991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The less money that creators get from YouTube, the better. Content becomes a swamp when content gets monetized for the creator. The internet was so much better before everything was monetized. The platform should always be pocketing all the money.
This leads to either more paid sponsorships and harder pitches for the creator's Patreon, or it leads to fewer professional creators. Are these things you want?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have to ask I don't know what to say. Look at anything from literally the last few years. It's basically Info Wars / Alex Jones.
No, it just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve watched his videos, it is nothing like Alex Jones. I knew you wouldn’t be able to back up your claims.
If it makes you feel better to think I don't know what I'm talking about then I can live with that.
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.
[flagged]
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note these:
"Edit out swipes."
"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
"Eschew flamebait."
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
It's always possible to make your substantive points while staying within the guidelines. Please do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of weird lawyerly nitpicking is this. YouTube does not want to be associated with an alleged rapist. Is that so hard to understand.
It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. YouTube, in their statement, is pretending they have an objective standard that is fairly applied to everyone. In reality, there is no uniform standard. They ban people when business interests dictate it. So their policy reads as “we have an objective standard,” but reality is “we ban when we feel l…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve watched his videos, it is nothing like Alex Jones. I knew you wouldn’t be able to back up your claims.
As I said, if you need to ask why his recent videos are unsound and you've watched them all, then I'm not sure what more I can say. It's going to be hard to have a fruitful discussion and your tone underlines that for me. If it makes you feel better to think I don't know what I'm talking about then I can live with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that Aba & Preach do a good job of staying in the middle, for an example of YT content creators. They tend to shit on red pill extremists and champagne socialists with equal aplomb.
Just listened to them and it’s not bad. Who else?
Jimmy Dore? He's a hardcore leftist but spends most of his energy attacking corrupt and/or incompetent Democrats and the eternal-war monoparty fueled by the Military-Industrial Complex.
Honestly I've cut down my consumption of sociopolitical commentary a lot in the past year. I feel like most of the channels aren't saying things I don't already know, and having lived outside the US for 10+ years, don't directly affect me much.
> “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,…
There are other examples if you dig. This Brand is a tool and can't stand him, but this all happens conveniently right when he gained a little bit of traction by being an outspoken critique of the government.
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…
You know, regular men, who surround themselves with no one but are still self-absorbed-to-the-death. They've earned it, and fo' fkn sho' they goin' collec'.
Regular men dammit! I can't say it any harder.
So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it has nothing to do with popular actions, and never has. All it basically says is that Russell Brand cannot go to jail until he is proven guilty. There are no laws requiring the public to treat an accused person as if they never committed a crime until said crime has been proven. It is up to the public whether they believe the victim or the accused. In this case you…