[HN Gopher] YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money throu...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
Author : mhb
Score : 158 points
Date : 2023-09-19 12:25 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| mpsprd wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230919111212/https://www.nytim...
| user3939382 wrote:
| [flagged]
| karaterobot wrote:
| > "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, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube
| users, so what the heck does that even mean?
|
| I have no dog in this fight, Russell Brand's fate is not of
| interest to me. I'm just wondering about the argument they are
| making, and how broad it seems. If any alleged crime takes place
| wherein the victim has watched at least one Youtube video at some
| point in their life, and the perpetrator has a monetized Youtube
| channel, will Youtube's policy be to step in and protect the
| victim? For example, if I am YT creator and I punch someone in a
| bar, and that someone has a Youtube subscription, does Youtube
| step in? That feels like the kind of policy that cannot be
| faithfully and objectively executed, which makes it a bad policy
| and a potential legal vulnerability for Youtube.
| speak_plainly wrote:
| I don't want to state the obvious but the part of the ecosystem
| being harmed is advertisers.
| surfingdino wrote:
| YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they
| are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management /
| income stream protection. Brand is free to go elsewhere or set
| up his own streaming / video publishing service.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| YouTube is a massive platform and inherently has power.
| People used the exact same argument for Twitter but I don't
| think you can deny that arbitrary management choices made a
| huge difference in how it worked, which had substantial
| impacts that a private company shouldn't have.
| christkv wrote:
| I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by
| advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this
| advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?
| angulardragon03 wrote:
| They'll just go to other forms of media, and/or skip long
| form videos altogether.
|
| With platforms like TikTok also being extremely popular,
| advertisers may simply choose to focus their budgets on
| these platforms instead of YouTube.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by
| advertisers at this point.
|
| They've been the target of that _twice_ at least, in 2017
| over hate speech [1], in 2019 over pedos[2]. Large brands
| spend insane amounts of money on advertising, and they do
| not want their content to appear next to people facing
| allegations of sexual misconduct or otherwise bad behavior.
|
| Hell just look at Twitter and how much advertising income
| they lost in the matter of a few months [4], as brands
| didn't want their ads to show up next to actual Nazis [3].
| And instead of recognizing this and getting rid of the
| Nazis, Musk wants to sue the ADL [5].
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-
| youtube-a...
|
| [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/a
| dvert...
|
| [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/tw
| itter...
|
| [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641
|
| [5]
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-
| musk...
| thallium205 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure YouTube still shows ads on demonetized
| channels.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube
| users, so what the heck does that even mean?
|
| This is beside the point, but I want to bring it up because I
| think it's important to remember we live in a bubble.
|
| A majority of people on earth are not Youtube users. Only ~60%
| of the world's population uses the internet[1], and of those,
| I'd assume a significant portion lack the bandwidth to stream
| video. Also, Youtube is blocked in China.
|
| ---
|
| 1: https://ourworldindata.org/internet
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| It's a stupid excuse. I guess all those 'Fail' videos will be
| de-monitised now?
| cmiles74 wrote:
| Did I read this correctly? It sounds like YouTube will continue
| to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would
| have paid him.
|
| That doesn't seem right to me. If they were to cease hosting
| his material, that would maych their corporate-speak blurb.
| This sounds to me like more money for YouTube.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| My understanding is that when a channel's content is not
| monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not
| pocketing the money they would have paid him.
| znpy wrote:
| Still keeping the engaged users though. Such users will see
| ads on other videos.
|
| So they're still making profits off someone else's work
| (without retribution)
| pseudosavant wrote:
| 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!"
| [deleted]
| yreg wrote:
| It is crazy but they do indeed run ads, even on demonetized
| videos.
| perfect-blue wrote:
| It's an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately boils
| down to one point. YT gets to do whatever they want. The terms
| of service are designed so they can be selective in their
| enforcement.
|
| Is it bad policy? Yes. Does it allow for flexibility in a world
| that is never black and white? Also yes. Honestly, if there was
| a better solution, what would it be? The questions are endless
| once you start down this rabbit hole.
| jvickers wrote:
| No, in my view Youtube can not do whatever they like with
| this kind of thing, at least as far as my potential outrage
| is concerned. If Youtube gives a false reason (to me as well
| as others) about the reason for demonetising someone then I
| have a problem with that.
|
| When some content is banned from Youtube, it's got positives
| and negatives. Like when Alex Jones was banned, I was annoyed
| that I could no longer watch Alex Jones on Youtube if I ever
| wanted to, but more than that glad that he'd never appear in
| my autoplay or recommended videos. While I think there is
| some truth that YouTube can do as it likes, people talking
| about what their rules are, complaining about them, lobbying
| Youtube even, is all fair too. A fair complaint would be that
| the user does not get enough control over what gets
| recommended. If enough people are talking about that issue,
| it could motivate Youtube or a competitor to provide that
| kind of control, as it would be a signal that it would
| attract an audience to that platform and keep them engaged if
| recommendation control was a major concern of theirs.
|
| Also, in some circumstances I could be quite annoyed with
| Youtube for not demonetising or banning some content. It
| could be something I don't want to watch personally, or more
| likely something I feel disgusted by such as Elsagate type
| scandals where the 'protect the children' type argument or
| instinct in my opinion or feelings override free speech
| concerns.
|
| People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a
| video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the
| conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website,
| and which Youtube and anyone else who reads the comments can
| use.
|
| Also, discussing how such a system works produces what would
| be considered 'prior art' when it comes to patents.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Liability. It all comes back to liability. I can't tell you
| what kind of cases have legal standing against YouTube for
| showing videos of an alleged abuser, but I trust that many
| smart and less scrupulous lawyers could.
| gorwell wrote:
| We thought we were going to escape a CCP style social credit
| score here in the US, but there's a loophole with big tech.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| They've calculated that this is the right _business decision._
|
| There is never anything more than that with corporations.
| sneak wrote:
| YouTube is like HR - they are there to protect the company and
| the company's revenue streams, not you or "the community".
|
| This is why I think the term "community guidelines" for
| "censorship policy" is such abusive gaslighting. It's
| unilateral censorship, not community, and they are rules, not
| guidelines.
|
| It's the same deceptive drive that renamed "searching your bag"
| to "security screening" at airports.
| pydry wrote:
| In this case it looks like theyre essentially just keeping
| his money because they decided to.
| brk wrote:
| I mostly agree but my argument against "rules" is that these
| things never seem to be unilaterally enforced. So it really
| is more like a guideline because enforcement is unpredictable
| in several aspects.
| kaliqt wrote:
| On purpose. Maximizes their control to censor what they
| don't like to craft a wider narrative.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| There is no they. It's the blind whims of the public (in
| this case justified because he's a straight up rapist,
| but in many others not)
| [deleted]
| znpy wrote:
| Community is an abused term nowadays
| mongol wrote:
| Very much so. It is used to make one's own arguments
| stronger. "Thank you for listening to the community"
| actually means "Thank you for listening to me".
| yreg wrote:
| I agree in general, but in this case the company has nothing
| to protect from. The matter doesn't relate to them in any
| way.
| gooseus wrote:
| I'll make one point, which is that if you are a violent asshole
| who punches anyone in the face that looks at you wrong, you
| still can't actually harm anyone through Youtube except by
| trying to convince someone to come get their ass kicked by you.
|
| Russel Brand is accused of grooming a 16 year old girl while he
| was 31, if true, that means there is the very real possibility
| that Brand could be using the YT platform as a means for
| finding other victims.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Or reddit. Or email. Maybe we should cut his power just to be
| sure he isn't maybe grooming some 16 year olds.
| gooseus wrote:
| So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue
| providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone
| who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty
| of an actual crime?
|
| Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those
| services again?
| browserman wrote:
| With any luck we'll go even further than that and confine
| him to a small metal box for a period of several years.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| Like every social media platform the "community guidelines" are
| written to be purposely subjective and vague, such that the
| enforcement of the guidelines can be done arbitrarily, per the
| whim of the company and their agents.
| jrflowers wrote:
| > But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube
| users, so what the heck does that even mean?
|
| This is an interesting question; why hasn't anyone verified
| that these women are YouTube users?
|
| Since we have established that "ecosystem" is a word that means
| "app developers" and not a broad term that could be interpreted
| to mean the general environment in which YouTube does business
| with advertisers and users, this means that YouTube is acting
| in defense of its users.
|
| Furthermore this announcement gets even more confusing as
| punching someone in a bar is not something that can faithfully
| or objectively be separated from (alleged) rape by any
| community standards or legal bodies, YouTube is in even further
| hot water here
| nimos wrote:
| 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.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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 around maybe many people agree with
| their decisions on content but what happens if the managers
| change and the rules change with them? What happens if Andrew
| Tate types get positions in the corporate? Will people be OK
| about promoting videos about how you can make money by pimping
| your girlfriend on live stream and how to recruit more
| girlfriends and demonetise videos on climate change?
|
| It's very disturbing that those utility level services can pick
| winners and losers. IMHO, we need to move to a model where if
| you can moderate content you are liable for the content. If you
| don't want to be liable for content then you should have
| nothing to do with that content, just provide the service and
| cooperate with the law enforcement when they are after someone
| who posts illegal content.
|
| You can't be the curator and have no responsibility, and if you
| don't want responsibility don't be the curator.
|
| I'm sorry that you don't like this unpopular opinion but we
| need to go to the dumb wire days of the telephone companies who
| couldn't control what people say on the phone and if their
| services were used to do bad things it was the law enforcements
| job to deal with it.
| nateglims wrote:
| YouTube had to appease its advertisers to make money. I can't
| think of a utility that has this revenue model.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| Modern auction based ad platforms are much less
| economically sensitive to the pressure of advertiser ethics
| than traditional ad platforms like cable TV.
|
| If one advertiser pulls out for ethical reasons their
| placement goes to the next bidder at an infinitesimally
| smaller price. And at the back of the line there's always a
| game developer willing to pay a couple of dollars per
| install.
|
| This is why the Facebook ad boycotts were so ineffective.
| Especially compared to the impact of the Twitter ad boycott
| - with Twitter having never developed a modern auction
| based platform.
| mrtksn wrote:
| If that revenue model doesn't work YT should find a new one
| or seize to exists.
|
| It's not god's given right to run a profitable business,
| businesses who harm the society and can't find ways to
| operate at profit without harming the society go out of
| business all the time.
| ghaff wrote:
| And if you don't moderate at all you get deluged under piles
| of crap, hate speech, spam, and bot-created garbage. Might as
| well not even try. In any sort of forum context, zero
| moderation makes it useless at least for most.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Moderation against abuse of your own system is fine, that's
| given. Even electricity companies will go after you if you
| abuse their grid but they won't care what kind of videos
| you film using their electricity.
|
| However I don't think that YouTube should decide what's
| hate speech and ban it. If that speech is illegal, the law
| enforcement should find the person. Maybe it can be
| acceptable to let the law enforcement delete videos but
| that's also risky because that's how you can get speech
| suppression when the government isn't very good.
| ghaff wrote:
| You're just passing the problem off to someone else who
| won't do anything about it. Unmoderated sites are
| cesspools in general. But I guess they're at least
| unfiltered cesspools.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Hate speech is not illegal in the US. Youtube is not
| judging what speech is legal or not, they're just making
| a decision about which types of content they want to
| distribute.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Then that speech should remain on YouTube and those
| concern by the content of the speech should simply
| produce counterarguments and discredit that speech.
| ghaff wrote:
| You realize the idea that YouTube videos of the sort
| being discussed here will result in thoughtful counter
| arguments is a completely naive notion?
| mrtksn wrote:
| Twitter's community notes works quite well. I don't think
| that people are incapable of discussion.
|
| IMHO the problem is anonymity combined with some harmful
| dopamine loop, making people act horribly. Maybe even
| putting the age of the poster next to the nickname will
| reduce the heat of the discussion quite a bit.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| What is the counter argument to speech that calls a
| particular group of people "sub-human, and a stain on our
| planet"? What's to debate?
|
| Lets be clear here - we're not talking about difference
| in opinion of fiscal policy that we can debate the pros
| and cons of.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I don't know, what about teaching the kids the history of
| hate they can recognise BS and just don't pay attention
| to it?
|
| You can't delegate raising your kids to YouTube, right?
| What about the grown ups you say, well words are not
| spells - just because someone said that some group of
| people are sub-human doesn't make others believe that. We
| are not photocopiers, we are humans.
|
| That hate speech claiming that some group of people are
| "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff
| like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those
| if you are concerned.
| morkalork wrote:
| Hasn't pushing cultural norms on others always been the case
| with American-centric media? Before silicon valley it was
| Hollywood. They've got all the big budgets to produce
| hyperviolent movies but lord help you, if there's an
| uncovered boob, then it's an R rating and a much tougher
| pitch to studios.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Youtube is not a utility.
| mongol wrote:
| > then it's likely that YouTube is pushing cultures to align
| with SV or some managers in Google.
|
| This is as sure as that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have
| absolutely no doubt that the rest of the world is culturally
| influenced by the larger SV companies.
|
| > we need to move to a model where if you can moderate
| content you are liable for the content.
|
| Agree completely.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > but we need to go to the dumb wire days of the telephone
| companies who couldn't control what people say on the phone
| and if their services were used to do bad things it was the
| law enforcements job to deal with it.
|
| That is today. You do not get to control Google's computers.
|
| Buy your own server(s), buy your own bandwidth, and do what
| you please.
|
| Lobby your representatives to make symmetric fiber internet a
| utility to each home, and implement ipv6 so you can serve
| content from your house and not have to depend on bigger
| companies to get around CGNAT.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > You do not get to control Google's computers.
|
| Then why does Google control my phone? Can't have it both
| ways
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That is an unrelated topic.
| pseg134 wrote:
| Then why were you crying the other day that the US needs to
| nationalize SpaceX to help Ukraine? Can't they just built
| their own space based internet network?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not recall commenting on that topic at all.
| mrtksn wrote:
| This is like saying that if you don't like the planet
| Earth, find yourself a planet suitable to terraform, go
| there terraform it, populate it the way you like and live
| there.
