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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by bjpless »

As a disclaimer, I’m not a Brand content consumer and I’m also not commenting on the validity of the claims.

I’m aware that he’s a popular populist and the slippery slope is obvious here, independent of the particulars of the specific case.

The playbook to silence a relatively loud political voice is now obvious from the YT response. It is a given that cynical actors on all sides will evolve to further exploit this strategy, especially so if accusers do not have to testify under oath.

YouTube, on a common sense basis, should have recognized that political reality today and tred more carefully — much more so than for a travel influencer, for example.

The long term game theory here, like brand boycotts, is hopefully that the exploitation of this strategy by all political players would lead to the strategy losing power due to general fatigue and whataboutisms.

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

#892

Post by yungporko »

dusted wrote: post #864

I don't have any opinion on his guilt, that is for the court to decide. However, I do believe it's wrong to start sanctioning people for a crime they've not yet been found guilty of.

more importantly, they've not even been charged for.

personally i'd be surprised if the guy wasn't a rapist, he spent a decade virtually admitting it and acting like one, but it's absolutely fucked that that all somebody (person, newspaper, content creator, whatever) needs to do to completely and permanently take away someone's livelihood is call them a rapist on the internet.

our society is irreparably broken at this point, there's no coming back from any of this.

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

#893

Post by atiernanberry »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #647
withinboredom wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at a (big) company when they changed their policy to include this vagueness. It was all over this guy spreading mass disinformation and conspiracy theories that were actively harmful. There was a lot of discussion about “yeah, I agree this is bad… but, this is a slippery slope,” and “how can you think we should let him use OUR platform to do this,” type arguments. We were a privately held company at the time…

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?

Russel Brand has just had a number of sexual assault allegations made against him [1]. I would assume Youtube's decision is linked to those allegations rather than the content of his channel, since his channel content has been pretty consistent

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66838794

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

#894

Post by gooseus »

lmm wrote: post #806
gooseus wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again?

> So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Yes, in the same way as any other public utility. (They may not have intended to become one but at this point they are) > Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again? The state, that's what…

Youtube is a subsidiary of a publicly-traded company, it is non-essential, largely unregulated, and for-profit. This is very different from what is considered a "public utility".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility

If you want to argue that Youtube *should* be considered a public utility company and subject to more stringent government controls then that's a debate that can be had, but as it stands they are not legally obligated to continue doing business with someone they believe to be harming their other customers and partners.

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

#895

Post by mortureb »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #789
sanderjd wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This but unironically.

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

#896

Post by hasmanean »

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,…

“Ecosystem” means advertisers.

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

#897

Post by gooseus »

housemusicfan wrote: post #644
gooseus wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, and I know you must have read this somewhere else by now, that Youtube is not the State. Your employer (should you have one) doesn't need to wait until a court of law proves you guilty of a stealing paperclips before they fire you, and a restaurant doesn't have to wait until a court proves that you are being a public disturbance before they kick you out. A private corporation has the right to do whatever they…

Who made YouTube judge and jury? Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here. Nor do your examples hold water. This isn't a situation of "you were caught stealing paperclips on video". Rather, it's more a case of Sally the tart from acco…

Well, I assume Youtube and their community are the judges and juries of Youtube.

I am merely one humble judge and jurist of these comment threads, and I rule that your comment here is disgusting and ignorant.

I recommend a sentence of 100 hours of civics and legal Youtube to help alleviate you of your ignorance. And 1 hour of berating following a public reading of your comment to a group of female accountants dressed as your mother.

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

#898

Post by ngetchell »

bjpless wrote: post #891

As a disclaimer, I’m not a Brand content consumer and I’m also not commenting on the validity of the claims. I’m aware that he’s a popular populist and the slippery slope is obvious here, independent of the particulars of the specific case. The playbook to silence a relatively loud political voice is now obvious from the YT response. It is a given that cynical actors on all sides will evolve to further exploit this s…

I don't think "loud political voices" have the right to make money off of YT. YT seems generous to keep Brand on the platform during this odd period between accusation and conviction.

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

#899

Post by noam_compsci »

I don’t see what YT did wrong here even remotely. It’s their platform. There is no right to access. It’s not a public place.

The hard core libertarians who say that Brands “free speech” is being reduced… well YT has freedom too and they should be free to deplatform.

We have freedom from government oppression but when you are on someone else’s property, you should have no/low rights.

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

#900

Post by lesuorac »

housemusicfan wrote: post #644
gooseus wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, and I know you must have read this somewhere else by now, that Youtube is not the State. Your employer (should you have one) doesn't need to wait until a court of law proves you guilty of a stealing paperclips before they fire you, and a restaurant doesn't have to wait until a court proves that you are being a public disturbance before they kick you out. A private corporation has the right to do whatever they…

Who made YouTube judge and jury? Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here. Nor do your examples hold water. This isn't a situation of "you were caught stealing paperclips on video". Rather, it's more a case of Sally the tart from acco…

> Who made YouTube judge and jury?

Non-sequitor. YT does not need the power of a court decision to take this action. It's basically the same question of "Who made YouTube President"; it's irrelevant.

> Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here.

I mean YT could decide that your country isn't eligible for YT depending on local laws and block content. Which they do.

Post reply on HN