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

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by lotsofpulp »

mrtksn wrote: post #396
lotsofpulp wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we need to go to the dumb wire days of the telephone companies who couldn't control what people say on the phone and if their services were used to do bad things it was the law enforcements job to deal with it. That is today. You do not get to control Google’s computers. Buy your own server(s), buy your own bandwidth, and do what you please. Lobby your representatives to make symmetric fiber internet a utility…

This is like saying that if you don't like the planet Earth, find yourself a planet suitable to terraform, go there terraform it, populate it the way you like and live there. Sure, you can do that but you can also solve the problem at hand. Ownership, money, property etc. are all constructs based on a social contract, Sundar Pichai by himself can't have control on more than a suitcase and a vehicle maybe - he can con…

> This is like saying that if you don't like the planet Earth, find yourself a planet suitable to terraform, go there terraform it, populate it the way you like and live there.

Not at all like that because building a video hosting service is a relatively trivial task, with the only limitation being money. Which the US government has more of than Google.

> Sure, you can do that but you can also solve the problem at hand.

I would rather the government provide the video hosting as a utility rather than commandeer Google’s computers.

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

#482

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

#483

Post by nateglims »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #423
nateglims wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube had to appease its advertisers to make money. I can’t think of a utility that has this revenue model.

Modern auction based ad platforms are much less economically sensitive to the pressure of advertiser ethics than traditional ad platforms like cable TV. If one advertiser pulls out for ethical reasons their placement goes to the next bidder at an infinitesimally smaller price. And at the back of the line there’s always a game developer willing to pay a couple of dollars per install. This is why the Facebook ad boycot…

The YouTube “adpocalypse” suggests that YouTube is sensitive to it in a way that google and Facebook aren’t. I don’t know how their ad purchasing system works though.

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

#484

Post by m-p-3 »

pseudosavant wrote: post #450
JacobThreeThree wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

The user in question can take out its content at any time as well too.

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

#485

Post by api »

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.

It’s 100% about protecting the brand.

Twitter has lost something like 60% of its advertisers because it turns out Proctor and Gamble doesn’t want an ad for Dawn dish detergent next to someone called BasedFuhrer1488 posting about how the Holocaust didn’t happen.

If it wasn’t for that all these platforms would let anything legal go as long as it drove engagement.

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

#486

Post by comrh »

stainablesteel wrote: post #472
Supply5411 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the real lesson here is nobody who wants to speak their mind should be supporting themselves on a platform of nervous advertisers.

why are they never nervous when they outright betray the demographics they should be pandering to? latest examples would be the bud light and target fiascos

"betray" in this context meaning advertise to LGBT people?

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

#487

Post by Supply5411 »

stainablesteel wrote: post #472
Supply5411 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the real lesson here is nobody who wants to speak their mind should be supporting themselves on a platform of nervous advertisers.

why are they never nervous when they outright betray the demographics they should be pandering to? latest examples would be the bud light and target fiascos

You answered your own question: the advertising that they produce is what they're comfortable with.

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

#488

Post by hinkley »

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,…

Allegedly. If a bunch of people come forward accusing you of assault, odds are pretty good you did it.

However, private businesses punishing people for having charges brought against them but not yet tried? That's judge, jury and executioner, which is incompatible with the set of laws that the US is built on - for which the source material was English Law, and precedent even older than that.

So an American company pre-punishing a Brit based on a news article is the beginning of another level of dystopia none of us wants.

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

#490

Post by threeseed »

jvickers wrote: post #421
perfect-blue wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately boils down to one point. YT gets to do whatever they want. The terms of service are designed so they can be selective in their enforcement. Is it bad policy? Yes. Does it allow for flexibility in a world that is never black and white? Also yes. Honestly, if there was a better solution, what would it be? The questions are endless once you start down this rabbit ho…

No, in my view Youtube can not do whatever they like with this kind of thing, at least as far as my potential outrage is concerned. If Youtube gives a false reason (to me as well as others) about the reason for demonetising someone then I have a problem with that. When some content is banned from Youtube, it's got positives and negatives. Like when Alex Jones was banned, I was annoyed that I could no longer watch Ale…

> People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website.

The only problem is that your ideal video hosting website doesn't work. You won't:

a) Get enough users because most people want moderation.

b) Raise enough revenue because most advertisers want moderation.

c) Be able to legally operate because most legislators want moderation.

Post reply on HN