In the name of consistency, YouTube must now demonitize anyone that is accused of any crime by anyone else.
YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
841–850 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#842> “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,…
It doesn't really matter what their argument is, they simply need to have one. It's their sandbox, and they have chosen an advertiser-friendly ratchet as the driver of policy. YouTube will get more and more bland and samey as people fear the banhammer, which will get used on less and less extreme content and producers, as the "cancelling machinery" has been built and will always find the next-most-evil^tm on which to…
>In England and Wales, more than 99% of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult.
https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scor...
An alternative interpretation of what's going on here is that the mainstream justice system is failing, and people are cobbling together an alternative justice system, where public shaming and demonetization are the punishments.
I think building in redundancy to reduce single points of failure is generally a good thing.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#843Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the beginning YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. You could watch illegal streams of many films and movies and you could find some porn before it’d be taken down. Advertisers are what demand moderation not users so as to protect their bottom line. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise and ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation.
>YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. Emphasis on the AND. There is some correlation between Youtube's popularity and the lack of moderation but that isn't what made them popular. I do agree on the advertiser's demanding moderation and I honestly don't blame them. If I made a product and I'm paying good money for advertising. I wouldn't want my products to be even remotely associated with anything that…
You're making the exact same logical fallacy you're pointing out. The reason free speech alternatives tend to be filled with less than desirable types is precisely because they're alternatives. Who are you going to disproportionately attract as early adopters? It's the same reason anti-Musk driven alternatives to Twitter are also failing. Instead of having a normal sampling of society, you end up with a hardcore bias which is offputting to most of everybody except those of that bias.
I also think Threads is perhaps a reasonable challenge to the idea that society wants moderation. Unlike the anti-Musk Twitter alternatives it started with a massive and mixed userbase and was a completely viable alternative, yet it almost immediately collapsed. It's really hard to see why without looking to the fact that were also featuring the sort of "moderation" that historically only comes as a bait-and-switch after a platform is extremely well established.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#844Guilty with contaminating earth human consciousness with propaganda designed to cause conflict fear and doubt
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#845Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you are self-righteous prick as prickly as brand, it is extremely easy to believe the accusers. This is why courts use the only system that has a chance of finding the truth.
You think courts find the truth?
I think what I said : - ) Which is not that.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#846Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we should equate demonetization with censorship.
Exactly, he can still post his incoherent rhetoric on YouTube, he just can’t generate revenue from it.
He can mention other means for his fans to support him (Patreon et al) and fund raise | blog elsewhere with links to youtube, etc.
It's not beyond the bounds of reason that he may even see an increase in revenue over a longer time period as a result of wearing sackcloth and ashes and complaining about youtube .. just not direct YT revenue.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#847Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement Not necessarily true. YouTube definitely runs ads on demonetized videos and channels.
That’s what I heard claimed somewhere. Has anyone demonstrated with a screen recording and a video with an upload date after the demonetization event?
I can confirm that Youtube runs ads on demonetized videos. This includes- videos where the creator didn't monetize it, videos that were monetized at first, but got monetization removed after review of reports, and videos where the creator don't yet qualify for monetization.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#848Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't it. Advertisers have repeatedly shown a huge willingness to court severe controversy. They use obese people to advertise swimwear, they run ads that tell men that they're toxic and terrible. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gillette-woke-now-when-... “These are smart people, they do so much research. They know they’re taking on a topic that could be controversial," said Rob Baiocco, co-founder and chie…
You gotta love conspiracy theorists. They’re able to come up with the most contrived scenarios, but the idea that money in the form of profits is driving advertising decisions is apparently inconceivable.
It's driven by the observation that it can't be about money here because YouTube is still collecting that money.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#849Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm just wondering about the argument they are making, You are witnessing the slow merging of Silicon Valley with the Security State. Buckle up. It gets super fun after this.
Is that really the right way to think about it? Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? Seems more accurate to say Youtube is building an alternative security state. Heck, it's rather anarcho-capitalist if you ask me.
> Is that really the right way to think about it?
That's the way I think about it based upon my perspective and experience.
> Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government?
Remains to be seen. The police have been "urged" to investigate, according to the AP. Perhaps the "right way to think" hasn't revealed itself yet?
> Seems more accurate to say Youtube is building an alternative security state.
I see no reason to be so certain the government had no involvement in this case, which you would have to be in order to consider this more accurate than literally any other theory.
> Heck, it's rather anarcho-capitalist if you ask me.
Oh.. it's a "cool" way to undermine human society. I didn't realize.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#850Earlier quoted context omitted.
> government doesn't itself have civil rights Neither do corporations. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine you refuse to talk to Trump supporters - most people would say that's your right. > It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people imagine the outrage if Tomorrow YouTube deletes accounts for anyone that supported Trump
Let's go more extreme. Tech companies are free to not host Nazi content. The US govt is NOT free to lock someone up for being a Nazi. That's the power of the 1st amendment.
Why can I never find you 'Corporations are people' advocates when corporate manslaighter is being discussed, for example when Boeing killed 200 people with a faulty plane?