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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by ffgjgf1 »

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

All that copyrighted (fair-use) content uploaded to YT attracts a lot of viewers. They are not doing anyone a favor by hosting it.

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

#812

Post by TheGigaChad »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #574
madrox wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is about protecting the ecosystem. YT has basically stopped ads from playing on his content…no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. If YT didn’t take this action, it’s likely advertisers would pull back on spend because they don’t want to risk being seen along side his content. YouTube, afaik, doesn’t just let advertisers blacklist individual channels.

> 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…

[dead]

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

#814

Post by MisterBastahrd »

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"?

Elon Musk is, first and foremost, a government leech and will follow the free money.

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

#815

Post by btown »

throwaway290 wrote: post #775
wrsh07 wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would not be surprised if there is some P(controversy | viewing user, time elapsed since original flagging) metric, and when it goes below a threshold, certain non-prestige or international ads can be shown - ads not likely to cause any problems.

Because someone, at some point, got an email that looked something like https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416421.pdf (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37572692 ) - and one does not simply see an email like that and not implement this kind of thing.

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

#816

Post by technick »

I think some of the things coming out of Russel Brand is lunacy, however I'm also 10000% against censorship. Youtube stepping against Russel Brand is virtue signalling at it's finest, when Russel Brand has not been convicted of any crimes. A small group of people can claim X did something evil against them, and Youtube will run with it blindly.

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

#817

Post by _gabe_ »

georgespencer wrote: post #709
dmix wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s been so, so many of these accusations in the past decade that turned out to be far less than the initial reporting or flat out wrong. Your deference to the professionalism of journalism is about a decade or two out of touch with modern reality. It is only rational to wait for proper processes play out. It’s sad that such a thing has become politicized where one has to feel the need to tar and feather someone…

> There’s been so, so many of these accusations in the past decade that turned out to be far less than the initial reporting or flat out wrong. This is an illusory rebuttal. You seem to be insinuating that history shows there to be a significant chance that these accusations will be "far less" than the initial reporting "or flat out wrong", without providing any evidence in support of your claim. > Your deference to…

You have a whole lot of words here and are making a lot of claims and provide no evidence. This story is still way too early to say whether any allegations have substance or not, but one of your claims was:

> In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation.

When I Google ‘why is Russell Brand being investigated now’ I get this in one of the first results[0]:

> The women said that they only felt ready to tell their stories after being approached by reporters, with some citing Brand's newfound prominence as an online wellness influencer as a factor in their decision to speak.

This directly contradicts what you said, and I can see why others think you’re giving deference to the media. If you have a source for your claim I’d be glad to revise my stance.

I don’t know what the truth of the matter is, but after hearing Russell Brand admit openly to a lot of gross stuff, it seems like he’s not trying to hide anything here. I’ve also seen accounts from other women who have completely different stories about how he did not mistreat them (and they spoke openly without having actresses speak for them).

All that to say, it’s still way too early to say anything one way or the other. But blindly trusting that the media has no agenda seems unwise.

[0]: https://time.com/6315326/u-k-police-urged-to-investigate-sex...

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

#818

Post by technick »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #667
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,…

All these actions will eventually lead to the birth of another video platform.

I can't wait for that to happen

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

#819

Post by tstrimple »

dragonwriter wrote: post #534
all2 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. Courts continually hold that a business must serve persons they don't like or agree with.

> Courts continually hold that a business must serve persons they don’t like or agree with. In the US, at least, generally only when the act at issue would discriminate on a specific, enumerated, legally protected basis that applies to the business and business transaction in question, and if the business does not have some right (including its First Amendment rights) that trump the specific application of the law in…

Yes this. If I want to I can kick every Republican or MAGA hat out of my cafe with no legal risk. But I can't kick them out because they are Christian / Muslim or Black / White or Gay / Straight. Some of these things are considered to be outside of the control of the individual. They are innate. You can't choose if you're white or gay or to some degree Christian. If you're thinking that the religious exception feels weird given the rest on the list, I'd agree. But at the same time religious indoctrination in childhood when a child has literally no recourse but to follow what their parents say puts them at a major disadvantage to coming to terms with reality. If I acknowledge that a fundamentalist Christian growing up in the US would be just as likely to be a fundamentalist Muslim were they born in a different country really puts into question the "choice" aspect of religion. Some folks manage to escape it, but for most the social and cultural aspects and risk of ostracization keep them in the fold.

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

#820

Post by diogenes4 »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #156
diogenes4 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a private platform. If you want better accountability argue for an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas" bullshit.

At some point the private platform becomes so influential over the information environment and politics that it can no longer be considered merely a private platform. It is now also a public square. It’s not unreasonable at that point to require it to adhere higher standards of evidence, law, and reason. In this case, I’m no fan of Brand, but I’m even less a fan of YouTube’s apparent policy of “guilty till proven inn…

> At some point the private platform becomes so influential over the information environment and politics that it can no longer be considered merely a private platform.

Good luck taking that up with the department of justice.

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to get at—just because you want a space to be public doesn't change the legal reality.

Post reply on HN