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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by Capricorn2481 »

fortran77 wrote: post #664

There are no actual charges against him. Nobody has said under oath that anything has happened. The most recent allegation is for something that happened 10 years ago. I'm of the opinion (and I know the law disagrees with me in the U.S.) that you should not be able to bring charges against someone for a non capital offense, where all the evidence is he-said/she-said. a decade after the event happend. Our memories jus…

That's all well and good, but it's weird to see automatically HN conclude that people distancing themselves from Brand are overreacting to a few allegations and not the more likely scenario: that there are more stories like this of Brand and it's been an open secret in entertainment for years.

Since these accusations, several famous people who have worked with him have come out with stories consistent with this behavior. Could it all be untrue, and there's some kind of witch hunt on Brand? I guess, but if it truly was an open secret, it makes perfect sense that people would distance themselves from him now when it comes out to the public.

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

#782

Post by BLKNSLVR »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #704
crmd wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It means you don’t watch or block the content.

The way I intended to frame it, into your sentence:

"It means you block the monetisation component of the content"

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

#783

Post by Capricorn2481 »

rcarr wrote: post #307

The mainstream media are trying to frame the argument as Russell Brand is a sex offender and that his mainstream media critiques are thus null and void as a result. Personally, I find it more likely that he is both a sex offender* and he is also right about it being a targeted mainstream media attack. It's absolutely laughable seeing the BBC, The Guardian and particularly Channel4 amongst others trying to wash their…

> Mainstream media outlets clearly have agendas and will go after people who speak out against them and will use anything at their disposal to do it. It's completely ridiculous.

And the non mainstream ones will do this even harder

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

#784

Post by QuantumG »

TheHappyOddish wrote: post #628
QuantumG wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

...which never worried them in the past, and they were happy to make money from.

Oh I see, you seem to think he hasn't had this treatment before. I guess you missed the dozen previous times he's complained about the system trying to silence him. It's totally on-brand for Brand.

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

#785

Post by BLKNSLVR »

jmfldn wrote: post #285
c7DJTLrn wrote: post #143

Putting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of his videos a few years ago and they were interesting discussions of the news with a particular emphasis on questioning everything which I see as a healthy habit. Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outr…

His decent into outrage-bait, alt-right friendly nonsense struck me as abrupt. One minute his channel was reasonable enough, the next it was totally nuts. Part of me wonders whether this was calculated once he knew that a major expose was circling. I have zero evidence for this, but you can see the logic. Court a following that is sceptical of everything, and that will see an investigation by the 'mainstream media' a…

The Trump methodology.

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

#786

Post by Capricorn2481 »

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 is never in the news for this shit. He gets a free pass because men in R&B and Hip Hop, like Charlemagne, like to give him a pass.

If there were weeks of Chris Brown articles, tech companies would certainly distance themselves

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

#787

Post by sbuttgereit »

judge2020 wrote: post #532
sbuttgereit wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. One can only interpret this as ham-fisted virtue signaling by YouTube management and perhaps with staff support. If they are continuing to host and serve the Brand videos, they are defacto saying, "content by this person doesn't hurt our platform in a material way, but we've decided this person is bad and we want to show ourselves punishing him." And the best part is they are tangibly rewarded in this by not h…

> continuing to stream his content without paying for it is despicable and immoral. But he can private the videos at anytime. Even unlisting it would remove all ads while allowing people to find the videos (via links).

This is irrelevant as to how to morally judge Google's actions.

If someone finds a way into my home, steals some stuff, and then I block the path that they took to get in or had the ability to block that path: the thief is still culpable of a moral transgression against me. Even if I didn't take the action I could to prevent the thief from entering my home again and they did so and stole more: the thief is still willful committing a moral transgression against me. It may be unwise for me to not take preventative measures, but it doesn't change the correctness of judging the thief as a miscreant. The thief's willful act to steal is all that matters in judging them and the same holds for Google here (again, assuming they are continuing to stream and profit from Brand's content without compensating him).

To suggest otherwise is a different form of the old trope of the woman that gets raped, but dresses and acts suggestively is at fault. Her actions may not have been wise, but the moral (and criminal) judgment still goes against the perpetrator who acted willfully to commit the crime and it does so without regard to the woman's actions.

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

#788

Post by DoctorOW »

robertwt7 wrote: post #780
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.

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

Not monetized != Demonetized. Not being in the monetization program doesn't inherently disqualify your videos from ad placement anymore.

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

#789

Post by BLKNSLVR »

sanderjd wrote: post #770
mortureb wrote: post #327

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'm a regular man and currently feel a lot more comfortable within the milieu of mainstream liberals. I honestly have no idea what people are on about when they say stuff like this about "a hostile space for regular men". Like, I just literally have no clue what you mean, no idea what in the world you might be talking about.

You know, regular men. Regular men who want what the 1950's was advertising. Loyal housewife, dinner on the table when you get home from work, reading the newspaper on the recliner totally undisturbed, kids not getting in the way of the sports broadcast or asking questions or requiring time commitment, leaving for the pub for hours with no notice, every-other-weekend fishing trips with the boys.

You know, regular men, who surround themselves with a family consisting of humans expected to behave like loyal-to-the-death dogs. They've earned it, and fo' fkn sho' they goin' collec'.

Regular men dammit! I can't say it any harder.

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

#790

Post by emodendroket »

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,…

I think the idea is that being known as a platform that gives money to unsavory characters harms their ecosystem.
Post reply on HN