than an individual doing it. A platform owns their platform, from which the content is being delivered and so their discretion is justification enough. An individual owns the hardware and bandwidth upon and through which the content is being played, and so their discretion is justification enough.

Am I performing the mental gynastics of denial to make that leap?

Part of the differentiation I'm making in using the word "discretion" is that it's not illegal content that's being demonetised. Agree or disagree or find it as morally reprehensible as you feel the need to, the content itself (the very thing being demonetised) is not illegal. And, in fact, had been happily monetised for the past however long.

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

#660

Post by pandaxtc » Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 1:26 AM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #597

nimos wrote: post #30

The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.

This is how ad-subsidized media has always worked. You worked for a television network has a team of censors that protected it from reputational damage. You had to listen to them if you wanted your show to air.

This is something I think is overlooked very often. I feel like a constant narrative I hear is that censoring media like this is a new-fangled concept when in reality this has been standard practice forever.