Live data from Hacker News

YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

nytimes.com

521–530 of 1001 posts

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

#521
post #391
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.

I find the idea that Youtube has a crafted narrative to be hilariously ridiculous.

Everyone has a completely different view of what the site is depending on what your interests are.

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

#522

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?

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

#523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's generally the premise behind "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", as opposed to "guilty whenever the histrionic internet mob and its tech enablers deem it so".

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

#524

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…

> You do not get to control Google’s computers. Then why does Google control my phone? Can't have it both ways

> why does Google control my phone

Because you chose to buy that phone. Plenty of phones without their software.

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

#525

> “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,…

if I am YT creator and I punch someone in a bar

I don't think it matters if the other person has a YT subscription. If you create videos about, say, beekeeping and you get in a random bar fight, no, probably not. IF you're some sort of 'influencer' and your public persona is all about being a tough-talking badass, such that your getting into a bar fight makes you the Main character in the entertainment/gossip pages for several days, then they might dump you because they don't want next weeks story to be 'YouTube subsidizes karaterobot's hard-drinking combat LARP.'

It's not a balanced appraisal of facts and harms and injury allocation like in a tort lawsuit; more a seat-of-the-pants executive judgement call on 'does hanging out with this guy commercially make us look bad?' If the answer is yes, then you suddenly no longer have a commercial relationship. It's similar to the 'morals clauses' in the contracts of TV and movie stars, but with the difference that tech firms basically set contractual terms unilaterally and the network effects are so strong that that no individual performer has any kind of leverage to request anything different.

It's worth understanding that the incredible concentration of corporate power on digital platforms is due to a mix of technological moats, the first-mover advantage of preferential attachment, and a philosophical shift away from breaking up monopolies, on the theory that large entities often deliver greater consumer benefits than a competitive market place, a viewpoint famously summarized here: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

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

#526

> “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 pr…

Brand is not being executed. There has never been a principle in US or English law that you have to do business with everyone all the time. There are, in modern times, certain protected classes that you cannot discriminate against. Otherwise, you are free not to do business with someone, or to set the terms on which you are willing to do business with them. Alleged rapists are not a protected class.

In fairness there is a discussion that needs to be had about private businesses that have the de facto power to wreck people's lives if they decide to de-platform them. I think that applies more to businesses like banks and payment services providers that can literally make it difficult for you to obtain food and shelter than it does to social media or content hosting platforms, which are relatively easy to self-host. In any event, it has nothing to do with the criminal law concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

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

#528
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer (barrister?), but no. Generally, businesses are not obligated to do business with folks they dislike.

This is not true. Courts continually hold that a business must serve persons they don't like or agree with.

Absolutely not. You can sue for being discriminated against based on a protected class (as said in the sibling comment), but otherwise the entire internet hinges on platforms being able to ban people who they "don't like or agree with" since they usually disagree on 'how much spam is acceptable' or 'whether hardcore porn should exist on YouTube.com'.

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube has been doing this for a while. If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours. This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you. Load of BS of course.…

operating the service isn't free and there's going to be some fixed cost component of introducing a new partner arrangement as long as the number isn't too high I don't really see a problem with it

A reasonable point, but the lack of transparency from YouTube's end means their pitch to content creators is basically 'trust us.' There's no way for new entrants to the market to predict how much they can make in proportion to views, so they're incentivized to just chase the lowest common denominator all the time.
Post reply on HN