|
| Sure, you can do that but you can also solve the problem at
| hand. Ownership, money, property etc. are all constructs
| based on a social contract, Sundar Pichai by himself can't
| have control on more than a suitcase and a vehicle maybe -
| he can control Alphabet only because as a society we
| decided to operate in a certain way and sounds he makes and
| finger movements he does end up steering giant network of
| people who interact with other networks of people who
| happen to have control over some machinery. This means, if
| the social contract isn't working out we can change that
| social contract to suits our needs better. One change can
| be about how computers that transmit videos over TCP/IP
| should operate.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| Symmetric fibre internet exists in many European
| countries, and is readily available to a large bulk of
| citizens in those countries already. I pay $25pm for
| 500Mbps symmetric today.
|
| I can't fly to another planet and terraform it. I can
| (and do) host my own video streams however.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's not about the tech. Plenty of people could have
| built Twitter from scratch, but Musk had to pay over $40B
| to have Twitter and no one came around to offer him to
| build a Twitter for $39B.
| fallingknife wrote:
| The internet is no longer decentralized and interoperable.
| It's all walled gardens. Want to send an email? Better be
| on a major email platform or none of your messages will
| arrive.
|
| Guaranteeing internet access as a utility is a great idea
| but by itself it's only an illusion of freedom. Access to
| things like Google accounts / AWS / cloudflare and of
| course the banking system and payment processor duopoly
| also need to be guaranteed to some degree all law abiding
| citizens.
|
| Edit: I don't think this applies in the case here with
| Russell Brand and demonitization. There should obviously
| not be any right to be paid by advertisers.
| diogenes4 wrote:
| > The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window.
|
| More like yet another reflection of the extant overton window.
| woooooo wrote:
| Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of
| Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of
| liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016.
|
| Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with
| no commentary. Demonetized.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| I think the point you're making is there's no such thing as
| the Far Left, despite the Far Right seeing such common use.
| kouru225 wrote:
| [flagged]
| anankaie wrote:
| Satire and commentary is covered under Fair Use.
| kouru225 wrote:
| >100% clips of public figures with no commentary.
| Demonetized.
|
| Doesn't sound like satire or commentary to me
| woooooo wrote:
| Clips of public figures saying things are fair use,
| period.
|
| How do you think any news media functions?
| SR2Z wrote:
| The public figure can't copyright their appearance, but
| whoever recorded the clip absolutely has a copyright on
| it.
|
| The funniest thing about copyright issues is that
| whenever they come up, people are so confidently wrong
| about the actual law. Lots of stuff on YouTube is only
| permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up -
| every cover of every modern song, for example.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the
| rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every
| modern song, for example.
|
| And many of those rights-holders only allow it because
| YouTube built a mechanism that helps them detect these
| uses and then automatically siphon off ad revenue it
| generates.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > How do you think any news media functions?
|
| Why do you think all of the media responses to viral
| things on twitter are "Hey, I'm X from Y News Corp; can
| we use your footage"?
|
| If it was fair use they wouldn't bother to ask.
| kouru225 wrote:
| No. As someone who works in documentaries, you absolutely
| have to license footage of public figures, including news
| footage. There's a reason most news media shoot their own
| footage.
|
| If you are commentating on it and making significant
| changes, then it can be fair use.
| beauzero wrote:
| Is that why reaction videos get away with playing a whole
| clip? I have always wondered about that.
| Izkata wrote:
| The comparison to the Trump clips they cut with is the
| commentary.
| tiahura wrote:
| It's almost certainly fair use. The Copyright Act
| explicitly allows the use of copyrighted material for
| purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting,
| and the like. Courts have historically been sensitive to
| First Amendment concerns when copyrighted materials are
| used for transformative purposes. In Campbell v. Acuff-
| Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the U.S. Supreme
| Court emphasized the transformative nature of parody as a
| form of commentary, giving it a wide berth under fair
| use.
|
| Now, onto the crux of your argument about implicit
| commentary. Even if a work does not contain explicit
| commentary, the juxtaposition of clips alone can function
| as a form of critique or commentary. This is especially
| relevant when highlighting inconsistencies or ironies in
| public discourse. While there isn't direct commentary,
| the act of selectively piecing together these clips
| communicates a larger point or message. Courts often look
| at the 'purpose and character' of the use, and if it is
| transformative--adding new meaning or context--it's
| generally favored under fair use.
| adamsb6 wrote:
| IIRC it was for election disinformation, not copyright.
| gottorf wrote:
| > The Twitter files were an absolute joke.
|
| Are you serious? A US District Court as well as the Fifth
| Circuit Court of Appeals found that those files were not in
| fact a joke, and that the federal executive did strong-arm
| private entities like Twitter to censor.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I suspect is going to be overturned at the Supreme Court.
| jtbayly wrote:
| The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG
| telling social media companies which people should have
| their speech censored.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Uh, I guess one could phrase it that way but it's rather
| dishonest.
|
| It'd be akin to saying a police officer testifying that
| they saw X person shoot Y person as attempting to
| deplatform X person.
|
| --
|
| Honestly the only thing questionable in the twitter files
| was the USG telling twiter which accounts were their cy-
| ops accounts so they wouldn't get banned.
|
| Twitter having a policy of you can't do Y on the platform
| and the USG asking Twitter if X person is violating Y is
| not illegal censorship.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Is government censorship via a third party not a problem
| for you?
| ToDougie wrote:
| It clearly isn't. Wait until the tables turn on them,
| though :)
| lesuorac wrote:
| You understand that USG in reference to the twitter files
| means Donald Trump as he happened to be in charge of the
| executive branch during that period?
| costigan wrote:
| Was it Twitter's policy or not? (Of course it was, as we
| see by how easily it was changed by the new owner.)
| obviouslynotme wrote:
| All governmental prosecution should be before a court
| with the protection of rights. Even in your contrived
| example, the defendant has the right to face his accuser,
| cross-examine, attorneys, judges, juries, and the many
| things we throw in the government's way of harming
| people, justified or not.
|
| When the USG tells anyone to do something, chances are
| they will comply, legal or not, just because it isn't
| worth the pain and suffering of fighting, especially for
| someone you don't even know. We have relearning what it
| is like to have your personal life ruled by people you
| have never met in places you have never been. The USG has
| stepped too far and the overreaction to public/private
| partnerships is coming.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Not even close. Taibbi made it sound like Biden, who
| wasn't in office, pulled strings to have the government
| lean on Twitter to suppress important scandalous
| revelations from Hunter Biden's Laptop. The reality was
| that Trump was in office at the time and the Biden team,
| as private citizens, requested TOS enforcement on
| Hunter's naked pics and received it.
|
| Yes, some of the TOS enforcement hit conservative outlets
| merely on account of association with the material
| despite the fact that they made an effort to censor the
| private pics, but from the emails it was crystal clear
| that this was because twitter lacked a mechanism to grant
| special trust to these outlets and not an intentional
| effort to kill a story (and a sorry nothingburger of a
| story at that). Revenge porn doesn't typically have a
| legitimate public interest involved; their infrastructure
| to deal with this edge case was not well developed.
|
| Ro Khanna (D) was the only Dem in office to wander into
| the fray and he did it on the side of Free Speech.
| Interesting how that tends to get omitted from the story.
|
| Thanks, Republicans. You defeated the terrible
| censorship. Now I know what THEY didn't want me to:
| Hunter Biden has a huge cock.
| woooooo wrote:
| Taibbi specifically had tons of meeting notes on
| "alignment" between twitter's content policy team and
| people from DOJ, FBI, etc.
|
| Yes, Trump was president at the time.
| cma wrote:
| Didn't he read an acronym wrong and it was a
| nongovernmental agency in one of the most prominent
| examples he used? And Biden wasn't in office for the
| laptop stuff but Trump was for the stuff they requested
| get removed?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democrat-threatens-
| twitter
|
| > Taibbi has admitted mistaking CIS for CISA in a single
| tweet in one of his many threads, but his testimony to
| Congress was entirely different. Hasan deceptively
| conflated this quickly corrected tweet with Taibbi's
| testimony.
|
| > But the evidence shows that Taibbi's congressional
| remarks were correct. CIS and CISA collaborated with EIP
| on moderation requests, with both organizations directly
| appealing to Twitter for censorship, making Taibbi's
| overall point and particular argument completely
| accurate.
|
| He swapped them in one particular tweet, quickly
| corrected, but it was nowhere near "one of the most
| prominent examples".
| roenxi wrote:
| Twitter were revealed to have an active relationship with
| the US government to quash "misinformation" that they
| didn't like (which turned out to include things that are
| true but might be helpful to Trump's electoral prospects)
| while promoting misinformation that the FBI thinks is
| helpful to them [0].
|
| This is authoritarianism and government corruption of the
| public discourse. It is hard to tell if it is new (the
| FBI seems to have had similar relationships with the
| corporate media since forever ago) but it is profoundly
| anti-liberty and a real betrayal of the freedom and
| openness that the tech companies stood up for in the
| early 2000s.
|
| > And Biden wasn't in office for the laptop stuff but
| Trump was for the stuff they requested get removed?
|
| While I do think it is less controversial than some
| people pretend - many politicians appear to have a lot
| more money than they should - it is naive in the extreme
| to say that being in office is the major factor when
| paying off politicians. Joe Bidan has held political
| offices since 1970s and is a significant force in the
| Democratic party, the returns on slipping him money would
| have been quite high whether he is in office or not.
|
| The idea isn't to get a specific couple of lines slipped
| into a bill, the idea is to guide the long term
| narrative. Think the difference between quashing a single
| Jeff Epstein investigation vs covering up the entire
| scandal over multiple years.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files#Nos._6-7:
| _FBI_co... Releases 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 being particularly
| interesting.
| gottorf wrote:
| > it was a nongovernmental agency
|
| Several "non-governmental" agencies (like the Election
| Integrity Partnership or the Stanford Internet
| Observatory[0]) were involved in making recommendations
| to censor. I say "non-governmental" in quotes because
| entities like SIO receive a lot of federal funding, and
| key players shuttle back and forth between private and
| government functions.
|
| > Biden wasn't in office for the laptop stuff but Trump
| was
|
| I'm not sure what "laptop stuff" you're referring to, but
| whether Biden, Trump, or whoever else was in office has
| no bearing on the illegality of the executive actions in
| question.
|
| [0]: https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-dark-hand-in-
| twitter-ce...
| splitstud wrote:
| [dead]
| nvm0n2 wrote:
| The reason YouTube gave is that it was recruiting for
| violent criminal organizations. No joke.
|
| https://www.racket.news/p/youtube-hits-orf-again-as-
| censorsh...
| woooooo wrote:
| Name of the youtuber is Matt Orfalea, you can Google him or
| watch his videos.
| diogenes4 wrote:
| I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a
| private platform. If you want better accountability argue for
| an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point
| of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is
| even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas"
| bullshit.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > open platform uncontrolled by capital.
|
| Like Wikipedia? Or like public Square? Or like a government
| inquest?
|
| All are different. All are also influenced by capital
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| 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. It is
| now also a public square. It's not unreasonable at that
| point to require it to adhere higher standards of evidence,
| law, and reason.
|
| In this case, I'm no fan of Brand, but I'm even less a fan
| of YouTube's apparent policy of "guilty till proven
| innocent" here. How about waiting till he and his accuser/s
| have had their day in a court, and jury of peers weighs the
| evidence and decides his guilt?
| fallingknife wrote:
| I am also very much a free speech absolutist. But
| demonetization is different. Anyone who wants to see the
| video still can, so Russel Brand has not had his freedom
| of speech restricted in any way.
|
| This is not a policy of guilty until proven innocent.
| It's a policy of "advertisers don't want to be associated
| with rapists." And while there is a good argument for
| allowing access to YouTube as a public square, there is
| no such argument for allowing access to YouTube as an
| advertising platform.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Now do Twitter.
| curiousllama wrote:
| This is a very interesting point. Tech-media companies (Google,
| Meta, Tik Tok) increasingly serve a similar gatekeeper function
| for public discourse that TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) did 50
| years ago.
|
| This... actually is a hopeful insight to me.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| The difference is that YT and similar tech platforms have
| access to much more data which allows them to optimise (or
| not) for these outcomes.
|
| I wrote a thing a few years ago after reading one of the case
| studies in John Doerr's OKR book that used YT as an example,
| I think the point I was trying to make likely still stands
| https://www.jacquescorbytuech.com/writing/okr-youtube-
| uninte...
| tatrajim wrote:
| You would really enjoy the Chinese internet world, where
| legions of "gatekeepers" at Bytedance et al. bravely patrol
| the cyber world and rapidly eliminate any undesirable
| utterance. It's very clean and reassuring.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| It's really what advertisers are willing to put up with.
| Unfortunately most companies are run by cowards and I know for
| a fact that having your ad presented alongside something
| controversial doesn't imply the brand supports it
|
| Unfortunately, there's a load minority who try to push this
| when this far from the truth.
| snoochyboochies wrote:
| [flagged]
| VHRanger wrote:
| I'm curious what your definition of "based" is? I imagine it's
| correlated with peddling conspiratorial nonsense?
| ministryoftruth wrote:
| [flagged]
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| After the sexual assault, allegations do you really think
| people will care what Russell thinks?
| swores wrote:
| Certainly among his existing fanbase (and others), there will
| be some who believe his denials and claims that there's a
| conspiracy against him, and there will be others who despite
| believing the accusations think there's nothing wrong with
| rape and that he should still be admired for all the sex he's
| had. Hopefully neither of those groups will be a large number
| of people, but they'll certainly be more than a couple of
| people.
| Supply5411 wrote:
| This reads like you're saying its a bad thing to prove the
| existence of these manipulative power structures because it
| happens to make someone more credible. Like "No, no, power
| structures, stay hidden, you're only helping him."
| denton-scratch wrote:
| The swiftness of Youtube's action makes my head spin. /s
|
| Brand was kicked off the BBC fifteen years ago, for his
| disgraceful on-air abuse of Andrew Sachs ("Manuel" from Fawlty)
| and his daughter. Since then, he's only become more extreme and
| objectionable.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I thought he was 100% rumble already.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| Wow so much focus in the comments on the individual instead of
| YouTube's ability to randomly remove whoever they dislike,
| reminding us of the problems with large corporate companies
| controlling essentially public services. Just imagine if Tencent
| decided to buy YouTube from Google, would get real interesting.
| [deleted]
| leptons wrote:
| > controlling essentially public services.
|
| Youtube is not and never was a "public service". It's their
| platform and they are free to do with it as they want, with
| very little exception. It's not any different than a mom and
| pop store having a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign and
| enforcing that. It's their store, it's private property, it's
| their rules.
| Tokkemon wrote:
| Why do I have to waste brain space on this absurd hypothetical?
