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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by inemesitaffia »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #238
mrtksn wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if YouTube takes into consideration local values when doing this. For example, nudity and other controversial stuff can have much different standards on what's acceptable and what's not. If this is not baked into the formula, then it's likely that YouTube is pushing cultures to align with SV or some managers in Google. I'm not going to defend Russel Brand, just making a point about YT's impact. This time aro…

> but we need to go to the dumb wire days of the telephone companies who couldn't control what people say on the phone and if their services were used to do bad things it was the law enforcements job to deal with it. That is today. You do not get to control Google’s computers. Buy your own server(s), buy your own bandwidth, and do what you please. Lobby your representatives to make symmetric fiber internet a utility…

Zayo, HE and Kiwifarms

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

#912

Post by roenxi »

cgio wrote: post #335
roenxi wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... having far lower standards yourself ... How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger. Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot…

I would question your third point in the spirit of doubting narratives. This is the podcasters' narrative, but intuitively a podcaster has less scale and therefore is much cheaper to be incentivised towards specific narratives.

Oh, sure. It costs nothing to buy off a single podcaster. There are blatant shills all over the place.

Still better than cable news. CNN literally hired Clapper as a presenter - you couldn't pull a stunt like that the way most podcasts are structured. There'd have to many opportunities for people to press him on the Orwellean spy system that he helped set up. I don't recall any support for domestic mass surveillance among the US voting public.

Compare that to someone in the CIA buying off Joe Rogan - he might sell out some day, but if he got so bad he was offering softball interviews to the likes of Clapper then he's not going to be able to keep the same pull he does now. People have a distaste for that level of blatant propaganda.

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

#913

Post by pixl97 »

edgineer wrote: post #797
pixl97 wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>then that should be written into the policy. Please feel free to take them to civil court and get the mto change it. Now, I'm not one for this entire "corporations are people too" thing we have going on in the US, but trying to call Google out for this in particular when the courts have sided with businesses freedom of association until it becomes a civil rights violation in the vast majority of cases. You can point…

The only court that can coerce YouTube to change its policies is here... public opinion.

Well if you're looking to get a groundswell of people to get together and push Google to change... this is probably not the case you want to champion.

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

#914

Post by hinkley »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #567
fallingknife wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well so much for the "we censor because of the advertisers demands" excuse for their censorship then.

There's a bit more nuance to that. Some advertisers can choose to put ads on videos that are labelled undesirable. But because there's less advertiser demand for ads on such videos, they're generally very cheap.

There was a time after I took a media class where I had insomnia and watched a lot of late night TV. I knew about targeted advertising, and the kinds of ads on late night TV at the time… oh boy. The lowest quality camerawork, dialog, and product. For a while I felt insulted, that they thought I was the target audience for this schlock. Then I realized that no, this is just the cheapest ad slots of the day, and so they are running bottom of the barrel ads during this time.

So I guess we can expect to see wannabe-Billy Mays ads on demonetized shows.

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

#915

Post by hinkley »

toyg wrote: post #393
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know that’s only certain protected classes of people, in that you can’t discriminate in the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.

Brand could argue he was discriminated as a man, in the sense that he was assumed as guilty of rape because he's a man.

Well, specifically in this case, that he’s a promiscuous man. That part is public knowledge already.

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

#916

Post by fortran77 »

gorgoiler wrote: post #810
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…

No one has the right to win the popularity contest of celebrity. If the world wants to turn their back on you then you cannot force them not to. It would be as foolish as feeling aggrieved about not winning an election (an example that’s hard to use nowadays.)

hUH? I'd have the same opionion against some poor non-celebrity if someone were to make he-said/she-said charges a decade later. Even if it were to happen to you!

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

#917

Post by hinkley »

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.

YouTube is a poor man’s gold rush.

Content goes on there based on the promise of money, not the reality of it. If you’ve watched YouTube enough you know how many content producers have come to grips with how much/little money they are actually making and have adjusted their strategy.

I like for instance LTT’s philosophy on merch and patreon as money streams for review oriented content: if the majority or plurality of your sponsorship comes from manufacturers, how can anyone be sure that you’re bringing objectivity to those reviews? How can you be sure you are? So keep sponsors locked into a small pool of your revenue, that way everyone knows you can walk away from them at any time and still keep the lights on. There’s less temptation to even attempt coercion, because the leverage is weak at best.

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

#919

Post by [deleted] »

aidenn0 wrote: post #500
hinkley wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allegedly. If a bunch of people come forward accusing you of assault, odds are pretty good you did it. However, private businesses punishing people for having charges brought against them but not yet tried? That's judge, jury and executioner, which is incompatible with the set of laws that the US is built on - for which the source material was English Law, and precedent even older than that. So an American company pr…

By the definition of "punish" that you are implicitly using, private businesses in America used to be able to punish people for anything ("we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"). Now there are certain things they cannot punish people for (e.g. being black). Are you suggesting that the time has come to mandate that companies may not discriminate against customers for other reasons as well?

[deleted]

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

#920

Post by hinkley »

incompatible wrote: post #640
aidenn0 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the definition of "punish" that you are implicitly using, private businesses in America used to be able to punish people for anything ("we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"). Now there are certain things they cannot punish people for (e.g. being black). Are you suggesting that the time has come to mandate that companies may not discriminate against customers for other reasons as well?

It seems to be going the other way in the US. Recently, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, it was found that discrimination against customers who "violate your values", in that case by being gay, was fine.

If this is not a temporary reversal of ethics then this is part of The Fall.

Some of us are alarmed, some active, but nobody progressive thinks this is progress.

Post reply on HN