without any convictions or similar
Even with a conviction, seems to me like it's a question of hosting him or not. Demonitising him is Google trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
127 points (87.1% liked)
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
Demonetize means they don't show ads on his channel at all. So they aren't making money off of him.
And it's a smart move by them, because whether or not he's guilty, no corporation is gonna be happy if Google displays their ads on his content right now. The court of public opinion is the only court that matters to marketing departments.
My thoughts exactly
Not that Google is an employer …but should an employer have the power to take away a source of income based on allegations.
YouTube is a platform that lets people upload videos for free - that’s it.
Some of those videos can be monetised by YouTube by inserting ads - and that money is shared with the content creators.
In this case, YouTube has decided that trying to make money off Brand’s videos isn’t worth the risk.
Do you know if they still monetize those videos and just don't send his share anymore or they are completely demonetized?
Completely demonetise
Just a sample size of 1 but when I just loaded his videos (for the first time ever) they showed no ads.
I guess you could watch the videos without an adblocker and see if any ads show up
I'll pass, don't want to screw the algorithm
@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.
Incognito works for this use case (and basically only such use cases)
The trouble is that a lot of people treat it like a job and rely on it for income. Obviously this is a pretty risky way to get by, but it essentially means they're an employer and should probably be regulated as such.
I guarantee that if YouTube were treated legally as an employer, Youtube would shut down. It's not an employer. It's a free video hosting platform that shares some of the revenue that it makes. The fact that people treat it as an employer is the problem. There is nothing to stop Brand or anyone else, using sponsorship or other paid promotion if they would like to monetise their videos. They just can't rely on Youtube's advertising machine.
Or the people uploading should be aware of their precarious position and make sure to have back up revenue streams like patreon. Unless you have a contact with YT commiting them to provide you with a cut of profits, you've no leg to stand on. Not that Brand is in any danger of this bankrupting him.
While this is true in a cut-throat business world, we've had regulation on issues like forcing Uber to treat their employees as employees. While this isn't exactly the same it doesn't seem like a huge leap to say well some people are starting to use this for an income, we the state should ensure it has similar protections to other forms of income. Well, that's my thoughts on it, I'm no employment-law-speaker!
Uber isn't regulated like that everywhere, we did it in the UK more because of how it was undermining minicab firms that did have to treat staff as employees.
I mean, I think the closest analogy is to a TV station and a TV show.
The TV station isn't the employer of the people making a show.
On the other hand, a show and a station contract on a season-by-season basis, so AFAIK, normally a show is guaranteed payments for the remainder of a season. Youtubers don't get that guarantee. But then again, a show is obligated to actually keep making shows until the end of the season, and that isn't true of Youtubers.
And a Youtuber can pull their content that they've already made down whenever they want. Like, either YouTube or Brand can, at any point and for any reason, terminate the relationship.
Also, YouTube doesn't get any exclusivity. Brand can put his shows on YouTube and Vimeo and OnlyFans and as many other services as he wants. The only Youtuber that I've followed much, a guy that drives around the US in an RV with his cat, puts some stuff up on Patreon, some on YouTube (and sells some merch). He puts as much content/time or as little on any platform as he wants. Maybe he never uploads anything to YouTube again, maybe he puts a lot up in a given month.
Alphabets in a catch 22. Either they demonetize it and become the villain, or keep them monetization up and become the villain.
I'm sure their creator click through contract says something about moral turpitude and character. So they can rely on that.
I look forward to the EU saying that if you monetize users content you owe them legally a percentage of the income. Anything else is just contract law
Btw https://russellbrand.store/ which is linked directly from https://www.russellbrand.com/ , has put his gift store under review. So it's not just YouTube.
If they wanted to do something slightly less greedy they could remove or disable the videos instead of (presumably) still profiting off them, though you could argue that that could be even more of an overreach.
It'd be worse from a public participation perspective. But it would be more consistent. Either this person is so evil that you can't do any business with them, or they're not.