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| It's impossible, yes? Let's see what happens next US election
| as a good start, I can't imagine what becomes
| 'misonformation' or 'harmful,' no matter which party wins.
|
| And still you wasted brain space to respond, very witty.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| They bought Reddit. YouTube was bleeding Google's profits for
| a long time at least (is it still? I don't actually know).
| It's not exactly absurd, just extremely unlikely.
| naasking wrote:
| [flagged]
| boffinAudio wrote:
| Its really atrocious on so many levels, and speaks to a real
| ethics issue we, in the West, are ill-prepared to address -
| first, that he could have gotten away with these alleged
| actions for so long, atrocity #1, but then - second, that he
| has had his livelihood completely upended on the basis of
| unproven allegations which have not yet been confirmed through
| the legal process that is a core issue in Western moral values,
| atrocity #2..
|
| "I'm a celebrity, I can get away with this .. " combined with
| "He's a celebrity and doesn't deserve to make money because of
| the things he <allegedly> got away with .." makes for one hell
| of a distorted moral position.
|
| Either way, I hope that more people pay attention to the things
| he's communicating, because it is obvious to even the most
| casual observer that he's upsetting the power structures that
| propagate these sexcrime narratives, in the first place ..
| misja111 wrote:
| > it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he's
| upsetting the power structures that propagate these sexcrime
| narratives
|
| You're saying that there are 'power structures' that
| propagate 'these sexcrime narratives'. I'm obviously not
| casual observer enough because I don't know which power
| structures you are referring too. Could you please tell a bit
| more about them?
| pauldenton wrote:
| Sure. Look at how #Metoo handled sexual allegations Then it
| died when Tara Reade allegations started threatening Joe
| Bidens power, and the power structure that was propagating
| #Metoo stopped exerting power and "suddenly everyone
| stopped caring about #Metoo, it's out of the news cycle"
| andrekandre wrote:
| > I don't know which power structures you are referring
| too.
|
| just a guess, but they might be referring to what he
| (brand) was talking about in his latest video about the
| accusations
| misja111 wrote:
| > Not even charges, just anonymous accusations.
|
| The accusations are not anonymous.
| droptablemain wrote:
| Anonymous allegations from more than a decade ago, procured by a
| fishing reporter, should not lead to the cancellation of
| someone's means of supporting themselves. This is absurd,
| regardless of whether the accusations are ultimately true or not.
| Beyond the absurdity, this is tyrannical.
|
| Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor.
| There's simply very little of substance here.
| sneak wrote:
| His means of supporting himself has not been cancelled, just
| his ability to get paid from YouTube. Don't conflate them.
| newsclues wrote:
| There are people whose main income is YouTube and if YouTube
| can do this to famous people, surely they can do it to
| smaller creators who are paying their bills with YouTube
| money.
|
| Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it
| establishes.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Do any of us know what percentage of his income is from
| YouTube currently?
|
| I think the point stands in the abstract. It doesn't even
| matter for him specifically, because there _are_ people whose
| income is primarily /entirely from YouTube.
|
| And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to
| turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can
| pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income.
| pvg wrote:
| You can get fired from a job that is 100% of your income.
| In many places/occupations, for no reason at all.
| Supply5411 wrote:
| Maybe the real lesson here is nobody who wants to speak their
| mind should be supporting themselves on a platform of nervous
| advertisers.
| WesternWind wrote:
| It's not like he's poor or anything.
| rcarr wrote:
| The mainstream media are trying to frame the argument as Russell
| Brand is a sex offender and that his mainstream media critiques
| are thus null and void as a result. Personally, I find it more
| likely that he is both a sex offender* and he is also right about
| it being a targeted mainstream media attack. It's absolutely
| laughable seeing the BBC, The Guardian and particularly Channel4
| amongst others trying to wash their hands of this when they
| practically encouraged all of this behaviour and created the 00s
| indie hedonistic culture from scratch with shows like Skins as
| well as encouraging his antics on Big Brother's Big Mouth.
|
| It's weird reading all of this as someone who was a teenager from
| the era who idolised Brand and other indie scene figures like
| Pete Doherty. I remember reading about Brand dating Peaches
| Geldoff in the paper but didn't realise how young she was and how
| old he was in comparison. I think I assumed he was in his 20s and
| assumed she was in late teens or twenties based on the fact the
| tabloid press showed them stumbling out of nightclubs together
| and no-one seemed to be batting an eyelid. Though looking back I,
| and many others, were sneaking in to nightclubs all the time
| underage with fake IDs. It still goes on to this day and parents
| just seem to accept it as normal part of growing up and even a
| celebrated and encouraged rite of passage but maybe we should be
| having a more serious conversation about it. I don't go out
| anymore, but in my 20s bouncers definitely seemed to be taking
| checking IDs a lot more serious than they did when I was 17 so at
| least that's a start.
|
| It wasn't uncommon in the 00s for school girls to be dating older
| guys who were no longer at school, Arctic Monkeys even wrote a
| song about it (Bigger Boys And Stolen Sweethearts) but someone
| over 30 dating a 16 year old definitely would have been
| considered weird and the fact the mainstream media wasn't batting
| an eyelid at it is damning. Why the Brand stuff is headline news
| but I've not seen a single mainsteam media article calling for
| the legal age to have sex to be raised to 18 is ridiculous.
| Teenagers are going to fuck regardless, but no-one is going to
| prosecute a 17 year old and a 15 year old having a relationship,
| and the police are smart enough not to waste time on an 18 year
| old and a 17 year old having a relationship but at least you then
| have a mechanism to protect 16 year olds from getting groomed
| like this. It also made me sad to find out that another of my
| indie heroes, Noel Fielding, was also doing the same thing -
| dating a 16 year old Pixie Geldoff when he was 33.
|
| I'm not justifying any of Brand's actions, he has to take
| responsibility for what he's done especially if there was no
| consent, but he's quite obviously a people pleaser and he
| wouldn't have done half the stuff he did if it wasn't for the
| mainstream media and the culture they created around him. People
| are trying to use old videos of him flirting with celebrities on
| talkshows to damn him and disregarding the fact that the entire
| audience is laughing and clearly signalling that the culture at
| large was OK with what he was doing.
|
| Stuff like Google demonetising Brand's videos just make me
| believe even more that at least some element of this is a
| targeted MSM culture war attack to take him down, even if a
| justified one. The problem is that at some point it's also going
| to take down people who don't deserve it - in fact it's no doubt
| already happened. I've read several mainstream articles where
| Jordan Peterson's ideas are completely misrepresented and
| character assassinated in a way that is completely unjustified. I
| agree with some of the things he says and I also disagree with
| others but there seems to be absolute no nuance or tolerance in
| the mainstream media any more, it's all tribalism - either you're
| good or you're bad and if you even agree with part of what one of
| the "bad" people say then you must be one of the bad ones. I
| honestly can't even debate any of Jordan Peterson's ideas with
| some people I know, even the ideas I dislike, because mentioning
| his name is like saying Voldemort and he's "The One Who Should
| Not Be Named".
|
| Mainstream media outlets clearly have agendas and will go after
| people who speak up out against them and will use anything at
| their disposal to do it. It's completely ridiculous.
|
| *Obviously I would prefer for this to actually be settled in a
| court of law with evidence rather than public opinion, but the
| text message exchange and the rape clinic visit do look quite
| damning which is why I'm currently inclined to believe that at
| least that allegation is looking more likely than not on the face
| of it, even if some of the others turn out to be false.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| 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
| Manuel_D wrote:
| > 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.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Interesting...I didn't expect my weird meta comment about how
| celebrity 'news' has become Real News to be quite so unpopular!
| nsajko wrote:
| All kinds of vote manipulation are possible, don't take the
| downvoting to heart.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Advertising companies hate controversy.
| im3w1l wrote:
| That's clearly not true. Advertising companies currently love
| attaching themselves to progressive causes.
|
| A more accurate statement is that advertising companies hate
| some people and factions.
| throw310822 wrote:
| "Controversy" == "media campaigns accusing advertisers of doing
| something nefarious". Let's not pretend that the "controversy"
| is some grassroot movement in which many people, independently
| of one another, decide they're offended by a brand advertising
| alongside a content they don't even watch.
| [deleted]
| yowzadave wrote:
| I think Google still sells ads against his videos, they just
| don't give him the money they make.
| yellow_postit wrote:
| Nit: Advertisers, or at least those with deep pockets, hate
| controversy. That drives advertising platforms to hate it.
| Though the fact that X hasn't hemorrhaged even more money seems
| to be finding where that argument intercepts the value for
| views advertisers will place.
| nvm0n2 wrote:
| 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 chief creative officer of
| BAM Connection, a New York-based marketing firm._
|
| The actual thing motivating these people is simply hatred
| towards anyone who doesn't bend the knee to their new
| religion. That's it, that's all there is to it. Beyond that,
| there is no motivation.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Nay: The Vox Populi hate controversy. Like any cancellation,
| the masses bombard something demanding a pound of flesh. To
| avoid controversy and pacify the masses, platforms cave.
| There is no downside for YouTube demonetizing someone that
| has been accused of anything. If it turns out to be
| completely false, then YouTube will say they were acting out
| of an abundance of caution. If then the exonerated person
| seeks redress, YouTube can just shrug and say where else are
| you going to host content?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| The only ads I see on X these days are from Apple. There used
| to be more variety.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Really? I wish I saw Apple ads, I mostly see a barrage of
| clickbait products that fall somewhere between "late night
| infomercial" and "obvious scam".
| smcleod wrote:
| I almost only see ads on Twitter/X on the rare occasion I
| visit it anymore, I very rarely used to.
| tjrgergw wrote:
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-3019301/V...
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| Question to anybody who works in advertisement:
|
| Are people less likely to buy Nike apparel because for example
| Tiger Woods was caught with escorts and drinking booze?
|
| I am asking because from a distance it seems not a business
| decision as much as an opportunity for a CEO to dunk on an
| athlete/famous person
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| Brand image is a complicated concept but it consists of a lot
| of different pieces over a long period of time that build a
| public perception. Often, good or bad brand images are not due
| to any one single thing, but the totality of things that the
| public knows about a brand.
|
| While a single bad apple might not sink a brand, if it starts
| to become a pattern, it can ruin brand image over time.
| swores wrote:
| Most people: no. Some people: yes.
|
| If Tiger Woods was the only way Nike could think of advertising
| then they likely would've considered him worth keeping, but
| when they have so many alternative good options for
| sponsorships it tips the balance in favour of not sponsoring
| somebody that even 0.1% of your customers might think badly of
| you for.
| beej71 wrote:
| I'm not an expert, but I'd suspect that people were more likely
| to buy Nike because they cut Woods loose. Lots of press there.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| A sport apparel company abandoning an athlete is the type of
| press that sells shoes?
| coldtea wrote:
| [flagged]
| mikhailfranco wrote:
| He was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many
| years in that 90s-00s period.
|
| He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were, and
| continue to be, illegal in the UK; perhaps sex-addicts are
| always close to the edge of criminality.
|
| However, all those potential crimes are a long time ago. The
| police and his accusers have chosen to stay silent for a long
| time.
|
| Some potentially self-incriminating stories have come from his
| own rehabilitation narrative.
|
| It remains to be seen if the accusations can be upheld in a
| court of law, but the timing is suspicious.
|
| It is only after a few years of criticizing the MSM and
| government overreach that someone has decided to dig up those
| old potential offences.
|
| I do not like Brand's act or lifestyle. He always appeared to
| be (and gloried in) the persona of a silver-tongued charismatic
| saviour, a hippy version of a loquacious Renaissance Jesus,
| complete with long hair and (now salt'n'pepper) beard.
|
| However, the timing remains interesting, and I suspect, not
| coincidental with his rising anti-establishment fame - not to
| mention a YT pot of money to attract plaintiffs and their
| lawyers.
|
| There is a fading tide of cancel culture, perhaps Brand will be
| just become some flawed flotsam or jetsam on that ebbing swell.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _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 merely says they are aware of "media reporting of a
| series of allegations"), from what the news say, for things
| that cannot be really verified aside from he-said/she-said
| anymore over 10 or 15 years after.
|
| > _He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were,
| and continue to be, illegal in the UK_
|
| Well, if he was investigated (by the police, not the press,
| like now) for drug use that would be relevant (even though
| still suspicious due to the timing and the focus on some
| individual where close to a million people use illegal drugs
| in the UK every day).
|
| > _It is only after a few years of criticizing the MSM and
| government overreach that someone has decided to dig up those
| old potential offences_
|
| And also where he's a nice "thought crime" target for all
| mainstream media types.
| stuaxo wrote:
| Dunnow, being cracked out your mind and chasing your ex
| around your locked bedroom when she's asked to leave,
| mounting and grinding here, all while your naked is a bit a
| much ?
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > 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
| the same day, which the Times says it has confirmed via
| medical records
|
| Is that not a "complaint against him who bothered to go to
| the police"?
| pauldenton wrote:
| The law has Innocent until proven Guilty, and statutes of
| limitation. If only the court of public opinion had such
| checks and balances. And it's clear Youtube is following the
| latter and not the former
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Putting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has
| happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of
| his videos a few years ago and they were interesting discussions
| of the news with a particular emphasis on questioning everything
| which I see as a healthy habit. Inevitably though, the algorithm
| steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and
| frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait videos were
| getting double the views. YouTube's algorithm plays a massive
| part in what goes into people's heads and they should be held
| more accountable.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist, has been writing about this
| issue since half a decade now:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po...
| [deleted]
| fossuser wrote:
| Audience capture is a scary thing:
| https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capt...
| (a particularly sad and grotesque example).
|
| I think it's something we're all vulnerable too.
|
| It's important to be aware of the incentives you're allowing
| yourself to operate under.
|
| A little tangential maybe, but it reminds me of this book
| review I really liked:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/books/review/herman-wouk-...
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| I think he just found it harder to draw the line at where the
| lies end and real lies begin..
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > the algorithm steered
|
| _He_ steered. We should not remove his agency for the content
| he wrote, said, recorded, and uploaded.
| randomdata wrote:
| No, the algorithm (more accurately, the audience) did the
| steering. His agency did allow him to reject the direction.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Google engineers steer the algorythm, which steers Russel
| Brand, which steers his followers, which steer.. Google in
| return?
| grecy wrote:
| > _the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity,
| divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait
| videos were getting double the views. YouTube 's algorithm
| plays a massive part in what goes into people's heads and they
| should be held more accountable._
|
| I'm a YouTuber, and I want to be _very_ clear on the above.
|
| I _know_ I would get way more views (and subscribers, and
| money) if I did more stupid clickbait stuff. But I don 't want
| to, that doesn't make me happy. Also, professionals should not
| do that out of being professional.
|
| A house painter would make more money if he did a rush job, and
| a TV reporter would get in the news more if he told blatant
| lies on live national TV. Just because a person can make more
| money short term doing something, it doesn't mean they should
| not take 100% of the blame for doing it.
|
| I could very easily make videos of doing highly illegal stuff,
| which would likely get a zillion views. Am I then less
| responsible for doing it?
| 0xfae wrote:
| I see what your saying, but your examples don't quite work.
|
| A reporter telling lies would presumable be called into their
| managers office and told to shape up or be fired. A painter
| doing rush jobs would get bad reviews and no referrals, and
| eventually stop getting jobs. Those behaviors are not
| incentivized.
|
| A youtube creator milking the algorithm is _rewarded_ for
| this behavior, with more views, more ad money, etc.
|
| Are we really surprised that people are doing what they are
| incentivized to do?
| nomdep wrote:
| A reporter telling lies with _plausible deniability_ , like
| a manipulative headline clarified in the middle of the
| article, is actually expected. Some Youtubers at least are
| scumbags for real money
| rcarr wrote:
| > A reporter telling lies would presumable be called into
| their managers office and told to shape up or be fired.
|
| I can't help but read this and feel like you must not be
| familiar with the UK press, particularly the tabloids. The
| UK tabloids make shit up all the fucking time with next to
| zero consequences.
|
| For a more US centric take you might want to read Ryan
| Holiday's book "Trust Me I'm Lying: Confessions Of A Media
| Manipulator". He goes into specific detail about his time
| when he was in charge of marketing for American Apparel and
| how he got US media outlets to write completely bullshit
| stories for him and others clients like Tucker Carlson to
| get publicity. There's hardly anyone doing proper fact
| checking at a lot of these publications anymore, especially
| on smaller stories, because their print revenues have
| collapsed since the internet and they're desperately trying
| to stay afloat.
| fallingknife wrote:
| The painter example makes sense since his customers are his
| users, so the incentives are aligned.
|
| The journalist is not like that. His users are the readers,
| but his customers are the advertisers. And if he is lying
| and gaining clicks and ad engagement, he is more likely to
| be called in by his boss for a promotion than a scolding.
| grecy wrote:
| I think my examples do actually work well, in that the
| painter and the TV reporter ARE incentivized, _short term_
| to do those clickbait things, in exactly the same way
| YouTube creators are.
|
| In all cases, reality will catch up to them, and in the
| long term they will be punished for what they did in the
| name of short term gains.
| lukev wrote:
| What's the long-term reality catch-up mechanism in the
| social media space?
| iamacyborg wrote:
| In this and other examples, getting deplatformed and
| losing your sources of income.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| They already made millions - it doesn't work.
|
| And in fact, Google and others profit from this carnage.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Through neglect, passive sabotage, and active direction,
| our society degrades to the point that NO ONE can make
| clickbait content.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > _YouTube Blocks Russell Brand From Making Money Through
| Its Platform_
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/19/arts/russell-brand-
| youtub...
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| That's a consequence of him being a [alleged] rapist.
| It's not a consequence of him publishing nonsensical and
| pretentious conspiracy theory videos.
| mrighele wrote:
| > A house painter would make more money if he did a rush job
|
| If the way to find a painter is to use the yellow pages, and
| the order inside the yellow pages is by the time the to
| finish painting, most of the jobs will go to people that make
| a rush job, thus pushing painters into that direction.
| suyash wrote:
| It's time to end the YouTube monopoly, too much of this
| nonsense we have seen in the last few years, it's nothing but
| virtue signalling and pandering to one side without
| ascertaining facts.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| Can say the same thing about Jordan Peterson, no? Content from
| 5-10 years ago was interesting. Now I have him muted on X.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| I'm convinced that these platforms are a huge driver, if not
| the main driver of social and political polarisation.
| serf wrote:
| the money/power/fame are the drivers, the social media
| platforms open up the search for those things to a much
| wider audience while espousing the importance.
|
| that is to say : social media isn't innocent, but it's a
| co-factor in the larger human-dominating infinite search
| for power and fame.
| erickhill wrote:
| 24/7 365 "Breaking News" TV - AKA spin factories - complete
| with scrolling tickers and a combative talking head format
| (with programs that may or may not have actual trained
| journalists, but so-called experts at expressing their
| biased opinions) is the other huge driver.
| internet101010 wrote:
| That's pretty well understood though, right? If love and
| fear are primary drivers of engagement and fear is a
| stronger emotion than love then steering viewers to view
| things that upset them is in the best interest of the
| company that earns its revenue from keeping them engaged.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Rapid moral change is the main driver, but internet
| platforms may have accelerated that.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| I think both Peterson and Brand were always these people,
| social media just allows them to monetise it.
| fgsfds028374 wrote:
| [dead]
| jmfldn wrote:
| His decent into outrage-bait, alt-right friendly nonsense
| struck me as abrupt. One minute his channel was reasonable
| enough, the next it was totally nuts.
|
| Part of me wonders whether this was calculated once he knew
| that a major expose was circling. I have zero evidence for
| this, but you can see the logic. Court a following that is
| sceptical of everything, and that will see an investigation by
| the 'mainstream media' as obvious evidence of some deep state
| conspiracy. You now have an army of cheerleaders, and an
| alternative renevue source, ready to wage war with.
| 0xDEF wrote:
| He pulled an Elon.
|
| Elon Musk also came out as an alt-right troll when he was
| tipped that an expose about sexual harassment of a flight
| attendant was coming his way.
| Danjoe4 wrote:
| Elon Musk has greatly accelerated green energy innovation
| through EVs, battery technology, and solar. Are these
| actions appropriately described as "alt-right"?
| 0xDEF wrote:
| When people today talk about Elon Musk's political views
| they mean his sudden right-wing radicalization in 2022
| that happened exactly when he was tipped off about sexual
| harassment allegations coming his way.
| wmf wrote:
| Nah, it was caused by his kid turning trans.
| mft_ wrote:
| Maybe reality is more nuanced than the binary choice
| you're asking it to be reduced to.
|
| e.g. Musk's companies have done great things in the areas
| of EVs, batteries, and (most of all) space launches.
|
| ...and...
|
| Some of his public-facing behaviour (especially on
| Twitter) is disturbing, and may be described as 'alt-
| right'.
|
| -
|
| (It's also disturbing that this has to be spelt out; yet
| here we are.)
| Dig1t wrote:
| The Twitter Files revealed pretty definitively that
| government censorship was taking place.
|
| Caring about free speech does not make you alt-right,
| despite mainstream media's attempts to paint him as such.
|
| Elon and co's have done more for progressive causes than
| basically all other companies combined.
| WWLink wrote:
| I think Elon was always what I'd call "silicon valley
| libertarian" at best. Nothing he's said or done is really
| all that surprising, if you go back and look at the things
| he said and did 10 years ago.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| It's a point of no return. They know they'll never be
| accepted in polite company again, so they go rude.
| serf wrote:
| that's an incredibly concise way to put the phenomenon,
| thanks for wording it so well.
|
| there should probably be a name for it.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Interesting idea. It's possible Andrew Tate played this card
| as well.
| pydry wrote:
| His channel went from 500k to 20 million viewers when he went
| off the rails. It could all have been an elaborate 4D chess
| gambit or alternatively he could just like money and
| attention.
| WWLink wrote:
| > His decent into outrage-bait, alt-right friendly nonsense
| struck me as abrupt. One minute his channel was reasonable
| enough, the next it was totally nuts.
|
| An observation of mine going back to the 90s when I was a kid
| and liked listening to the radio: Talk show hosts would
| always lure you in with something that sounds reasonable, and
| use it to segue into a topic that sounded absolutely nuts.
|
| That overall trend into insanity sounds like taking the exact
| same concept and doing it over a much longer timeline lol.
| That way they've established themselves in the community as a
| trusted 'podcast' source, and once they have an audience they
| start blasting crazy shit with hopes that at least some
| people will listen and consider it "thought provocative"
| cgio wrote:
| I cannot see how the army would be of any use in the
| eventuality of the major expose. There was this other person
| with huge following among scepticals of everything (sorry I
| don't remember the name exactly) who got a huge fine
| recently. I don't believe justice would look the other way,
| if anything, it may be attracting scrutiny with attention.
| serf wrote:
| playing devil's advocate here for a moment : having that
| 'army' would eventually be useful if say you knew an expose
| was on the way because they may become an exploitable
| market once the mainstream throws you to the wayside over
| the allegations.
|
| the 'army' can be fed some insider-flavored tripe : "THEY
| are using this to get me.", "Of course this comes out when
| i'm trying to expose the truth", etc etc.
|
| So, in other words, the 'army' isn't directly useful
| against the allegations necessarily, but as a fall cushion
| once those allegations and possible criminal charges land
| and alienate the rest of the 'normal' public from you.
|
| Alex Jones/Sandy Hook comes to mind. In some warped sense,
| the criminal allegations and justice pursuit towards Alex
| Jones with regards to his comments regarding the Sandy Hook
| shootings cemented him as a 'victim of the system' for a
| lot of his adherents; much to the dismay of everyone else.
| jmfldn wrote:
| Sure, it just a theory. I had thought several times in
| recent months how odd his transformation had been though,
| and this is one possible cause of it.
| mortureb wrote:
| It's pretty simple. If you have to be masculine and assertive
| in any way now you have to cowtow to the insane right because
| the left is a hostile space for regular men. The right
| welcomes you with open arms and basically shields you from
| any consequences for past wrongs. There is no middle. You can
| get away with just about anything on the right now with no
| repercussions.
|
| You can downvote this all you want but you know there is more
| than a modicum of truth here.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| Can you give an example of what made his videos "totally
| nuts"?
| wilg wrote:
| Is it even "the algorithm" or is it simply just how people
| prefer to click crazy shit? We see it with news and pretty much
| anything else where clicks equal money.
| josefx wrote:
| I think the algorithm simply suffers the same problem as
| googles search algorithm: it was gamed years ago. I usually
| have to block a dozen or so of crazy or low effort content
| farms for every type of content I watch on youtube and after
| that the recommendations seem mostly acceptable.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| "The algorithm" and/or the people behind it noticed that if
| User1 watches VideoA and then we show him B-C-D, he stays on
| the platform for 10 minutes.
|
| BUT when we showed a User2 the videos X-Y-Z (after videoA),
| then User2 stayed "engaged" for 3 hours. And the new sequence
| was just established.
|
| The 'machine' is constantly doing A/B and other tests, and it
| learns, adapts, and continues. The machine just learns what
| people like and feeds it to them. We can't blame the machine
| for giving the users what they want.. can we? :)
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Some of "the algorithm" is a person at youtube making a
| concious decision to make "the algorithm" prioritise, for
| example, longer videos.
| rcxdude wrote:
| The difference between questioning everything and rejecting
| everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand
| and many others seem not to understand.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Don't buy into the bad faith arguments. They aren't genuinely
| "asking questions," they're trying to bring what they already
| believe into the mainstream.
| rexkwondo wrote:
| How are you determining what people (strangers) "already
| believe"?
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Talking to them on the internet/real life over the past
| ten years
| serf wrote:
| >Don't buy into the bad faith arguments.
|
| the little known super-power : spotting bad-faith arguments
| flawlessly.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| AKA https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off
| gooseus wrote:
| I forget where I read/saw it, but someone once made the
| point that because there are an infinite number of
| questions that can be asked, someone is always making some
| kind of statement based on a conscious decision about which
| questions to ask, and which not to ask.
|
| I think this is especially true when someone is repeatedly
| ask the same kinds of questions while simultaneously
| ignoring lots of other really good questions.
| breakingrules wrote:
| if you have a modern bar for accuracy, you require evidence.
| when you require evidence, because you've spotted a ton of
| lies in the media, most of it gets rejected.
|
| we did not ask for untrustworthy media, algorithms,
| exploitation and bribery dictate that.
| RRWagner wrote:
| A very good concise insight
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Oh, I think he understands. Constantly criticizing mainstream
| media for low standards while having far lower standards
| yourself is the kind of thing that you have to put
| significant ongoing effort into rationalizing.
|
| _Consumers_ of alt media can do it thoughtlessly.
| _Producers_? I 'm not convinced.
| roenxi wrote:
| > ... having far lower standards yourself ...
|
| How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the
| mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an
| audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly
| larger.
|
| Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better
| on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be
| gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like
| Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more
| coherent takes on big issues.
|
| Thirdly, and related to secondly, the podcasters tend to
| take less money from big entrenched interests in the
| military-industrial complex or big pharma. They rely less
| on being spoon fed access to powerful people. It is easier
| to follow their incentives and style than work out what a
| media company is trying to push this week.
