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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by astro19238_ »

brk wrote: post #365
sneak wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is like HR - they are there to protect the company and the company's revenue streams, not you or "the community". This is why I think the term "community guidelines" for "censorship policy" is such abusive gaslighting. It's unilateral censorship, not community, and they are rules, not guidelines. It's the same deceptive drive that renamed "searching your bag" to "security screening" at airports.

I mostly agree but my argument against “rules” is that these things never seem to be unilaterally enforced. So it really is more like a guideline because enforcement is unpredictable in several aspects.

Good Point. There is ofc tons of criminal youtubers making money.

YouTube don't care as long as it's not publicly known. Hence the community part I suppose?

It's no moral high ground but it's not illogical from that perspective.

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

#972

Post by soundnote »

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,…

It's simply an excuse to engage in political censure. It's worth remembering that in these people's parlance it's "denying someone's existence" to disagree with their political program or one counter-reality belief they hold, and they do demonetize for it.

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

#973

Post by ghilly »

watwut wrote: post #962
rayiner wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me when right-wing trucking businesses refused to transport Budweiser beer because of their marketing? Or are they refusing to deliver products to Target?

The message there was "do not dare to hire trans people for even minor ads" and result is companies being more afraid to hire trans. So yeah, it was literal ce sorship. And yeah, impact on that trans woman was worst then one on Brand. That trans person was not as rich as to eat any amount of financial looses. I remember right wing leaders going really out of their way to demonize Budweiser for literally having a sing…

[dead]

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

#974

Post by soundnote »

corethree wrote: post #821
surfingdino wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management / income stream protection. Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service.

>Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service. Obviously there's problems with this reasoning right? Why bother mentioning pointless rationalization here? You and Youtube both know there's only one video service that offers long form format and that's youtube themselves. Just tell it like it is. Youtube having a monopoly over online video content is effectively gagging and cens…

"Don't like it? Build your own Twitter"

"Don't like it? Build your own YouTube"

"Don't like it? Build your own payment processor"

"Don't like it? Build your own anti-DDOS"

"Don't like it? Build your own ISP"

"Don't like it? Build your own..."

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

#975

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #969
rayiner wrote: post #961

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not carrying water for Brand-I think all of these Gen X entertainment industry guys are suspect. I’m just trying to figure out how the process works. Why Brand and not Aerosmith (or both) and why don’t the same people care?

Why did it take over 20 years for R. Kelly to go to prison for running a rape cult? Ask Jim DeRogatis. These are hard cases to make.

Right but Steven Tyler was accused of sexually assaulting a 16 year old just last year in a lawsuit that is ongoing.

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

#976

Post by soundnote »

There apparently were letters sent by the UK Parliament to politely inquire if Brand is able to earn money on the recipient's platform. No requests or threats of course, oh no, just asking...

https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118

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

#977

Post by soundnote »

watwut wrote: post #962
rayiner wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me when right-wing trucking businesses refused to transport Budweiser beer because of their marketing? Or are they refusing to deliver products to Target?

The message there was "do not dare to hire trans people for even minor ads" and result is companies being more afraid to hire trans. So yeah, it was literal ce sorship. And yeah, impact on that trans woman was worst then one on Brand. That trans person was not as rich as to eat any amount of financial looses. I remember right wing leaders going really out of their way to demonize Budweiser for literally having a sing…

A lot of the Bud Light outrage wasn't just Mulvaney - their marketing exec openly said they didn't want those people as customers, so they complied.

There's the difference: People didn't want to buy Bud Light anymore, so their sales tanked.

One feature of cancellation is that the cancellee usually has people who want to hear the cancellee and buy their stuff, but activists try to get them kicked off intermediaries so the cancellee and their customers can't conduct business.

If it was just about making the person unpopular, that'd be an entirely different matter.

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

#978

Post by 867-5309 »

benj111 wrote: post #907
867-5309 wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X = Y/3, X = Z, Y != Z

The GGP said > But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean. The GP challenged this. The parent defended this by point out the 1/3rd figure. I pointed out that 1/3rd isn't a majority so the GGP was still wrong. So yes I agree. X or Z aren't 'the majority' of Y.

2.7B youtube users is about 1/3 of the people on Earth

2.7B youtube users is a solid majority of internet users

unsure how you're getting

1/3 of the people on Earth is a solid majority of people on Earth

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

#979

Post by Eldt »

867-5309 wrote: post #978
benj111 wrote: post #907

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GGP said > But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean. The GP challenged this. The parent defended this by point out the 1/3rd figure. I pointed out that 1/3rd isn't a majority so the GGP was still wrong. So yes I agree. X or Z aren't 'the majority' of Y.

2.7B youtube users is about 1/3 of the people on Earth 2.7B youtube users is a solid majority of internet users unsure how you're getting 1/3 of the people on Earth is a solid majority of people on Earth

You need to read the full thread to get the context. The claim being disputed is the following

> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean?

"Majority of people on Earth" is not the same thing as "majority of internet users"

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

#980

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #975
tptacek wrote: post #969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did it take over 20 years for R. Kelly to go to prison for running a rape cult? Ask Jim DeRogatis. These are hard cases to make.

Right but Steven Tyler was accused of sexually assaulting a 16 year old just last year in a lawsuit that is ongoing.

R. Kelly was accused innumerable times over the course of over 20 years. I'm sure the truth is going to catch up to Tyler, who bragged about what he did in his memoir.
Post reply on HN