Personally I'm against all deplatforming, but YouTube being wishy-washy is annoying
clearly the solution is 50% monetization
Or divert the monetization that would have gone to the original creator, whose currently unpopular, and donate it to a charity in their name. Clean hand syndrome
They aren't making more ad revenue off of his channel, because demonetized channels do not display ads via Google. It doesn't mean shit if he's innocent. The court of public opinion is the only court that matters to marketing departments, and he's hot enough right now that no corporation is going to want to be associated with him.
load more comments
(7 replies)
This is not a discussion about the allegations against him
based on the court of public opinion
without any convictions or similar
Idk, seems like you’ve already started the discussion in your post
Maybe bad phrasing on my part. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, even if he's looking pretty guilty. I didn't want to duplicate chat that already happened on the other articles posted, I wanted to chat about the power that Google apparently has here.
Google has this power, and uses it quite often. And you don't have to be famous, or even do anything wrong to lose access to your Google account, and your family photos, your email address, your phone number... or anything else you've trusted Google to handle for you.
Meet Mark (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/08/21/2148215/dad-photographs-son-for-doctor-google-flags-him-as-criminal-notifies-police). Mark's young son had an infection on his penis and he was asked by the doctor's office to take a photo so the doctor could evaluate it (this was during Covid). Google's AI child porn detector flagged it, and started a process which got the police involved (they quickly realized that there was no crime), but Google still shutdown Mark's account and hasn't given it back.
If you have anything you value inside Google's (or any other company's) ecosystem, you should have a backup because this happens quite often (don't even think about doing a chargeback against Google if they take money from you that they shouldn't have).
"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the state. I wouldn't want him chasing my daughter, would you? Private companies and individuals are fully entitled to treat him like he's guilty based on their own appraisal of the evidence.
I agree with you about Google. Even though it's good that the rapist doesn't get to make bank by spreading conspiracy theories, it'd be better if they took the videos down. Whereas traditional media outlets and theatres are cancelling his shows and saying (as is their right) that they don't want to work with him, Google's like "we'll work with you but we're not paying you". Not exactly the ethical stance they make it out to be, is it?
I've never forgiven that arsehole for what he did to Andrew Sachs.
TBF that was as much Jonathon Ross's fault and the broadcaster's fault.
Poor girl. It's shocking to think how culturally accepted and mainstream misogyny was at the time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lol, if its the will of the people then banana peels it is! Sadly I've never experienced such schadenfreude but I've been hanging out at the fruit market recently so hopefully not long now.
Seriously though, the point of my original statement was that there are already multiple other threads talking about the actual allegations and I didn't want to duplicate.
load more comments
(1 replies)
yea they should've suspended him instead. youtube are cowards.
he can go to odysee, best site for cranks.
It's pretty BS that your life can be completely destroyed from false allegations. I'm not saying that the allegations against him are false, but he has already suffered all of the social fallout, regardless of guilt. What if it comes back that he's not guilty and the whole thing is a hit job? Or was an extortion scheme he wouldn't participate with? Again, I'm not saying it is or isn't. What I'm saying is that people and society judge others based on the accusations against them, not the facts. Since we know this to be true, it might be prudent to prevent publication of accusations before conviction. I'm not sure, because I'm not an expert and haven't given it much thought. I just know that the way society responds now is reactive and potentially devastating for people who are actually innocent.
If you're a woman working in the media right now, it would be useful to know this so that you can avoid any one-to-one meetings with him. Holding this information back could be putting people in real danger.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I assumed he was already banned from YouTube which is why he's on the alternative video sites for wronguns like Rumble.
whole lotta rapist supporters in here
This is the best summary I could come up with:
YouTube has suspended Russell Brand's channels from making money from adverts for "violating" its "creator responsibility policy".
"If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action," a YouTube spokesperson said on Tuesday.
YouTube's decision to block his revenue streams applies to "all channels that may be owned or operated" by the 48-year-old, it confirmed to the BBC.
Ahead of its broadcast, Brand took to his online social media video platforms - YouTube, Instagram and X (formerly known as Twitter), as well as Rumble- to pre-emptively deny all claims of misconduct, saying he was the subject of "a coordinated attack" involving "very serious allegations that I absolutely refute".
On Monday, one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault when she was 16 has told BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour his behaviour was an "open secret".
Brand still has a presence on Rumble, where he has 1.4 million followers, and he hosts a regular show every weekday, but there was notably no new episode on Monday.
The original article contains 443 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Russell and Youtube have been making a FORTUNE off of his misinformation and concern trolling arguments riding the algorithm.
view more: next ›