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| Just in terms of viewership do you have a specific source
| for saying his audience is comparable?
|
| I am having trouble finding something reasonable. e.g.
|
| 6.58M youtube subscribers 80 million television
| households as subscribers for CNN
|
| Although these numbers are not really comparable
|
| ~700k daily watchers for CNN:
| https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-cable-news-
| ratings-... 800k video views for Russel:
| https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/russellbrand
|
| Although of course video views != daily watchers (one
| person can watch multiple ones & that number can be
| juiced)
| cgio wrote:
| I would question your third point in the spirit of
| doubting narratives. This is the podcasters' narrative,
| but intuitively a podcaster has less scale and therefore
| is much cheaper to be incentivised towards specific
| narratives.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Journalism. Reaching out to involved parties for comment,
| boots on the ground, making retractions, reserving
| judgement, citing sources, seeking and contextualizing
| opposition and/or expertise, making an attempt to prefer
| observation over interpretation, pushing back on wild
| claims, etc etc etc.
|
| I was acutely aware of partisan bias in MSM but I didn't
| appreciate just how much they actually did get right
| until the deluge of "MSM sux, here's what THEY don't want
| you to know" replaced it.
| lukeholder wrote:
| You do realise he has a large team of journalist behind
| him?
| jjoonathan wrote:
| If they are doing any of the above, it would be a 180
| degree change from the Russel Brand that I blocked from
| my feeds a few years ago.
| gorwell wrote:
| It's amusing those who recognize NPCs that uncritically
| repeat the establishment narrative and question nothing, but
| don't recognize they are doing the same thing just in
| reverse.
|
| "I Support The Current Thing" vs "I Oppose The Current Thing"
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| sure, but one does not get clicks for telling people that
| "the current thing" is nuanced.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| _the algorithm steered the videos_
|
| More accurately, the algorithm gave Brand incentive to change
| his videos. "The algorithm" can't steer the video directly; it
| needs to influence the content creators. It's the conscious
| decision, following incentives, of these people to change their
| content. And while we can understand why they may have done it,
| that doesn't make them blameless.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| > 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
| him once the news did break.
| gerdesj wrote:
| "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 persona. However we are seeing an outrageous
| pseudo trial by media (all of them) and ill-informed public
| "opinion" before he is even in the dock facing his accusers.
| How on earth can he face 12 unbiased jurors with this bloody
| nonsense going on?
|
| Perhaps we should adopt a professional approach to trying
| crime, involving trained magistrates instead of the old
| school "12 men and true" bollocks. The jury system doesn't
| really cut it these days in the face of your and other shrill
| accusations. I gather that the Netherlands does that, for
| example.
| keiferkif wrote:
| most unsurprising cancelation ever. His whole schtick was being
| an impulsive, out-of-control drug and sex fiend.
| djohnston wrote:
| I think he talks about sobriety a lot, pretty sure he's clean.
| Have you looked at any of his content or are you just emerging
| from 2007?
| engineer_22 wrote:
| That's not what he does on Youtube. His channel is focused on
| political and social commentary
| sleepybrett wrote:
| his channel is focused on woo and conspiracy.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Yeah definitely not. 95% of what he's talking about is true
| and correct, it's largely about the systemic corruption in
| politics. If you think none of that is real your education
| on US government stopped at Schoolhouse Rock.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I don't know anything about Russell Brand but I am just
| browsing through his recent videos and yes it's very much
| woo and conspiracy. His latest videos, chronoligically (I
| won't be clicking any of them, so some are hard to
| assess),
|
| * So, this is happening - appears to be about the
| scenario under discussion here
|
| * Hang on, Biden 9/11 Speech Was A Lie?! - conspiracy
| nuttery
|
| * Bill Gates Has Been HIDING This And It's ALL About To
| Come Out - with an anti-vax symbol in the thumbnail,
| conspiracy nuttery
|
| * Hang On, Obama Did WHAT?! - hard to say what this is
| about
|
| * So, Trump Just Said THIS About Vaccines And It Changes
| EVERYTHING - conspiracy nuttery
|
| * So, They LIED To Hawaii Victims About THIS - conspiracy
| nuttery
|
| * So... They F _cking KNEW It Was A Lie All Along -
| conspiracy nuttery
|
| _ Tucker's Countdown To WW3 Has Started... - doomer
| nonsense
|
| * The FBI Have Been Harvesting Your DNA?! - conspiracy
| nuttery
|
| * So... Trump Just Changed EVERYTHING With This Move - no
| idea
|
| * Shoespiracy EXPOSED: The HIDDEN Truth Of The Shoe
| Industry - conspiracy nuttery
|
| * So... Tucker Just COMPLETELY FLIPPED The Ukraine
| Narrative - no idea but sounds stupid as hell
|
| I didn't cherry pick anything, this was purely
| chronological.
| jahsome wrote:
| What are you saying here?
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Out of control drug sex fiend is not the topic of his
| YouTube channel.
| jahsome wrote:
| How does that relate to the allegations or OPs comment?
| badcppdev wrote:
| The rape allegations are from before he was on Youtube. Some
| allegations date back to 2003.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| His YouTube channel had a bit too much JAQing for me, but
| definitely was not based on the characters he plays in movies.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > JAQing
|
| > Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as
| emojis: ""[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild
| accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable)
| by framing them as questions rather than statements. It
| shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than
| laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid
| scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and
| force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Current events aside, kinda insane how a Youtube channel with 6.6
| million subscribers can get less than 500k views on a month old
| video
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Youtube turned subscription numbers into a gameable metric for
| some time, so they got heavily inflated, so then Youtube
| basically made them meaningless. Youtube rarely even shows your
| subscribers your new videos nowadays, and for many creators,
| subscribers are about 20% or less of their total views.
| ToDougie wrote:
| I'm subscribed to hundreds of channels, and I rarely see
| their content in my feed. It is so bizarre.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| I don't think it's unusual for creators who put out videos on
| various topics extremely frequently when most of their
| subscribers aren't watching every video.
|
| It basically just means that the average subscriber is watching
| ~2 of his videos a month.
| iandanforth wrote:
| [flagged]
| robertlagrant wrote:
| [flagged]
| modzu wrote:
| [flagged]
| zapdrive wrote:
| I wish there was a viable alternative to everything Google
| (search, youtube, android, maps to name a few). I can't wait for
| Elon to buy Google and end this BS.
| freediver wrote:
| I think there is (for search at least, I may be biased), the
| question is are we ready to pay for it, or we expect the same
| business model as Google's (ad-tech) to somehow produce a
| better product for its users?
| jalino23 wrote:
| this is your solution? for Elon to buy Google?
| logicchains wrote:
| Bing, Rumble, Apple, Apple Maps?
| shustovd wrote:
| [flagged]
| tjrgergw wrote:
| I have an incredible sleaze radar. The first 10 seconds I saw
| this guy some 10 years ago I immediately knew he was a disgusting
| guy.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
| corinroyal wrote:
| It stayed where it belonged--out of conversations on the
| social consequences of rape allegations.
| tjrgergw wrote:
| I'm not a court of law. I can say whatever I want. What
| happened to freedom of speech?
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| I never said you weren't free to say what you want. Clearly
| you don't intend to argue in good faith though.
| tjrgergw wrote:
| I'm in good faith when I say the guy is an obvious sleaze
| ball.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ammonammon wrote:
| [flagged]
| threeseed wrote:
| Except that Brand hasn't been censored. His videos are still
| online.
| zo1 wrote:
| Of course it has, and we all know it. He's now been proven to
| be "that guy who had rape accusations" by "multiple women".
| Or the "controversial figure known for his wild antics and
| potentially non consensual dealings with women in the past".
|
| It's all just the start of a large machine thats been set in
| motion. Every news outlet that doesn't like him or doesn't
| want to portray him in a neutral or positive light will use
| this. They'll never say anything that can be factually proven
| wrong. This allows them to have selective bias which drives
| an agenda and is steering the thoughts of their readers into
| a specific direction.
| aa_is_op wrote:
| The US is indeed moving toward actual fascism, but it's people
| like Brand that actively promote it and its values.
| mikece wrote:
| No clue whether Brand is innocent or guilty before the law, but
| if he's exonerated would he have grounds to sue YouTube/Google or
| do the terms of service allow YouTube to demonetize people based
| on accusations even if they turn out to be false at a later time?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Not really, YouTube can terminate your account for any reason.
| If the accusations are false, and if they're the reason why he
| lost monetization, he could sue the accusers for damages.
| [deleted]
| Airsinner wrote:
| In addition to the contracts, YT could easily say even the
| implication he may have done wrong is not good for their
| business to associate with. He needn't be convicted in a court
| of law for it to be bad business to continue to work with him.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Yes if YouTube demonetized in breach of their T&Cs, which may
| not depend on whether the accusations are ultimately shown to
| be false.
| [deleted]
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Unlikely, since uploaders don't really have a contractual
| relationship with YouTube. Platform operators can just
| arbitrarily kick people off with no recourse or accountability
| or even a clear explanation. There's no workaround for this
| except through regulation, aka government overreach into the
| free market destroying jobs and freedoms (as objections are
| usually phrased).
| awb wrote:
| Small nit: YouTube has to adhere to it's Terms of Service and
| any other "click to agree" policies. However, those documents
| and policies are incredibly broad like you mentioned.
| curiousllama wrote:
| Not a lawyer (barrister?), but no. Generally, businesses are
| not obligated to do business with folks they dislike.
| all2 wrote:
| This is not true. Courts continually hold that a business
| must serve persons they don't like or agree with.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| As far as I know that's only certain protected classes of
| people, in that you can't discriminate in the basis of
| race, sex, religion, etc.
| toyg wrote:
| Brand could argue he was discriminated as a man, in the
| sense that he was assumed as guilty of rape because he's
| a man.
| curiousllama wrote:
| He could argue he was discriminated against because he's
| actually secretly a butterfly; both arguments would hold
| similar weight.
| toyg wrote:
| That's sadly dismissive of an actual problem. In matters
| of sex crimes, men are effectively assumed guilty until
| proven otherwise, and even if they're eventually found
| innocent they get their lives destroyed. The bar is much,
| much higher for female rape to be considered realistic.
| curiousllama wrote:
| You are correct that is a problem; it's also rather
| clearly not the case here.
|
| I'd encourage you to learn the details. It is equally
| evil to wrongly dismiss a true accusation as it is to
| wrongly believe a false one.
|
| https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/9/18/23878706/russell-
| brand...
| toyg wrote:
| The accusations might be true but it doesn't really
| matter until it is found as such in a court of law. Trial
| by media is an aberration, the modern equivalent of
| medieval shaming practices.
| [deleted]
| kumarvvr wrote:
| [flagged]
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Innocent until proven guilty has never been the standard of
| evidence in the court of public opinion.
| gdulli wrote:
| > So, this is literally, "an allegation is enough" scenario.
|
| If you're a private entity without the investigative powers of
| law enforcement, then public knowledge and your best judgement
| better be enough, because they're all you have.
|
| > Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?
|
| That's a standard of the legal system. Private parties have
| lesser powers of punishment and investigation, so
| correspondingly a less strict standard of proof.
|
| It would be an abridgement of a private party's freedom to
| decide, this person is sketchy I don't want to work with them.
| That's appropriate where protected statuses are involved, but
| by default there should be freedom.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Of course the issue is that Google is not just a "private
| party" like you or I. It is a 190,000 person organization
| worth almost 2 trillion dollars. They have a huge market
| share for monetized video hosting.
|
| If there were 100 nearly equally sized video platforms your
| argument would me much more persuasive, but at YouTube's
| size, to me, they have an obligation to treat video creators
| with a greater degree of fairness and formal process.
|
| If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are simply
| too big and should be broken up.
| waffleiron wrote:
| > If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are
| simply too big and should be broken up.
|
| If the people or the state want google to do this the
| should make a law to require it to do so.
|
| If they don't comply then, please break them up, sue them,
| fine them.
| noslenwerdna wrote:
| That seems to be what the person you're responding to is
| proposing. I think they realize this is not currently the
| law...
| coldpie wrote:
| > they have an obligation to treat video creators with a
| greater degree of fairness and formal process
|
| There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't
| violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are
| the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time
| getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a
| protected class.
|
| > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up
|
| This, however, there's tons of precedent for. It's the
| right solution, and we should absolutely be breaking all of
| the big tech companies up. The current FTC & DOJ are
| heading in that direction[1,2]. If you like that direction,
| it's something to consider when you're filling out the
| ballot each November.
|
| [1] The first stab from the FTC is at Amazon: "if the FTC
| succeeds in court, it could result in a forced breakup or
| restructuring of Amazon" https://arstechnica.com/tech-
| policy/2023/08/amazons-final-ta...
|
| [2] And DOJ is taking a stab at Google: "[The DOJ] might
| even become emboldened to break up some of the biggest tech
| companies" https://arstechnica.com/tech-
| policy/2023/09/heres-exactly-wh...
| cameldrv wrote:
| There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's
| called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone
| networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric,
| water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service
| providers, etc.
|
| The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-
| monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless
| they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons
| might be will vary depending on the business, but would
| generally not include being accused of a crime. The
| electric company is not allowed to cut off your power if
| you are accused (or even convicted) of sexual assault, as
| long as you pay your bill on time and don't vandalize
| their equipment etc.
| coldpie wrote:
| No matter how much you want it to be, YouTube is not a
| utility. Antitrust law is the right remedy here. Solve
| this through market competition by breaking up the big
| companies, not speech stifling regulations.
| gdulli wrote:
| If Google was compelled to keep arbitrary content
| monetized, the first thing they'd do is improve the
| tooling for advertisers to opt out of objectionable
| content in a more automated way.
|
| You're just pushing the problem to a different level.
| It's easy to make a case that Google has to carry
| content, but forcing advertisers to spend money
| sponsoring it?
| singleshot_ wrote:
| All of the entities you mentioned exclusive of internet
| platforms have in common that they transport goods or
| passengers for a fee and are open to the public. Internet
| platforms are not common carriers despite how badly some
| want to thwart private property rights.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Telephone services and internet services in some states
| are considered common carriers (net neutrality). In the
| case of an oligopoly like the streaming video market, it
| makes sense to force large players to make their
| platforms available on a non-discriminatory basis. I
| agree that breaking up YouTube would also solve the
| problem though.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| Right, because telcos and isps carry passengers or goods
| for a fee and they are open to the public. That's why
| they are common carriers.
