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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by the_doctah »

mhh__ wrote: post #492
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.

It interesting seeing Mr Beast talk about AB testing thumbnails — his old style was apparently not actually what the algorithm wanted but he'd never tested it properly.

There was another style other than him looking stupefied with his mouth open? I'd be fine if that face disappeared off Youtube entirely because everyone seems to have copied that.

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

#732

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#734

Post by wrsh07 »

throwaway290 wrote: post #634
rwhyan wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement Not necessarily true. YouTube definitely runs ads on demonetized videos and channels.

There's complete demonetization where videos have no ads altogether (e.g., videos from BBC if you're in UK). There's partial stuff like Content ID matches. If you post my song, YT still shows ads, but you get no money. I now get your ad money (and YT its cut). Not sure what they meant in case of Russell Brand, but I bet they will show ads for advertisers who don't opt out and pocket the profit.

I suspect this is a brand safety issue so complete demonetization

Why? Their advertisers might complain about being featured on his content

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

#736

Post by the_doctah »

jjoonathan wrote: post #253
jtbayly wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG telling social media companies which people should have their speech censored.

Not even close. Taibbi made it sound like Biden, who wasn't in office, pulled strings to have the government lean on Twitter to suppress important scandalous revelations from Hunter Biden's Laptop. The reality was that Trump was in office at the time and the Biden team, as private citizens, requested TOS enforcement on Hunter's naked pics and received it. Yes, some of the TOS enforcement hit conservative outlets mere…

>Taibbi made it sound like Biden, who wasn't in office, pulled strings to have the government lean on Twitter to suppress important scandalous revelations from Hunter Biden's Laptop.

The Twitter files were very specific about the plethora of 3-letter agencies set up to do nothing but make censorship requests. Your claim is a strawman.

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

#737

Post by vuln »

nikau wrote: post #503

Seems like ad revenue should go into a trust, if he is found innocent it gets paid to him, if guilty it goes to victim compensation or related charity.

But if he stops publishing to YouTube that will be held against him. He puts out less shows or ad revenue drops due to boycott it will be spun as “Brand is stealing from his victims/charity” it seems extreme but these days someone will spin it such a way.

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

#738

Post by palmer_fox »

hx8 wrote: post #620
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean? This is beside the point, but I want to bring it up because I think it's important to remember we live in a bubble. A majority of people on earth are not Youtube users. Only ~60% of the world's population uses the internet[1], and of those, I'd assume a significant portion lack the bandwidth to stream video. Als…

So Youtube will demonetize you if you hurt someone with an internet connection, but not if you hurt someone too poor to afford one?

I doubt "we take action to protect the community" has a clear legal definition. Their "community" could be people without an internet connection too (e.g. everyone in Los Angeles because they have an office there).

Since this is obviously not about their "community" but about protecting the brand, I doubt they have put much thought into defining any of the terms in the statement.

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

#739

Post by timClicks »

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #444
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.

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.

I believe this is true when you are a partner and you opt out of ads for a video. But if you're not a partner yet, then YT will serve ads that you don't receive any income for.

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

#740

Post by cornfutes »

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,…

They had no problem keeping the Logan brothers on the platform despite their toxic behavior.
Post reply on HN