[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)