|
| Where you miss the mark is that it does not, in fact,
| make any sense whatsoever and indeed would be illegal to
| commandeer someone's computer and force it to do things
| the owner does not want it to do. This is quite
| foundational to our private property regime.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Telcos and ISPs carry packets from place to place.
| YouTube carries videos from place to place. That's a
| fairly fine distinction. The ISPs computers are being
| "commandeered" in exactly the same way.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| Telcos and isps have terms of service and contractual
| provisions that allow for common carriage. They clearly
| and intentionally seek this status to protect themselves
| from liability rooted in the carriage. (Edit: in exchange
| for additional duties based on the special relationship
| formed, if I recall correctly).
|
| Purveyors of coherent speech products derive similar but
| different immunity from cda section 230, with terms of
| service that define the relationship as distinctly not
| content neutral.
|
| Accordingly there is a very differentiated line: the
| common carriage of goods. Common carriers do it but
| internet platforms do not.
|
| Stepping back a moment, I stated before that the fee
| element of common carriage was not present in internet
| platforms but of course you can buy movies on YouTube so
| this is not as universally true as I said. On the other
| hand, try posting a snuff video to YouTube and you will
| see exactly why it is not a common carrier.
|
| As I understand it, the argument is that if a web site
| gets to be sufficiently systemically critical to
| (society? Democracy?) that it should not be allowed to
| control its speech product. This would go a long way
| toward making every website 4chan, which is not an
| optimal outcome.
|
| However I'm curious if I'm missing something. Is the goal
| here to deny, for example, LinkedIn the ability to
| constrain you from posting pornography? Or to constrain
| stack overflow from allowing you to post poor quality
| answers?
| riversflow wrote:
| > There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't
| violate a private company's rights.
|
| Should a private company have those rights? We meed
| corporate reform in America.
| coldpie wrote:
| Should the people who work at & run companies have
| freedom of association? Yes, I think they should. There
| are narrow exceptions for things like utilities, where a
| monopoly is the only sane way to run the service (we
| can't have 12 separate
| gas/power/water/sewer/phone/internet lines run to every
| house), but that situation doesn't apply to an Internet
| video hosting company.
|
| We already have a well-established mechanism for reigning
| in companies that are too powerful: anti-trust law. All
| we need to do is enforce it.
| SmartJerry wrote:
| The way to enforce it is with with monopoly or collusion
| rules. Google has 39% of all digital advertising
| worldwide according to a quick Google search. However, I
| think digital advertising is too broad to even be
| considered a single category - you should have digital
| advertising of images, text, video, sound, and so on.
| Television and radio are different categories, why would
| you not do the same online? They have the capability to
| be a monopoly or collude with enough companies to exert
| monopoly power that they can abuse in some of those
| categories. Combine this with the fact that they receive
| special legal protections from liability for user posted
| content. Their protections against user content should be
| less if they are editorializing or treating content
| differently the content. I don't think they should be
| liable for user posted content, but they should have a
| responsibility to treat content equally, subject to
| fines. If they are going to demonetize or ban Russell
| Brand for a unverified news story, then if their CEO or
| even the president of the US receive an unverified news
| story against them (as the president has), they should
| get the exact same treatment. This is because rules
| enforced unequally harm content creators and users. The
| harm comes by way of lying to people. If every person who
| likes the color blue is getting demonetized, without
| notifying users of the rule, but every person who likes
| the color red gets promoted up, a user would be tricked
| into thinking the whole world likes red. That harm is
| tangible enough when it comes to important or political
| topics to deserve fines. The harm coming from not
| explicitly saying your rules. We protect a consumer from
| tobacco by forcing them to tell the truth about the
| product. THe same goes for tech. I'm sure some will say
| well these kind of lies aren't that bad, but they are,
| these are peoples lives and for many their source of
| income and to get treated differently on a whim tricks
| the content creators (essentially employees) as well as
| the users.
| pauldenton wrote:
| Have you ever had your phone call interrupted because the
| phone company didn't like what you were talking about?
|
| Have you ever had your TV get disabled because your cable
| company didn't like the content you were watching?
|
| 140 years ago in the age of telegram, I suspect they
| weren't censoring messages they didn't like either.
| jayrot wrote:
| This is such a disingenuous argument, it's painful.
|
| Did someone's internet connection get disabled?
| hotnfresh wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/09/archives/nixon-
| critics-co...
|
| I was able to read at least part of the article without a
| subscription. Folks wanted to send Nixon some pointed
| complaints (go figure, who could have imagined) and
| telegraph operators weren't letting them. Seems telegraph
| companies left matters of decency up to the discretion of
| the operator, at least by 1970 (and I bet you'd get a lot
| of "you may take your business elsewhere" for various
| sorts of messages you tried to send, before that, to the
| point that much speech was de-facto banned)
| Izkata wrote:
| > There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't
| violate a private company's rights.
|
| Google is a public company
| beej71 wrote:
| It's a publicly-traded private company, not a government-
| owned public company.
| api wrote:
| That applies in a court of law but has never, ever applied in
| the media.
| beej71 wrote:
| Thanks to the First Amendment.
| smcleod wrote:
| Assuming that's an American thing? The internet is global.
| jen729w wrote:
| The two are entirely unrelated.
| SmarsJerry wrote:
| It's not even an allegation, it's a news story. It's pretty
| crazy that they would do this because of a story, not even
| criminal charges being brought. Apparently you don't even have
| to get formally accused anymore. People say "it's bad for
| advertising" but these acts of extreme abuse of moderation on
| YouTube have hugely contributed to other websites springing up.
| I have no doubt their market share overall is slipping despite
| their revenue growing, it will only be a matter of time before
| advertisers realize they can get more eyes more cheaply
| elsewhere. We're long beyond the days where people believe a
| random advertisement on the same page as some random guy they
| don't like matters. Somehow companies are stuck in the idea of
| the days of television where you sponsored a specific show. Now
| everyone knows if your advertising on google it doesn't mean
| the advertisement agrees with every action of every person who
| appears in a search result.
| runarberg wrote:
| Your post was already outdated. Abuse charges have to be
| reported to the police, and the police is investigating, as
| is his employer at the time the BBC.
|
| Your spinning this as "just a story" is disingenuous. This
| "story" was investigated by top journalists for over a year,
| and published in a prestige news journal. Both the
| journalists working on the story and the paper that published
| it have their journalistic integrity at stake here. They
| wouldn't publish this story unless they had some very
| credible sources to back them up.
|
| So to correct you, this isn't _just_ an allegation. These are
| a series of _very credible_ allegation which are under
| investigation by several authorities.
|
| Of course it is up to you if you believe those allegations, I
| just hope you realize how credible these allegations are
| before you do so, and if you chose to not believe the
| victims, I hope you understand that you might have some
| unfortunate biases which makes you favor the accused.
| switch007 wrote:
| The Sunday Times, the same prestigious news paper which
| consistently rejected HIV's role in AIDS and partook in
| Phone Hacking - including (as alleged by him) the former
| Prime Minister Gordon Brown. [0] Not to mention The Times
| generally being a Tory sycophantic outlet, just behind the
| Telegraph.
|
| Gosh, imagine if this story tarnished their pristine
| reputation and that of the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_
| hacki...
| [deleted]
| engineer_22 wrote:
| That's an attitude the public conscience has long forgot.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| I do understand the difficult position Youtube is in.
| However, this is a dangerous path that we are forging for
| ourselves. If RB's video content violated the TOS, they would
| have been deleted long ago. If he put up a video intimidating
| or threatening violence to the victims, I can understand the
| issue.
|
| But this seems to be something else.
| throwaway128128 wrote:
| Brand's autobiography "My Booky Wook" has quite a few
| rapey/manipulative portions. It was a less sensitive time, pre
| Me Too, so he was more open about being a creep.
| cheaprentalyeti wrote:
| Assuming the allegations are true, which I'm doubtful of:
|
| Youtube is _fine_ with hosting the videos of a
| "rapey/manipulative" creep as long as they get to keep the
| money.
| ultra_nick wrote:
| [flagged]
| hermannj314 wrote:
| YouTube does not have the power to assign guilt. They are
| exercising a contractual privilege agreed to by Mr. Brand when
| he decided to upload videos to their platform.
| Fezzik wrote:
| Innocent until proven guilty is a standard for court
| proceedings. I am not a court, and I can even disagree with
| what a court decides. I can use my own judgment to draw
| conclusions and form opinions. For example, I can be confident
| that OJ is a murderer even though be was not convicted and was
| declared not guilty.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This is a category error. Courts use a methodology that's the
| best one we have for discovering the truth. They don't always
| do it well (e.g. the OJ case) and you as an individual can
| use the same methodology to understand if something happened
| or not. It's the methodology, not the "being a court" that is
| key.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I as an individual do not have the powers of a court, and
| cannot do the things a court can do to ACTUALLY get close
| to "the truth", and must rely on what little information I
| am allowed to have.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| [flagged]
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| It's not a matter of guilt, it's a matter of profitability. If
| there were advertisers beating down their doors now to get
| their products placed alongside Russel Brand's face they'd
| leave him monetised. YouTube is truly neutral here, they are
| just revenue maximizing, don't mistake this for a moral
| position. If they make a statement later, it'll be for ROI as
| well.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| But that doesn't quite line up with what is going on. They
| did not _remove_ his videos, they _demonetized_ them. Youtube
| is _still_ running ads on Brand 's videos, so the content is
| still being paid for by advertisers. If advertisers were
| beating down their doors then there would be _no_ advertising
| on those videos.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Can't advertisers just explicitly ask not to have their ads
| run on RB's contents? Why would YT have to take this decision
| for them?
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| Well it's an aggregate. Advertisers don't want to spend
| money on a platform that allowed Russel Brand to make
| money. The problem with advertiser's and the public is that
| platforms are seen as whole. Advertising on the platform is
| seen as a vague approval of the platform as a whole.
|
| There are plenty of rappers monetizing their videos. King
| Von was never demonetized despite being known to have
| killed at least 7 people. That is much worse than what
| Brand is alleged to have done. So this isn't a moral
| judgement, this is a business decision.
| theironhammer wrote:
| But isn't the profitability issue linked to his already being
| "found" to be guilty?
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| Oh god he's going end up broadcasting on Twitter isn't he.
| [deleted]
| throwaway128128 wrote:
| He's already on Rumble, getting paid by Peter Thiel.
|
| https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1634153760149602307
| aa1234556 wrote:
| [dead]
| bennyschmidt wrote:
| If what they're saying isn't true, why doesn't he just sue them
| for defamation?
| theironhammer wrote:
| If you're innocent, it's already too late.
| bennyschmidt wrote:
| Just like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard right? Oh wait Depp
| won, was awarded millions, everyone knew about it, and Amber
| Heard was mocked & laughed at until she faded off. Why
| doesn't Brand do what Depp did, if they are just making it
| all up?
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| The process is the punishment
| throw310822 wrote:
| What, are you expecting to do it, like, overnight? Depp's
| ordeal lasted years. I think in the end he got one million
| from Amber Heard, after losing maybe 50/ 80 million for
| movies he was removed from, plus the reputational damage,
| plus the psychological damage of being considered violent
| and abusive for years, plus having to go through two trials
| (one in England, at the end of which Heard's allegations
| were declared true), etc. Maybe Brand will do exactly what
| Depp did. But even if after years he turns out to be
| innocent, the damage- as in Depp's case- will never be
| undone.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Agreed Benny. The UK printed these allegations, and their
| defamation laws have a lower bar than the US.
| jstarfish wrote:
| Because they're not inherently lying. Brand has already
| admitted to banging one claimant who was 16 at the time.
| He's gross, but this extralegal retconning of all past
| sexual encounters needs to stop. It's pig-butchering by
| another name.
|
| The excuses for not filing a police report of rape at the
| time rarely withstand scrutiny. The aggrieved have no
| problems broadcasting their story on social media, but have
| every excuse prepared for why they can't formally document
| it within the statute of limitations in a venue that
| imposes consequences for lying. Go figure.
|
| Heard and Depp were a shitshow though. When two _actors_
| take the stand against each other, neither can be trusted.
| Michael Jackson is a better example.
| [deleted]
| somenameforme wrote:
| So has the internet completely done away with innocent until
| proven guilty?
|
| The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be
| people being able to take action against individuals who
| otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue
| influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like
| Harvey Weinstein.
|
| But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list
| celeb, likely with little to no major influence, is suddenly
| getting completely cancelled across an entire swath of avenues
| and platforms, based solely on accusations.
| tjrgergw wrote:
| > So has the internet completely done away with innocent until
| proven guilty?
|
| YouTube isn't a court of law, fortunately.
|
| If he's innocent, he can sue them.
| [deleted]
| JohnMakin wrote:
| "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law.
| Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations
| where a private company is taking action, this phrase is
| meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within
| the bounds of the law.
| efitz wrote:
| Then let's change the law. It's obvious over the past few
| years that companies can't be trusted with freedom of
| association or freedom of speech. Let's strip them of both.
|
| If you are incorporated (and therefore benefit from
| government-provided protection from liability and lower tax
| rates) then you no longer get to choose your customers;
| you're a common carrier and must provide the same service to
| all customers. You can only terminate a customer for non-
| payment (if you're a paid service) or if the customer takes
| actions that directly threaten your business (eg attempts to
| hack your service).
|
| Social media companies may no longer promote or suppress
| content; they can only provide tools to let users do so
| themselves (eg filter/block/subscribe/tag). Advertisers can
| use similar filters for ad placement.
| corinroyal wrote:
| So if I run a social media site, I would be required by law
| to carry hate speech, incitement to overthrow the
| government, rape threats, heretical religious statements,
| fascist propaganda, and covid conspiracy videos? That's
| gonna be a no from me. Freedom of speech does not imply a
| mandate for others to broadcast your speech.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| How about no?
|
| You want to show your content on the internet? Start your
| own hosting service or find one that will allow your
| content. Nobody owes you anything.
| threeseed wrote:
| You need to understand that the majority of people simply
| don't agree with you.
|
| They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and
| stay away from those that don't.
| globular-toast wrote:
| People like curation, not censorship. Big difference.
