Live data from Hacker News

YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

nytimes.com

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671
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.

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.

>Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.

There are times it is very difficult to not be inflammatory on hacker news. Statements like this saying some new precedent is being set are are wild. Like have we even been on the same planet up till this point levels of cognitive dissonance.

Last week if the local paper would have written an article about one of one your co-workers being accused of sexual assault on a minor, and that the company "released them from duties the next day", you would have told me "Oh, that's the way it's always been, you don't want a rapist working for the company". In any right to work state accusations of impropriety are enough to terminate work contracts, end of story. But suddenly someones golden cow got tarnished and now we want something done?

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

#672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people find these allegations credible—and most should Why should most people find these allegations credible? I do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let alone a trial. These are currently just allegations, their credibility has not been adjudicated.

One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an understanding that the legal system is both slow and tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well befor…

> ...to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality

And how exactly is it obvious that the guy is guilty? Just because he makes click-baity divisive videos, might allegedly have been a playboy in the past, and you don't like him, doesn't equate to "obviously he must have done it".

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

#674

So what happens if the allegations turn out to hold no weight? Does he get his channel back and the bureaucrat NPCs self-flagellate with hashtag mea culpas? I suppose not The culture wars are out of control

Do you get your job back if your 'right to work state' if your accused of being a sexual predator and your job fires you... no, you do not.

Tomorrow everyone will be back at 'right to work' and 'freedom of association' around here on some other topic.

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

#675

Huge opportunity for X to continue to become the safe haven for "cancelled" content. Tucker Carlson, etc.

I am not sure how long X can keep doing this. Elon is under tremendous pressure from the establishment. It's likely that he will either align with Facebook and YouTube's policies or be compelled to relinquish control of X.

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

#677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?

Every streamer out there? Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, Disney,ESPN, Tubi,Plex,Plutotv etc.

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

#678
post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's conceivably relevant to you, but when weighing the credibility of a claim and/or an accuser, it is irrelevant -- except as a means of assessing that the person who believes it to be relevant is uninformed.

Here's why in general terms: NSVRC estimates that 63% of all sexual assaults are not reported to the police. You likely know the reasons for this, but just in case: fear of not being believed, low prosecution/conviction rates, frequently insurmountable burden of proof given the specific nature of most rapes, the fear of an extended criminal trial, victims blaming themselves or in some cases (including one of Brand's accusers) not wanting to admit that they were raped (easier when many violent sexual assaults are not the cartoon example of a man in a balaclava in the park, but someone you know and had previously trusted).

I presume that you accept that there are, in general, many women who are raped and simply do not come forward, and that the passing of time in such cases does not in any way diminish their claim?

More specifically, in California, the law reflects this uneasy reality for victims: from 2017 onwards, there is no statute of limitations on rape accusations. It's not possible for the criminal standard of proof to be changed to account for the fact that, axiomatically, rapes are difficult to prove, therefore the state grants an unlimited amount of time to come forward, which gives prosecutors the benefit of being able to build the most robust case possible.

Proving criminal actions beyond reasonable doubt literally means that the court/jurors find the evidence so compelling that no reasonable person could conclude anything other than guilt. And in a similar fashion, California's penal code seems designed to say that no reasonable person could find a decade passing between a rape and the victim coming forward as relevant to the credibility of the claims.

It's simply settled at this point: coming forward about a rape is a brutally unfair, hard, and thankless task. That's why the vast majority of victims do not come forward. That's why it's important that we understand what it means to "believe women": it doesn't mean that we abandon legal principles and convict men at the whim of their accusers, it means that we collectively create an environment in which the victims of serious, life-deranging, deeply personal, embarrassing, hard-to-prosecute crimes are not given yet another reason to do nothing by people who don't seem to understand that there are vastly fewer false accusations of rape than there are unreported ones. It needs to work the other way around.

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

#679
post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.”…

> They can easily fixing this by changing the policy to ... “we ban for any reason at our discretion.”

What makes you think that isn't already in their ToS?

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

#680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty simple. If you have to be masculine and assertive in any way now you have to cowtow to the insane right because the left is a hostile space for regular men. The right welcomes you with open arms and basically shields you from any consequences for past wrongs. There is no middle. You can get away with just about anything on the right now with no repercussions. You can downvote this all you want but you kno…

I'd argue that Aba & Preach do a good job of staying in the middle, for an example of YT content creators. They tend to shit on red pill extremists and champagne socialists with equal aplomb.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN