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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by belter »

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,…

Meet Pedrinho Matador YouTube Channel... - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBnh_1CLNa5rF3dmoDKIt3w

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Rodrigues_Filho

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

#872

Post by zarzavat »

mrtksn wrote: post #180
nimos wrote: post #30

The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.

I wonder if YouTube takes into consideration local values when doing this. For example, nudity and other controversial stuff can have much different standards on what's acceptable and what's not. If this is not baked into the formula, then it's likely that YouTube is pushing cultures to align with SV or some managers in Google. I'm not going to defend Russel Brand, just making a point about YT's impact. This time aro…

The answer to that is yes, kind of. Google only really cares what people say in English and perhaps some other major languages. Speech in less common languages is less moderated in general across the internet.

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

#873

Post by yreg »

kylebenzle wrote: post #493
pseudosavant wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

That's not how any of this works. 1. YouTube can show ads BETWEEN videos and keep 100% of the money. 2. YouTube runs ads WITHIN videos if owner "monetizes", and shares the profit. 3. Creators run "promotions" within their videos and keep 100% of the money. They only stopped #2. Both YouTube and Brand are still both making money off brands videos on YouTube.

As for 2:

If you are not partnered, YouTube runs ads within videos and keeps 100% of the money.

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

#874

Post by coldtea »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #127
coldtea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many years in that 90s-00s period And even as such, had no complaints against him who bothered to go to the police and file/sue, not even at the height of me-too. Then only things I've read are things like "he make lewd comments". Then, on 2019 (? and they release now?) they get anonymous accusations, and even those to the press, not the police (the police mer…

> And even as such, had no complaints against him who bothered to go to the police and file/sue, not even at the height of me-too. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66838794 From the article: > One woman alleges that Brand raped her without a condom against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She says Brand tried to stop her leaving until she told him she was going to the bathroom. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on th…

Since no police was involved, yes.

Such a center is not the same as the police (which would be corroborating the story, running lab tests, bringing the alleged perpetrator in for questioning, and so on).

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

#875

Post by jimnotgym »

Manuel_D wrote: post #262
jimnotgym wrote: post #139

This is difficult for me. I'm not pro censorship, but I would like a way to not have to hear about Russell Brand at all. Is that possible? I don't want to hear from him or about him. I don't want to hear from people that like him. I didn't want to hear Radio 4 talking about it this morning. I don't want to stop his free speech, I just want to avoid him

> I'm not pro censorship, but I would like a way to not have to hear about Russell Brand at all. Is that possible? Yes: don't watch his videos and don't read or watch news coverage about him.

If only...I have never watched his videos or read about him. I don't read tabloid news. I don't watch TV news. I only listen to 'serious' radio news stations. Yet somehow I know all about this story

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

#876

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

username332211 wrote: post #866
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Has Brand been convicted of any crime by any government? No, he's punished without the due process of law. And that's how most dictatorial regimes usually deal with miscreants. If you bad-mouthed Breznev nobody would bother with a show-trial unless there was some specific benefit of making you an example. In 9/10 cases they'd fire you from any semi-decent job and won't let your kids finish high school with more tha…

Let's check for political bias here. Suppose I rewrote your comment so instead of talking about Russell Brand, I'm talking about the right-wing Budweiser boycott. Those right-wingers are punishing Budweiser without due process of law. Just like most dictatorial regimes. How worried are you?

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

#877

Post by vt85 »

randomcarbloke wrote: post #839
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #836

Earlier 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.

[dead]

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

#878

Post by kypro »

jayrot wrote: post #306
kypro wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or alternatively companies have to provide clear and explicit rules about what is permissible on their platform and if you feel you're wrongly censored or removed from the platform you should be able to take legal action. I'm fine with YouTube not wanting to provide a platform for people who they feel are harmful, but they need to define that in an explicit way so that these decisions are not made arbitrarily. I beli…

They do have rules on what is permissible on their platform. They call it the Creator Responsibility Policy. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7650329?hl=en

If by "rules" you mean vague references to "harm" then sure.

My use of the word "explicit" here was intentional. As it stands the "rules" may as well just read "if we don't like what you're doing on or off our platform we reserve the right fire you as a content creator". And again I'll note, if you're fired as a content creator for some arbitrary reason you have no way to challenge the decision.

I don't think this is acceptable. I think Google should ultimately be able to run their platform however they like, but they have a responsibility to make those rules clear when people are dependant on them for their income.

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

#879

Post by pawelmurias »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #574
madrox wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is about protecting the ecosystem. YT has basically stopped ads from playing on his content…no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. If YT didn’t take this action, it’s likely advertisers would pull back on spend because they don’t want to risk being seen along side his content. YouTube, afaik, doesn’t just let advertisers blacklist individual channels.

> no advertiser wants to be associated with him right now. I see this sentiment all the time and I just don't understand it. If I sold razor blades, or if I was Stephen He's dad and sold Beijing Corn, I would want EVERYONE buying my product. Communists, Fascists, Russians, Ukrainians, Israelis, Palestinians, Antifa, Proud Boys, Prince Andrew, Andrew Tate, etc.... They may all hate each other but they should all agree…

I think because the content algorithms also show you stuff that you are outraged it, you might want your razors blades to be shown to russian watching putin speeches, but you don't want to associate them when the are showing people things they hate.

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

#880

Post by harshitaneja »

dmix wrote: post #684
georgespencer wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment seems either mistaken or disingenuous to me: > Anonymous allegations The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same thing as an anonymous allegation. The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand. > from more than a decade ago Utterly irrelevant. > procured by a fishing reporter It's unclear what you mean by this. I can't find anyt…

There’s been so, so many of these accusations in the past decade that turned out to be far less than the initial reporting or flat out wrong. Your deference to the professionalism of journalism is about a decade or two out of touch with modern reality. It is only rational to wait for proper processes play out. It’s sad that such a thing has become politicized where one has to feel the need to tar and feather someone…

> There’s been so, so many of these accusations in the past decade that turned out to be far less than the initial reporting or flat out wrong.

Is the implication that majority of cases or a large enough minority have been flat out wrong? If yes, then please cite your source.

Post reply on HN