| MockObject wrote:
| This seems like a generalization with as many
| counterexamples as examples. Also, users don't actually
| want censorship, they want a tailored experience that
| filters out whatever content they don't like.
| flextheruler wrote:
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 'Them that has the gold makes the rules'. The users are
| not the paying customers.
| threeseed wrote:
| > ignores a multitude of services that became and still
| are incredible popular with little moderation
|
| Please provide examples.
|
| So we can compare them to the likes of Meta, Netflix,
| Spotify, Apple, Reddit etc.
| GenericPoster wrote:
| >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 might promote controversy AND lower sales. Emphasis
| on the AND. The companies job is to make money and if
| that means embracing censorship or decrying it then
| they'll do it. Hell, they'll even do both at the same
| time. Advertisers are a leech on society and I hate that
| I'm defending them. But they pay the bills so....
|
| That doesn't mean that vast majority of users don't want
| moderation. Every "free-speech" alternative to an already
| existing platform that I've visited has been complete
| shit. Filled with nutjobs that couldn't play nice with
| the normal folk.
| nradov wrote:
| Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested that
| Congress should extend common carrier legislation to cover
| social media companies.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-
| th...
| notamy wrote:
| > Social media companies may no longer promote or suppress
| content; they can only provide tools to let users do so
| themselves (eg filter/block/subscribe/tag)
|
| Users _don't want_ the responsibility of filtering out CP,
| gore, sexual violence, etc. I would bet the average user
| actively wants that content suppressed. Just look at any of
| the cases of social media moderators developing PTSD from
| their work.
| rhcom2 wrote:
| Everything would be overrun by spam. Even 4chan moderates
| spam and ads.
| threeseed wrote:
| 4chan moderates far more than just spam/ads.
|
| They remove child pornography. They comply with DMCA.
| They ban entire countries.
| epgui wrote:
| > "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of
| law
|
| No, it doesn't "only" apply in a court of law. I choose to
| apply it in my own psyche (which breaks the "only"), and I
| choose to do so because I understand the reasons why a court
| of law applies the principle.
|
| Just because the whole village is wielding pitchforks doesn't
| mean it's rational for you to also do the same.
| bsndiieee665262 wrote:
| [flagged]
| orblivion wrote:
| It doesn't have to apply everywhere but it's still a good
| policy in a lot of contexts. I think a massive general
| audience platform is a good example. If this were, let's say,
| an online community of survivors of abuse, maybe that sort of
| prudence could reasonably take a back seat.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| > "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of
| law.
|
| "Innocent until proven guilty" is a philosophical concept
| that many legal systems subscribe to in the context of
| criminal law.
|
| > Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations
| where a private company is taking action
|
| Indeed, it's very similar in the sense that the concept of
| the freedom of speech goes way beyond the 1st amendment. It
| existed before it. And it is the first amendment that exists
| because of the freedom of speech, not the other way round.
|
| > A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of
| the law.
|
| Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree
| with.
| runarberg wrote:
| > Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree
| with.
|
| The morality in this instance does not follow this
| principle. If people find these allegations credible--and
| most should--the morally correct action is to deplatform
| him and delete his content.
| indoclay wrote:
| > If people find these allegations credible--and most
| should
|
| Why should most people find these allegations credible? I
| do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let
| alone a trial. These are currently just allegations,
| their credibility has not been adjudicated.
| Airsinner wrote:
| One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is
| called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an
| understanding that the legal system is both slow and
| tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond
| a shadow of a doubt".
|
| A person may know how slow and different a legal decision
| is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of
| reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well
| before a system designed to be conclusive would.
|
| The law is more about what can be proven than it is about
| what is true, and for people who know that, legal
| judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.
| indoclay wrote:
| What evidence has been provided to meet this
| "preponderance of evidence" standard you are putting
| forward for "moral evaluation"?
| Fervicus wrote:
| > and most should
|
| Why?
| Airsinner wrote:
| The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech"
| and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government
| doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights
| explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that
| government (e.g. US Constitution).
|
| Once you venture into private parties evaluating other
| private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's
| still freedom of speech and association to not want to do
| business with certain people, and as long as those certain
| people aren't of a protected class, this falls well within
| the moral concepts of both free speech and presumption of
| innocence.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > 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
| jonny_eh wrote:
| 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.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| Corporations are owned by people who _do_ have civil
| rights.
| afiori wrote:
| "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom of speech" are
| principles codified in law.
|
| The position that only the government is bound by "freedom of
| speech" is, at the very least, weird in an international
| context where things that are not the US government are
| expected to respect people's freedoms.
|
| It is also perfectly legal to do a lot bad things like e.g.
| buying the product of slave labor in other countries or blood
| diamonds or buying stocks of companies known to pollute with
| wild disregard.
|
| Also in the US:
|
| > "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of
| law.
|
| is misleading, the more precise version is that "innocent
| until proven guilty" only applies in criminal courts.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Maybe this should be reconsidered when a "private company"
| controls a large majority of humanity's social fabric and/or
| popular culture?
| klyrs wrote:
| No, antitrust laws should break them up.
| nova22033 wrote:
| The way to reconsider this is to amend the constitution.
| plagiarist wrote:
| You are reconsidering the wrong part. Let's have smaller
| companies that aren't able to control that much of society.
| miohtama wrote:
| This is why developer and hacker community should strive to
| build open networks, and then have them adopted.
|
| This was what early internet was like: Usenet, IRC, etc.
| tored wrote:
| Yes, but I would also add that it is important that the
| rest of the world should stop using services from
| American companies.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Usenet was a set of fiefdoms mostly administered by
| academics in CompSci departments, and proved utterly
| unequal to its first real crisis*. Distributed systems
| work great as long as they're new and everyone is
| participating in good faith most of the time. In
| adversarial situations, they're rarely able to adapt
| flexibly enough, partly because the networked structure
| imposes a severe decision-time penalty on consensus
| formation. A negligent or malicious attacker just has to
| overwhelm nodes with high betweenness centrality and the
| whole network fails.
|
| Immediately following crises everyone _talks_ about
| making the network more resilient and so on, but it never
| fully recovers because everyone intuitively knows that
| establishing consus is slow and bumpy, and that major
| restructuring /retooling efforts are way easier to
| accomplish unilaterally. So people start drifting away
| because unless there's a quick technical fix that can be
| deployed within a month or two, It's Over. Distributed
| systems always lose against coherent attackers with more
| than a threshold level of resources because the latter
| has a much tighter OODA loop.
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Marth
| a_Sie...
| corinroyal wrote:
| Exactly, and look what happened to Usenet. People abused
| the commons and we lost it to spam. Unmoderated networks
| always fall to bad actors.
|
| I'm building a p2p social network and struggling hard
| with how to balance company needs, community needs, and
| individual freedom. A free-for-all leads to a tyranny of
| structurelessness in which the loudest and pushiest form
| a defacto leadership that doesn't represent the will of
| the majority. On the flip side, overly restrictive rules
| stifle expression and cause resentment. These are hard
| questions and there is no one answer, except that
| unmoderated networks always suck eventually, so the
| question is one of line drawing and compromise.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| How do you propose this actually work out? Every time
| youtube, twitter, facebook, etc wants to ban someone they
| have to submit a request to the government or be subject to
| its oversight? That's far more dystopian.
| kypro wrote:
| 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 believe primary Brand's job for the last few years has
| been as a content creator. Given this I think it's
| reasonable to expect he should have some legal rights.
| Personally I don't see a huge amount of difference
| between an Uber gig worker and a YouTube content creator.
| Both should have some basic rights regardless of whether
| they're technically classed as "employees".
| jayrot wrote:
| 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
| kobalsky wrote:
| "government oversight" sounds ominous.
|
| Personally, I wouldn't mind if the judicial branch was in
| charge of arbitration.
|
| These companies are not obligated to pay creators. They
| pay them because it's profitable, and the moment money
| exchanges hand and someone livehood depends on them, the
| relationship changes.
|
| At that point, if you leave creators without recourse,
| you only changed labels and left workers without hundreds
| of years worth of labor rights thrown down the toilet.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Aren't they still publishing his content, just not
| running ads and paying? The US government will do fuckall
| about that, even if platforms are forced to be quasi-
| national entities subject to the First Amendment.
| tored wrote:
| Sure, but the public can always remove all legal benefits a
| private stockholder company has, like liability.
| [deleted]
| zo1 wrote:
| It's a principle we hold as a society.
| globular-toast wrote:
| This is such a common thing for people to say I have to
| wonder if it's propaganda from big corporations. The idea
| that core tenets of our civilisation are invalid because
| "it's a private company" is insane. These principles are
| based on practicalities, not technicalities.
| smcleod wrote:
| YouTube isn't the internet... it's Google.
| pixelat3d wrote:
| Your assumption is the reason his content was removed was
| because of the allegations, which is potentially not true.
| While it's _very_ likely the allegations are what drew
| attention to it, it doesn't mean there wasn't a bunch of stuff
| there already that violated policies - especially given the
| content he had doubled down on.
|
| All Youtube did was cite their "Creator responsibility"
| clause[1] as the reason. This could have included a myriad of
| violations, especially considering the type of content he was
| producing.
|
| Also, if you read the allegations, he very much was in the
| protected status you mention. "Open secret", lots of people
| covering for him, running interference, etc etc. Calling him a
| "D-list celeb, likely with little to no major influence"
| illustrates your lack of research into the issue.
|
| [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7650329?hl=en as
| the reason.
| nomel wrote:
| > there wasn't a bunch of stuff there already that violated
| policies
|
| Are you suggesting that it could be that his existing videos
| were in violation of community guidelines? Is there any
| evidence for this? I've watched some of his videos, and this
| seems like a rather silly accusation.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Can we stop using "innocent until proven guilty" and change it
| to "innocent unless proven guilty"?
|
| "Until" always makes it sound to me like it is a foregone
| conclusion.
| mattficke wrote:
| "Innocent until proven guilty" is an incredibly high burden of
| proof that we reserve for criminal trials. In other contexts,
| this is not the appropriate standard --- civil suits, for
| example, use a "preponderance of evidence" standard. Non-state
| actors using a lower burden of proof is entirely appropriate.
| tredre3 wrote:
| > So has the internet completely done away with innocent until
| proven guilty?
|
| Yes. But to be fair it wouldn't be out of character for Russel,
| if you actually know who he is, so maybe that's why the
| internet finds it so easy to ignore silly things like
| "evidence" and "proof".
| threeseed wrote:
| Nobody is ignoring evidence and proof.
|
| We have a victim who has gone to police. We have three
| newspapers who have corroborating evidence.
|
| And in response Brand hasn't had his videos removed and his
| live shows have been temporarily suspended.
| runarberg wrote:
| Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it has
| nothing to do with popular actions, and never has. All it
| basically says is that Russell Brand cannot go to jail until he
| is proven guilty.
|
| There are no laws requiring the public to treat an accused
| person as if they never committed a crime until said crime has
| been proven. It is up to the public whether they believe the
| victim or the accused. In this case youtube has decided to
| believe the victim. Perhaps youtube--like so many others--have
| deemed the accusations credible, and they are in their full
| right to act on these believes.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > youtube has decided to believe the victim
|
| Not the victim. The accuser, who may be a victim.
| singingfish wrote:
| FTFY: Youtube has decided to believe the multiple
| independent lines of evidence which came out of a four year
| investigation by multiple journalists across more than one
| organisation.
|
| This is not currently a legal matter, but a matter that
| concerns a public figure's ethical standards. Multiple
| independent lines of evidence is a powerful thing.
| runarberg wrote:
| I'm under no legal obligation either to deny the
| allegations until proven. And in this case I choice to
| believe the victims. And I will keep calling them victims
| until proven otherwise.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I don't understand this comment, sorry. Who's talking
| about your legal obligations? I'm talking about what you
| know vs what you assume.
| runarberg wrote:
| You are saying it is wrong of me to call the victims,
| victims, and should instead call them 'accusers'. I'm
| saying I am under no legal obligations to do so. I
| believe their stories and I believe they are victims, so
| I am allowed to call them victims.
|
| Now I think there might be slander to call the accused
| something like an abuser, so I don't do that (yet).
| However there is no slander laws which disallow me from
| using words which indicate that I believe the victims, so
| I'm not calling them 'accusers', I call them victims,
| because that is what I believe they are.
| throwaway128128 wrote:
| On X you can get "cancelled" on even flimsier pretexts.
| iterminate wrote:
| I disagree with the premise of your comment but on a factual
| note: Russell Brand has been litigious on this very issue, he
| has threatened to take legal action and taken legal action
| against people who have spoken up about him. He has been widely
| "known" to be a predatory rapist for years but has used his
| money to intimidate those who wanted to speak up.
| kube-system wrote:
| The court of public opinion has never followed the rules which
| apply to courts of law.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| >So has the internet completely done away with innocent until
| proven guilty?
|
| I'm not a court. Are you a court?
|
| I hope you're not a court. Sentient buildings weird me out.
|
| If four employees came to me and accused someone of harassing
| them, I would weigh the evidence and if warranted, fire the
| employee. No court involved.
|
| When you are self-righteous prick as prickly as brand, it is
| extremely easy to believe the accusers.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > 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.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| The only system? Which courts? Not all courts use the same
| system. The UK court system is different than the US
| system. Criminal court is different than civil.
| zztop44 wrote:
| Yes but the courts are legally empowered to lock someone in
| a cage for years. So they should be working by a different
| standard than a company firing someone.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Firing someone for a horrific accusation might not be
| that different to locking the person in a cage.
| awb wrote:
| I don't know many people that would prefer the later,
| since being locked in a cage also comes with losing your
| job, a horrible accusation proven true (or admitted to)
| in court and a public criminal record.
|
| Losing your income and being publicly shamed sucks, but
| you still can rely on close friends and family, a public
| safety net and lawsuits (if you've been defamed or
| illegally fired), while enjoying sunshine, fresh air and
| freedom of movement.
| achrono wrote:
| >Sentient buildings weird me out.
|
| Courts are not buildings, sentient or otherwise. A court can
| exist without even a single brick or piece of stone being
| around.
|
| You're also making this about Brand when in fact this is a
| discussion at a higher level of abstraction.
