Advertising companies hate controversy.
[deleted]
YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
441–450 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait videos were getting double the views. YouTube's algorithm plays a massive part in what goes into people's heads and they should be held more accountable. I'm a YouTuber, and I want to be very clear on the above. I know I would get way more views (and subscribers, and money) if I did more stupid…
I see what your saying, but your examples don't quite work. A reporter telling lies would presumable be called into their managers office and told to shape up or be fired. A painter doing rush jobs would get bad reviews and no referrals, and eventually stop getting jobs. Those behaviors are not incentivized. A youtube creator milking the algorithm is rewarded for this behavior, with more views, more ad money, etc. Ar…
> A reporter telling lies would presumable be called into their managers office and told to shape up or be fired.
I can't help but read this and feel like you must not be familiar with the UK press, particularly the tabloids. The UK tabloids make shit up all the fucking time with next to zero consequences.
For a more US centric take you might want to read Ryan Holiday's book "Trust Me I'm Lying: Confessions Of A Media Manipulator". He goes into specific detail about his time when he was in charge of marketing for American Apparel and how he got US media outlets to write completely bullshit stories for him and others clients like Tucker Carlson to get publicity. There's hardly anyone doing proper fact checking at a lot of these publications anymore, especially on smaller stories, because their print revenues have collapsed since the internet and they're desperately trying to stay afloat.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#443Earlier 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.
He could argue he was discriminated against because he's actually secretly a butterfly; both arguments would hold similar weight.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#444Did 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.
My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a protected class. > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up This, however, t…
There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric, water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service providers, etc. The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons might be will vary dependi…
If Google was compelled to keep arbitrary content monetized, the first thing they'd do is improve the tooling for advertisers to opt out of objectionable content in a more automated way.
You're just pushing the problem to a different level. It's easy to make a case that Google has to carry content, but forcing advertisers to spend money sponsoring it?
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't buy into the bad faith arguments. They aren't genuinely "asking questions," they're trying to bring what they already believe into the mainstream.
How are you determining what people (strangers) "already believe"?
Talking to them on the internet/real life over the past ten years
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#447> “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.
Community is an abused term nowadays
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#448Earlier 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.
With any luck we'll go even further than that and confine him to a small metal box for a period of several years.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#449Did 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.
My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.
Still keeping the engaged users though. Such users will see ads on other videos.
So they’re still making profits off someone else’s work (without retribution)
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#450Did 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.
My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.
YT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. They just don't share in the take with the creator. What a principled stance... "I will make even more money because you did something bad somewhere else!"