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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by thaumasiotes »

reddog wrote: post #557
pseudosavant wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

No. Since there is a lot of disagreement about this in the surrounding comments, I just watched 20m of an old Russell Brand YT video. As of a few minutes ago there were no YT ads in the video. That includes the very beginning and the end. However there were Brand narrated promotions in the video. The video was actually much easier to watch without the blasted YT ads that normally pop up every 5 minutes. And I suppose…

> The video was actually much easier to watch without the blasted YT ads that normally pop up every 5 minutes.

You don't have an ad blocker?

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

#692

Post by arp242 »

curiousllama wrote: post #198
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 a very interesting point. Tech-media companies (Google, Meta, Tik Tok) increasingly serve a similar gatekeeper function for public discourse that TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) did 50 years ago. This... actually is a hopeful insight to me.

I think the main difference is that traditionally, this gatekeeper function was "decentralized". That is, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, The Atlantic, Baltimore Sun, etc. etc. etc. all made their own editorial decisions, and there were dozens – if not hundreds – of decisions being made, rather than just a small handful of them.

This is still true to some extent, but the distribution of stories relies a lot more on a small handful of companies. Previously the distribution (newspaper stands and the like) might also refuse to carry some issues they found particularly objectionably, but again, these decisions were "distributed" much more than it is today, and it didn't affect subscribers of the newspaper or magazine.

Not that the previous system was perfect either or always worked well, or didn't have their downsides, but it's not really the same, IMHO.

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

#693

Post by Tokumei-no-hito »

nothatscool wrote: post #283

When YouTube does this it means that they tacitly endorse the behaviour of everyone who is currently monetised at the moment. I’m sure it would be easy to find many monetised channels with similar allegations as well as people who have actually been convicted of crimes. Edit: for example, someone like Chris Brown is convicted of domestic abuse as well as accused of many other incidents. He appears to be monetised on…

Because chris brown isn’t making anti-establishment content. It’s selectively applied and curiously both the accusations (10+ years old) and this fallout occur right around the start of election season.

If his content was on the other side of the aisle he’d be defended not demonetized.

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

#694

Post by marcusverus »

threeseed wrote: post #521
kaliqt wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On purpose. Maximizes their control to censor what they don't like to craft a wider narrative.

I find the idea that Youtube has a crafted narrative to be hilariously ridiculous. Everyone has a completely different view of what the site is depending on what your interests are.

While there’s no reason to believe some broad conspiracy exists, it’d be hilariously ridiculous to assume that the folks at YouTube are unaware of the power they have to influence the zeitgeist. If some number of them act to advance their individual worldview through their enforcement of policy (is there any doubt that this happens?), then it is perfectly reasonable to say that YouTube, as a result of the conscious or unconscious biases of its decision makers, advances a worldview (though perhaps not a specific narrative).

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

#696

Post by mcpackieh »

agentgumshoe wrote: post #359
woooooo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016. Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized.

I think the point you're making is there's no such thing as the Far Left, despite the Far Right seeing such common use.

Those terms, particularly with the 'far' intensifier, are all relative.

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

#697

Post by worthless-trash »

pixl97 wrote: post #592
CapricornNoble wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. I see this sentiment all the time and I just don't understand it. If I sold razor blades, or if I was Stephen He's dad and sold Beijing Corn, I would want EVERYONE buying my product. Communists, Fascists, Russians, Ukrainians, Israelis, Palestinians, Antifa, Proud Boys, Prince Andrew, Andrew Tate, etc.... They may all hate each other but they should all agree…

>This weird era of conspicuous consumption, "lifestyle" branding, and virtue-signaling faux-activism can't end soon enough. This weird era... See this is what blows my mind. Like boycotts are not something that's happened pretty much forever. There is currently a particular group that has been bearing the brunt of boycotts due to their socially unacceptable behavior and they seem a little ticked that the power they o…

Neh, but in this case its the platform itself that is doing the boycotting, not the individuals choice.

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

#698

Post by JohnMakin »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #136
JohnMakin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a philosophical concept that many legal systems subscribe to in the context of criminal law. > Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action Indeed, it’s very similar in the sense that the concept of the freedom of speech goes way beyond the 1st amendment. It existe…

Thanks for making the correction, luckily we don’t live in a world based purely on Lockean principles, but rather a practical one with a society much larger than existed in his day.

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

#699

Post by grepfru_it »

Sabinus wrote: post #682
chiefalchemist wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature of the allogations aside, isn't this what possibly happened to Brand? He spoke things that many wished went unsaid. Eventually the "terms & conditions" were tweaked so to speak and now the critic is silenced, marginalized and humiliated. Of all the targets to pick, why Brand? Why now?

>He spoke things that many wished went unsaid. Yes, but why did they wish it unsaid? Is it because he's speakin (uncomfortable) truth to power, or because he's an ignorant man spreading potentially dangerous narratives?

>potentially dangerous narratives

https://youtu.be/v4ZOJLsnvZo?si=Y7su4zyFagpePwdj

I have no public opinions. I just share what I see

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

#700

Post by calgarymicro »

georgespencer wrote: post #648
andrei_says_ wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the best viewpoints criticizing the “I’m being silenced” victim position of conspiracy theorists. Also, consider that the ones that are silenced we are not hearing about and from.

> Also, consider that the ones that are silenced we are not hearing about and from. I agree, and find this heartbreaking. I remember reading the accusations against Bill Clinton which, like those against Brand, were independent of one another, made by credible victims who did not know each other, supported by witnesses, and -- like Brand -- included similar patterns of behaviour from attack to attack (Clinton, if I r…

> The journalist replied "You could just have said you don't believe them," to which Gore – astonishingly – replied: "I didn't say that," before going on to enumerate how any crimes Clinton may have committed were balanced out by his record of public service?!

Is there anywhere I can read about this? I tried feeding this into Google with quotes and got no results.

Post reply on HN