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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by benj111 »

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

If you read the quote in my comment, that you're responding to

> 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 are Youtube users"

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

#982

Post by d-z-m »

georgespencer wrote: post #966
_gabe_ wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You have a whole lot of words here Inane beyond belief. > and are making a lot of claims Just for fun, here's an unabridged list of the "claims" I made in the post you replied to: 1. That the parent did not provide any evidence in support of their claims. 2. That I believe YouTube is correct in its treatment of Brand. 3. That the people supporting Brand appear to be overwhelmingly fringe and far right figures who e…

Endlessly fulminating on this is useless. The investigation is ongoing: all the facts are not yet known. If there is a case, let it go to trial. Let the truth come to light. Do not be so quick to judge.

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

#983

Post by tjrgergw »

trescenzi wrote: post #703
tjrgergw wrote: post #149

I have an incredible sleaze radar. The first 10 seconds I saw this guy some 10 years ago I immediately knew he was a disgusting guy.

https://www.theonion.com/nation-could-have-sworn-russell-bra...

LOL that's great. Exactly how I feel about this guy.

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

#984

Post by watwut »

rayiner wrote: post #970
watwut wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If Lululemon tried to market tradwife conservatism to young urban women and it backfired, would you call that censorship? Marketing is about feels and vibes and image—customers are entitled to react to that. Beer, athletic wear, etc., are image and identity-based businesses. That’s different than a trucking company, or a credit card company, or YouTube. A better example would be the Dixie Chicks boycott after the Bus…

It was right wing media machine trying to punish the company. And if right wing media machine can do that, Youtube can do the exact same.

The only difference is that Youtube is less hypocritical about the whole thing.

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

#985

Post by watwut »

ghilly wrote: post #973
watwut wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Nah, this was just yet another case of right wing media machine trying to pretend they do something else then just normal censorship. Which would be fine if they did not turned around with sophistries when, suddenly, they are not the only ones doing it for a change.

Random people did not reacted to the ad, they reacted to the massive campaign. Which is exactly how the message is understood - trans people have no place in public, anywhere.

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

#986

Post by tjrgergw »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #522
tjrgergw wrote: post #149

I have an incredible sleaze radar. The first 10 seconds I saw this guy some 10 years ago I immediately knew he was a disgusting guy.

...anyone else on your radar we should know about (before the allegations start)? How often have you been in/ correct?

Frankly I can't tell you anyone off the top of my mind, since this isn't a subject I find interesting enough to bother keeping a list. There also aren't that many "celebrities" that I'm aware of.

I guess you're doubting that I would've said what I said before the allegations started. There's nothing you I can do prove anything to you.

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

#987

Post by Ferret7446 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #842
Sophistifunk wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter what their argument is, they simply need to have one. It's their sandbox, and they have chosen an advertiser-friendly ratchet as the driver of policy. YouTube will get more and more bland and samey as people fear the banhammer, which will get used on less and less extreme content and producers, as the "cancelling machinery" has been built and will always find the next-most-evil^tm on which to…

>In England and Wales, more than 99% of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult. https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scor... An alternative interpretation of what's going on here is that the mainstream justice system is failing, and people are cobbling together an alternat…

There's another alternative interpretation, which is that those rape reports are false or disingenuous.

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

#988

Post by poorbutdebtfree »

georgespencer wrote: post #626
poorbutdebtfree wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Andrew Tate has been indicted on charges of rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. He is by his own admission a violent misogynist and, in his own words, "probably 40% of the reason" he moved to Romania was the perceived ease of evading rape charges there: "I'm not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free." That's the same…

Let me become the most popular and hated man in the world to bring attention to my secret organized crime group.

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

#989

Post by happytiger »

lesuorac wrote: post #901
happytiger wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We call that a conviction and a system of law for this. We should use it. I don’t think private corporations that are monopolies should decide who can speak and who cannot. Obviously they can protect their business, but then they shouldn’t be allowed to be universally dominant in a technology category like video.

The fact that Russel Brand hasn't been gifted a cable channel is a real shame isn't it. Or do you just mean YouTube when you say video?

Oh I’m sorry I wasn’t even thinking about legacy media on that one.

I meant video as in YouTube is UGC video as a content type as they as so market dominant.

The evidence against him is compelling. I just worry that this kind of deplatforming is becoming so normalized I can’t imagine it not becoming a ready political weapon and having a great many unintended concequences.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66838794

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

#990

Post by corethree »

soundnote wrote: post #974
corethree wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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..."

Exactly. Don't be a coward... say what you mean. Those sentences are synonyms for "fuck off". Use the correct terminology, don't pretend you're being reasonable or rational.
Post reply on HN