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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by fallingknife »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #156
diogenes4 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a private platform. If you want better accountability argue for an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas" bullshit.

At some point the private platform becomes so influential over the information environment and politics that it can no longer be considered merely a private platform. It is now also a public square. It’s not unreasonable at that point to require it to adhere higher standards of evidence, law, and reason. In this case, I’m no fan of Brand, but I’m even less a fan of YouTube’s apparent policy of “guilty till proven inn…

I am also very much a free speech absolutist. But demonetization is different. Anyone who wants to see the video still can, so Russel Brand has not had his freedom of speech restricted in any way.

This is not a policy of guilty until proven innocent. It's a policy of "advertisers don't want to be associated with rapists." And while there is a good argument for allowing access to YouTube as a public square, there is no such argument for allowing access to YouTube as an advertising platform.

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

#432

Post by FormerBandmate »

kaliqt wrote: post #391
brk wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On purpose. Maximizes their control to censor what they don't like to craft a wider narrative.

[flagged]

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

#434

Post by gooseus »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #414
gooseus wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll make one point, which is that if you are a violent asshole who punches anyone in the face that looks at you wrong, you still can't actually harm anyone through Youtube except by trying to convince someone to come get their ass kicked by you. Russel Brand is accused of grooming a 16 year old girl while he was 31, if true, that means there is the very real possibility that Brand could be using the YT platform as a…

Or reddit. Or email. Maybe we should cut his power just to be sure he isn't maybe grooming some 16 year olds.

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?

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

#435

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #281
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,…

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.

[deleted]

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

#436

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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,…

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

This is beside the point, but I want to bring it up because I think it's important to remember we live in a bubble.

A majority of people on earth are not Youtube users. Only ~60% of the world's population uses the internet[1], and of those, I'd assume a significant portion lack the bandwidth to stream video. Also, Youtube is blocked in China.

---

1: https://ourworldindata.org/internet

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

#437

Post by cmiles74 »

Did I read this correctly? It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him.

That doesn't seem right to me. If they were to cease hosting his material, that would maych their corporate-speak blurb. This sounds to me like more money for YouTube.

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

#438

Post by [deleted] »

somenameforme wrote: post #20

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…

[deleted]

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

#439

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

roenxi wrote: post #302
jjoonathan wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I think he understands. Constantly criticizing mainstream media for low standards while having far lower standards yourself is the kind of thing that you have to put significant ongoing effort into rationalizing. Consumers of alt media can do it thoughtlessly. Producers ? I'm not convinced.

> ... 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…

Just in terms of viewership do you have a specific source for saying his audience is comparable?

I am having trouble finding something reasonable. e.g.

6.58M youtube subscribers 80 million television households as subscribers for CNN

Although these numbers are not really comparable

~700k daily watchers for CNN: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-cable-news-ratings-... 800k video views for Russel: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/russellbrand

Although of course video views != daily watchers (one person can watch multiple ones & that number can be juiced)

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

#440

Post by curiousllama »

ShamelessC wrote: post #321
curiousllama wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While sexual assault is serious if true, it's also the only crime that can ruin someone's life and livelihood with no evidence or actual crime taking place. This is true. Along with this, it's important to note that there is, in fact, a significant amount of high-quality evidence about this particular allegation (some of which is contemporaneous to the assault itself). I'd also note that failing to believe & punish…

Not that I’m curious to watch that evidence myself, and I trust you’re taking the truth but can you clarify what high quality evidence means here?

Records from a rape clinic one woman went to shortly afterwards, indirect witnesses (e.g., someone who heard one of the women screaming from outside Brand's home during the assault), and exchanges shortly after the fact alluding to the assault (including by Brand).

There are apparently many other allegations, but four have relevant supporting evidence.

Here's a summary: https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/9/18/23878706/russell-brand...

Post reply on HN