| curiousllama wrote:
| > based solely on accusations
|
| This is not true. The independent corroborating evidence is
| also material. Contemporaneous records from a rape clinic is
| powerful evidence.
|
| More generally, innocent until proven guilty is a legal
| concept, not a social one. From a social perspective, that's
| never been the standard, nor should it be. Bad folks have often
| been shunned without convictions - that's why the norm has been
| "resign in disgrace," not "get thrown in prison"
| nsajko wrote:
| > innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a
| social one
|
| Yes, legalism is often taken too far, but that doesn't mean
| that mob rule is a good thing.
|
| > Bad folks have often been shunned without convictions
|
| Are you sure about that? I'd sooner say that only losers get
| "shunned". Powerful politicians don't get "shunned" for their
| corruption, actually sometimes it seems to help with their
| popularity. Likewise with mobsters?
|
| Mobs go after the weak, not after the guilty. Whether they're
| lynching and necklacing their neighbors or "canceling" minor
| celebrity cranks.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Your rhetoric doesn't sound far off from that of people who
| called BLM protests mob riots. But they were protesting
| against militarized police, hardly the weak.
|
| Or hell, from the other side of the political spectrum, Jan
| 6th was some real mob mentality behavior. But I'd hardly
| consider the "US government" weak.
| curiousllama wrote:
| > Powerful politicians don't get "shunned" for their
| corruption
|
| Richard Nixon would like a word. As would Anthony Weiner,
| Roy Moore, John Edwards, and a few others.
|
| Have often != are always.
|
| I'm pointing out the long-term existence of a common second
| standard, not its consistent application.
|
| > Whether they're lynching and necklacing their neighbors
| or "canceling" minor celebrity cranks.
|
| It seems you have some big feelings you should confront, to
| compare YouTube demonetization to historical racial
| violence
| nvm0n2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| paganel wrote:
| [flagged]
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| [flagged]
| jamiek88 wrote:
| >If it was really bad?
|
| Well, that's enough of this thread for me.
|
| Unfuckingbelievable.
| burkaman wrote:
| Think about what makes this alleged crime "really bad", and
| then consider if that might make it difficult for a victim
| to come forward. There is no statute of limitations for
| sexual assault in the UK.
| curiousllama wrote:
| Should have? Yes, it would have been better.
|
| Is it reasonable to expect them to do so? Maybe. Probably
| not pre Me-Too, and especially if they didn't know about
| each other.
|
| Does it change my interpretation either way? Not really.
| Contemporaneous records from an independent third party
| undercut most of my concerns.
|
| Notably, many US states don't have statutes of limitation
| for rape. Practical reasons can be overcome.
| mrmincent wrote:
| Sexual assault is a serious allegation. In most media channels if
| an employee is accused of sexual assault they would be stood down
| and an investigation launched. He's lucky they're still giving
| him a platform to use.
| arpowers wrote:
| While sexual assault is serious if true, it's also the only
| crime that can ruin someone's life and livelihood with no
| evidence or actual crime taking place.
|
| Additionally there is often large financial incentive for
| accusers (and their lawyers) via lawsuits and it serves as a
| fantastic method of hurting people politically even if they are
| exonerated.
| curiousllama wrote:
| > While sexual assault is serious if true, it's also the only
| crime that can ruin someone's life and livelihood with no
| evidence or actual crime taking place.
|
| This is true. Along with this, it's important to note that
| there is, in fact, a significant amount of high-quality
| evidence about this particular allegation (some of which is
| contemporaneous to the assault itself).
|
| I'd also note that failing to believe & punish a
| true/credible allegation is itself an abhorrent act. There's
| no easy defaults in a situation like this: it's A Very Bad
| Thing to be incorrect in either direction.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Not that I'm curious to watch that evidence myself, and I
| trust you're taking the truth but can you clarify what high
| quality evidence means here?
| curiousllama wrote:
| Records from a rape clinic one woman went to shortly
| afterwards, indirect witnesses (e.g., someone who heard
| one of the women screaming from outside Brand's home
| during the assault), and exchanges shortly after the fact
| alluding to the assault (including by Brand).
|
| There are apparently many other allegations, but four
| have relevant supporting evidence.
|
| Here's a summary:
| https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/9/18/23878706/russell-
| brand...
| FlopadongCassD wrote:
| [flagged]
| pengaru wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_brand#Sexual_misconduc...
| wilg wrote:
| Seems like there should be guidelines for what you can and cannot
| do to get YouTube monetization (that people can squabble over).
| Seems very ad-hoc to do it this way. It surprises me that being
| accused of a crime would be a good or fairly enforced rule.
| seydor wrote:
| Google is not a monopoly. Youtube is not a monopoly. Google ads
| is not a monopoly.
| jahsome wrote:
| When a channel is demonetized does that mean YouTube doesn't run
| ads at all on the channel's content, or do they still run ads and
| just don't pay out the share to the creator?
| braza wrote:
| Somethings that happen from I remember from other demonetised
| channels: - no revenue share from YT - no superchats (via YT) -
| most of the ads are turned off due to brand deals with YT and
| risk of being associated with some banned channel
| kylebenzle wrote:
| Just checked it.
|
| Went to YouTube.coms Russel Brand page, clicked the shortest
| video, let it play.
|
| After the video, ad played, then the next Russell Brand video.
|
| Next video was longer and included marked ads throughout the
| video, clearly pausing the ad content and labeled with a pop-
| up.
|
| Also, YouTube still has its pop up that say, "Video contains
| paid promotion," so they know he is profiting off the video and
| are still allowing it AND YouTube is profiting from ad between
| videos.
|
| Overall, I'd say YES, they are still allowing ads, they
| probably just suspended payments for "In-video" YouTube 3rd
| parts ads, really only 1 of 4 ad types they are serving.
|
| Both YouTube and Russel Brand continue to make money off ads on
| Russell Brands videos on YouTube.
|
| 1.
| https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxUtzzTeakkcWlZp531K_jZ6JGWUSKbU7...
| samspenc wrote:
| I don't think this is quite right - as the other comments
| point out, Youtube will still play ads and they take 100% cut
| of the money. They have already announced that Brand is
| demonetized, so they will pay him 0% while taking 100% of the
| ad revenue for themselves.
| bennyschmidt wrote:
| YouTube ads are a tiny % of revenue. Celebrities on YT make
| their money from brand deals, not ads. Remember "Adpocalypse"
| and the beginning of all this ultra clean PC talk online?
| Before all that, sure you could make a living from YT ads, but
| many channels don't even have them on because it's cents. For
| example I have over 50k views on some videos, but the ad
| revenue is nothing.
| jahsome wrote:
| That's not what I asked.
| kylebenzle wrote:
| No, but it is kind of a good point because it looks like
| they turned of youtubes "in-video" ads but he still has
| clearly marked paid promotions and "built in"
| ads/promotions he does like a podcast. So both Brand and
| YouTube are still making almost the same money right now
| even though they, "aren't monetizing".
| bennyschmidt wrote:
| [flagged]
| jahsome wrote:
| No I didn't. And complaining about votes is against hn
| guidelines.
| bennyschmidt wrote:
| [flagged]
| jahsome wrote:
| You're embarrassing yourself Benny.
| majewsky wrote:
| The direct parent commenter (i.e. the person the comment
| responds to) cannot downvote. It just does not show a
| downvote button for them, only an upvote button. So the
| downvotes have to come from everyone else.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Benny, there are valid reasons to downvote for you first
| comment to say nothing about your replies. Your top level
| comment is now gray and that is not because of jahsome.
| bennyschmidt wrote:
| [flagged]
| c420 wrote:
| You are incorrect:
|
| ""He is most likely making PS2,000 to PS4,000 per video, not
| taking into account any affiliate deals and brand
| sponsorships that might be running in the background," she
| said.
|
| Based on five videos a week, this could easily produce the
| best part of a PS1m a year."
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/how-
| russell-...
| bennyschmidt wrote:
| Can't do math? I said literally "a tiny % of revenue" and
| considering <$1M a year at best is a lot less than what
| Russel Brand makes each year in total revenues, I think the
| point stands. It's literally a tiny %. Who are you people
| lol? So desperate to destroy people online.
| swores wrote:
| Glad to see you deleted your other reply that was just
| rude.
|
| I'd agree with the other person (and even if I agreed
| with you, I'd still point out that your language and
| attitude are quite against the HN guidelines, which are
| worth reading:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )
|
| I'd personally be surprised if Russel Brand had more than
| $1M/yr in sponsorship deals relating to his YouTube
| content, which would be 50/50 split between that and ads
| (I think likely to be more like 75/25 in favour of ads
| for him).
|
| Yes for many celebrities, and even YouTube content
| creators, their sponsorships will be far more valuable
| than the platform's ads. But I doubt there are big-money
| deals lining up for the kind of conspiracy nonsense he
| puts out now days.
|
| (And sure, Brand also makes money from work other than
| YouTube, but that's not relevant to the question of what
| % of money for YT content comes from YT ads vs.
| sponsors.)
| c420 wrote:
| "A tiny %" to me would be 1, maybe 2%. Do you really
| believe he's earning $100 mil a year? I read that his
| estimated worth is in the low 20 millions but I can't
| recall where I saw that.
| [deleted]
| realce wrote:
| They're still hosting the videos, still running ads, but YT
| keeps all the money. Seems... not right and backwards to me.
| [deleted]
| tmikaeld wrote:
| Hosting isn't free and they're not forcing anyone to host it
| there, there are alternative platforms.
| smcleod wrote:
| I understand what you're saying although Google (YouTube)
| has made it its mission to destroy alternatives and quash
| new ones as they appear.
| holoduke wrote:
| There are no other platforms. None zero. Your response is
| wrong.
| jahsome wrote:
| I think it's more curious they're willing to at least imply
| moral imperative and say "this bad guy can't make money on
| our platform" but continue to distribute and profit off his
| content themselves. It's not immediately clear to me which
| is worse...
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont
| allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is
| monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned?
|
| I found a page of other unfair practices that google is
| using to steal our cash: https://fliki.ai/blog/new-
| youtube-monetization-requirements
|
| Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post
| videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent
| to allow all that has removed the ability from a user
| user to monetize his videos, but hasn't even silenced
| him.
|
| I don't know if shutting down his channel and removing
| all the videos (which Google has a legal right to do)
| would be better.
| jahsome wrote:
| > Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they
| wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too?
|
| Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because
| they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad
| space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
| SR2Z wrote:
| They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not
| hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit
| either."
|
| It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system
| entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always
| request to have it taken down.
| jsiepkes wrote:
| You seriously think the amount of money YouTube makes
| from ads on those videos is not a magnitude it costs them
| to host them?
| swores wrote:
| Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think
| that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't
| imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I
| have as expenditure for doing the work.
| jsiepkes wrote:
| Then why dispute YouTube is profiting from videos they
| themselves classify as harmful?
| swores wrote:
| They didn't dispute that, they suggested a line of logic
| for the behaviour. It being a reply to your comment
| doesn't automatically mean it's an attempt to prove your
| comment wrong.
| m000 wrote:
| Making the content isn't free either. If they don't like
| Russel Brand for whatever reason, they're free to
| deplatform him. Virtue signaling while lining your pockets
| is disingenuous.
| realce wrote:
| You're right, Youtube isn't forced to host the works of
| this horrid rule-breaker. They choose the position of
| platforming him and profiting off of him however.
| [deleted]
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Indeed. If his videos are unacceptable, YT should have taken
| them down. If they're acceptable, then they should give him
| his money.
| Marsymars wrote:
| I would put forward that a less morally dubious way for YT
| to handle this would be to pull ads, and send the creator a
| pay-for-hosting agreement that they're required to sign if
| they want to keep the content online.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Then people would claim he's being censored. It's
| exhausting.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Interesting conflict of interest there.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| Agree. One can only interpret this as ham-fisted virtue
| signaling by YouTube management and perhaps with staff
| support.
|
| If they are continuing to host and serve the Brand videos,
| they are defacto saying, "content by this person doesn't hurt
| our platform in a material way, but we've decided this person
| is bad and we want to show ourselves punishing him." And the
| best part is they are tangibly rewarded in this by not having
| to pay the creator's share of the revenue. No matter what
| Brand may or may not be guilty of... continuing to stream his
| content without paying for it is despicable and immoral.
|
| Properly thought about, moral judgement of what YouTube is
| doing is completely independent of anything Brand had done.
| nothatscool wrote:
| When YouTube does this it means that they tacitly endorse the
| behaviour of everyone who is currently monetised at the moment.
| I'm sure it would be easy to find many monetised channels with
| similar allegations as well as people who have actually been
| convicted of crimes.
|
| Edit: for example, someone like Chris Brown is convicted of
| domestic abuse as well as accused of many other incidents. He
| appears to be monetised on youtube.
|
| >If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees
| or ecosystem, we take action.
|
| So why does this apply to Russell Brand but not to Chris Brown
| who is convicted of violence against another YouTube user? It
| must mean that youtuber endorses the behaviour and criminal
| activity of Chris Brown.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I think "endorse" is far too strong of a word. No, YT isn't
| "endorsing" Chris Brown.
|
| But it certainly raises the question of YT being _arbitrarily_
| punitive. Rather than endorsing, it _ignores_ certain
| allegations while demonetizing others.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| It's a telling sign really.
|
| For everybody in here who is building a startup and is unsure
| about going tpe to toe with a tech giant. Do not be intimidated,
| these big organizations are afraid of everything .
|
| Favorable press and 'feel good statements' like this become more
| important than making money.
|
| This is true for companies buying ads too, the big automotive
| companies would absolutely make a fortune both in terms of money
| and advertisement by having their officially licensed cars in the
| Grand Theft Auto series, but they are afraid because oohhh the
| car would be shown with damage, protagonists can shoot at it and
| from it, they can drive like maniacs killing pedestrians...
| code_runner wrote:
| ah, the classic car-companies-dont-allow-officially-licensed-
| cars-in-old-violent-videogame argument for entrepreneurship.
| tough to argue with!
| camhart wrote:
| [flagged]
| dadjoker wrote:
| Guilty until proven innocent.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-19 23:01 UTC)