United Kingdom

4113 readers

259 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

127

YouTube suspends monetisation of Russell Brand's channel (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by smeg@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Or in other words "Megacorp reminds you that it can and will decide to ~~pocket~~ cut your income based on the court of public opinion".

This is not a discussion about the allegations against him, this is about the fact that Google have decided to ~~pocket the income they would otherwise be giving him (not taking down the videos, oh no, they're probably bringing in even more ad revenue now!) without any convictions or similar~~. Not that Google is an employer (I'm sure they consider payments they make to video uploaders to be some kind of generous untaxable gift), but should an employer have the power to take away a source of income based on allegations, no matter how heinous?

Edit: seems they're actually not putting ads on his videos at all now, which was a surprise to me

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] calavera@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Do you know if they still monetize those videos and just don't send his share anymore or they are completely demonetized?

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Completely demonetise

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Just a sample size of 1 but when I just loaded his videos (for the first time ever) they showed no ads.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess you could watch the videos without an adblocker and see if any ads show up

[–] calavera@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'll pass, don't want to screw the algorithm

[–] livus@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@calavera totally.

I was looking for a traveling exhibition from the Tate Modern art gallery and the algorithm thought that meant I should like Andrew Tate.

That was weeks ago and my recs are still a bit cursed. Hate to think how bad it would get if we actually watch on purpose.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Incognito works for this use case (and basically only such use cases)