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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by grogenaut »

miguelazo wrote: post #565
blibble wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

operating the service isn't free and there's going to be some fixed cost component of introducing a new partner arrangement as long as the number isn't too high I don't really see a problem with it

Given the scale and metrics involved, seems pretty nominal. Maybe not free, but for the context might as well be. Something that could be highly automated if it were transparent and fair.

I work in the space... that level of visibility is a trade secret because it exposes contracts like isp hosting costs... it's also hard to calculate... and it's definitely non-trivial.

it's not going to be exposed because why show your cards, you're not a CDN. And there's a reason people use YouTube not CDNs and it's not just the complexity and discovery, it's still not super cheap.

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

#772

Post by grogenaut »

majani wrote: post #596
turquoisevar wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube has been doing this for a while. If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours. This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you. Load of BS of course.…

To be honest, YouTube should be charging hosting fees to people who don't qualify for the partner program. The fact that they try to make up the shortfall through ads is a huge favor

They do, just not in the way some would like (ads) and yes in a way that acquires new creators (not charging upfront, ads)

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

#773

Post by vel0city »

ncallaway wrote: post #708
majormajor wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just aggressively tax large/high-revenue companies. And speaking of taxing! I'm not sure why highly-successful companies draw so many more "they have too much power" criticisms than highly-successful individuals who often have power over media companies and spend a lot on lobbying politicians.

For the broader media ecosystem, we used to have stronger regulations preventing individual entities (be them individuals of corporations) from owning certain percentages of the media ecosystem. I’d be a fan of modernizing that concept, defining social media companies as being a part of the media ecosystem, and lowering that ownership percentage. Force individual social media companies to be broken up into smaller en…

It's easy to imagine such things when it relates to owning all the movie theaters or television stations in a given market. But if it's just because people choose to type YouTube into their browser or upload to YouTube over competitors, how do propose to do it?

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

#774

Post by kornhole »

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,…

'Community' is defined by them. It does not mean us. It could mean the government, military industrial complex, biopharmaceutical complex, the board of Alphabet, and anybody else they wish to include in it.

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

#775

Post by throwaway290 »

wrsh07 wrote: post #734
throwaway290 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have noticed quite edgy videos that were ad-free before now heavily feature ads, so not sure about that. Many advertisers are not even based in the US, UK or any western country.

Not showing ads is the same as just burning money for Google.

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

#776

Post by carlosjobim »

Danjoe4 wrote: post #374
0xDEF wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He pulled an Elon. Elon Musk also came out as an alt-right troll when he was tipped that an expose about sexual harassment of a flight attendant was coming his way.

Elon Musk has greatly accelerated green energy innovation through EVs, battery technology, and solar. Are these actions appropriately described as "alt-right"?

Futuristic technology has certainly been right wing for as long as that has been a concept. Looking to history, some of the most incredible technological breakthroughs any of us can think of, came from what is considered the most extremely right wing society to have existed.

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

#777

Post by TheCaptain4815 »

aCoreyJ wrote: post #716
TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #599

Let’s go down the list of rappers and professional athletes and see how much harm they’ve caused women. Once again, another coincidence in which side of the political aisle gets censored.

I don't get it, do they have monetized YouTube channels?

They are all part of organizations / corporations which have monetized channels, yes. You think if Russell Brand joined up with a company he’d get a free pass all of a sudden? They’d just ban the entire company.

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

#778

Post by BLKNSLVR »

crmd wrote: post #662
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #659

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 th…

I’m not following…what would it mean in practice if I, as an individual, decided to demonetize him?

Sorry, I didn't realise I didn't mention the context of my thought process: ad blocking.

The content remains, but the monetisation does not.

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

#779

Post by mito88 »

kylebenzle wrote: post #493
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!"

That's not how any of this works. 1. YouTube can show ads BETWEEN videos and keep 100% of the money. 2. YouTube runs ads WITHIN videos if owner "monetizes", and shares the profit. 3. Creators run "promotions" within their videos and keep 100% of the money. They only stopped #2. Both YouTube and Brand are still both making money off brands videos on YouTube.

do creators get from google any % from premium user fees?

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

#780

Post by robertwt7 »

rwhyan wrote: post #622
dragonwriter wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is true, I have a youtube channel. When it wasn't monetised yet back then, my friends and family saw the ads at the beginning and the end of my videos. Thinking that I already made money from the first couple of videos that I made
Post reply on HN