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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by pixl97 »

ulizzle wrote: post #828
pixl97 wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you get your job back if your 'right to work state' if your accused of being a sexual predator and your job fires you... no, you do not. Tomorrow everyone will be back at 'right to work' and 'freedom of association' around here on some other topic.

If you are accused, you don't lose your job; proof must be there first. Otherwise, you can sue for wrongful termination, and there will be hell to pay in dollars. HR's job is to protect the company first, so unless they catch someone in the act, they won't know or want to know unless it comes from you or the cops. But this is different because it's politics and a public person. It's different rules for them. Johnny D…

>you can sue for wrongful termination, and there will be hell to pay in dollars.

Maybe in your state, or maybe in your country, but in "right to work" states, the best you'll get is unemployment.

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

#922

Post by savingsPossible »

diogenes4 wrote: post #134
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.

> The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. More like yet another reflection of the extant overton window.

to a degree.

The monetization window has everything to do with the advertiser confort window. That is "are we alienating a big chunk of the population being associated with that", where big is in dollars, not in people

So it is a lens that distorts what society deems 'acceptable' -- and that phase itself has its own set of complications

(see: wikileaks)

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

#923

Post by bjpless »

ngetchell wrote: post #898
bjpless wrote: post #891

As a disclaimer, I’m not a Brand content consumer and I’m also not commenting on the validity of the claims. I’m aware that he’s a popular populist and the slippery slope is obvious here, independent of the particulars of the specific case. The playbook to silence a relatively loud political voice is now obvious from the YT response. It is a given that cynical actors on all sides will evolve to further exploit this s…

I don't think "loud political voices" have the right to make money off of YT. YT seems generous to keep Brand on the platform during this odd period between accusation and conviction.

I’m not raising a question about his rights or generosity.

He and other independent political pundits have large audiences and as a result generate valuable content for the platform.

If the game theory above plays out and cynical actors act cynically, it will ultimately hurt YT in the long term run and drive users to other platforms (I’d assume Twitter).

I think YT may be opening a can of worms for themselves.

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

#924

Post by withinboredom »

atiernanberry wrote: post #893
chiefalchemist wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature of the allogations aside, isn't this what possibly happened to Brand? He spoke things that many wished went unsaid. Eventually the "terms & conditions" were tweaked so to speak and now the critic is silenced, marginalized and humiliated. Of all the targets to pick, why Brand? Why now?

Russel Brand has just had a number of sexual assault allegations made against him [1]. I would assume Youtube's decision is linked to those allegations rather than the content of his channel, since his channel content has been pretty consistent [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66838794

Allegations? Anyone can say anything but we have courts to prove they-said-they-said type problems. That's pretty shitty.

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

#925

Post by MockObject »

GenericPoster wrote: post #419
flextheruler wrote: post #173

Earlier 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…

This "association" business smells like a logical fallacy to me. Since when has advertisement even implied endorsement of nearby content?

If I see a billboard on a bus station, what is the advertiser endorsing here?

What about a magazine ad? Reasonable people assume the advertiser supports every view expressed therein?

If I happened to see an ad on a website with user generated content, would I really think the advertiser endorsed each post?

Sorry, this argument is fallacious. Reasonable people do not make these conclusions.

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

#927

Post by CydeWeys »

gerdesj wrote: post #408
CydeWeys wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. "The algorithm" didn't force him to go off the crazy deep end. He chose to do this himself. Don't absolve him or that decision. I think it's more like, he knew this was coming out and it was going to make him look bad, so he preemptively decided to modify his audience to consist of people less likely to leave…

"I think it's more like, he knew this was coming out and it was going to make him look bad, so he preemptively decided to modify his audience to consist of people less likely to leave him once the news did break." The accusations mainly seem to be from around a decade ago (give or take). How long do you have him down "modifying" his audience? I personally think ... well I don't know the bloke at all, only his public…

The accusations are older, but they picked up a lot of steam recently to the point I'm sure he got a bunch of media inquiries asking for comment. That's what tipped him off that it was about to become a big deal and triggered his rightward shift (the accusations had never previously been a big deal affecting him).

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

#928

Post by diogenes4 »

15457345234 wrote: post #858
diogenes4 wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point the private platform becomes so influential over the information environment and politics that it can no longer be considered merely a private platform. Good luck taking that up with the department of justice. I honestly have no clue what you're trying to get at—just because you want a space to be public doesn't change the legal reality.

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#929

Post by Manuel_D »

jimnotgym wrote: post #875
Manuel_D wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Because you aren't adherering to the above comment: you are reading stories about him, in fact you're also posting in the comment sections in said stories.

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

#930

Post by Manuel_D »

pixl97 wrote: post #630
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>not to do business with a likely sex offender And if you are wrong, are you also willing to apologize for hasty decision making? Or will you hide behind the crowd and say 'well everyone else said X!' Because that's what is happening right now. People's lives are ruined on the assumption of someone being the big bad. Then when it turns out the situation is far more nuanced and delicate, the social damage is already d…

Suddenly this is the thread that has snapped for you and said this is wrong? For most of modern history an accusation was all that was needed to have you removed from your job. The cops showing up at your office and just 'questioning' your behavior around minors without even making accusations is generally enough to ensure you don't come back the next day. It's one of the reasons I don't post as little information ab…

> The cops showing up at your office and just 'questioning' your behavior around minors without even making accusations is generally enough to ensure you don't come back the next day.

For the record, 16 is the age of consent in Britain. No doubt it's fair to have the ick about a 31 year old involved with someone so young, but Brand was never alleged to have been involved with minors.

Post reply on HN