Do you know if they still monetize those videos and just don’t send his share anymore or they are completely demonetized?
Comment on YouTube suspends monetisation of Russell Brand's channel
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 year ago
Not that Google is an employer …but should an employer have the power to take away a source of income based on allegations.
YouTube is- platform that lets people upload videos for free - that’s it.
Some of those videos can be monetised by YouTube by inserting ads - and that money is shared with the content creators.
In this case, YouTube has decided that trying to make money off Brand’s videos isn’t worth the risk.
calavera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 year ago
Completely demonetise
FMT99@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Just a sample size of 1 but when I just loaded his videos (for the first time ever) they showed no ads.
smeg@feddit.uk 1 year ago
I guess you could watch the videos without an adblocker and see if any ads show up
calavera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I’ll pass, don’t want to screw the algorithm
livus@kbin.social 1 year ago
SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
Incognito works for this use case (and basically only such use cases)
smeg@feddit.uk 1 year ago
The trouble is that a lot of people treat it like a job and rely on it for income. Obviously this is a pretty risky way to get by, but it essentially means they’re an employer and should probably be regulated as such.
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 year ago
I guarantee that if YouTube were treated legally as an employer, Youtube would shut down. It's not an employer. It's a free video hosting platform that shares some of the revenue that it makes. The fact that people treat it as an employer is the problem. There is nothing to stop Brand or anyone else, using sponsorship or other paid promotion if they would like to monetise their videos. They just can't rely on Youtube's advertising machine.
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Or the people uploading should be aware of their precarious position and make sure to have back up revenue streams like patreon. Unless you have a contact with YT commiting them to provide you with a cut of profits, you’ve no leg to stand on. Not that Brand is in any danger of this bankrupting him.
smeg@feddit.uk 1 year ago
While this is true in a cut-throat business world, we’ve had regulation on issues like forcing Uber to treat their employees as employees. While this isn’t exactly the same it doesn’t seem like a huge leap to say well some people are starting to use this for an income, we the state should ensure it has similar protections to other forms of income. Well, that’s my thoughts on it, I’m no employment-law-speaker!
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Uber isn’t regulated like that everywhere, we did it in the UK more because of how it was undermining minicab firms that did have to treat staff as employees.
tal@kbin.social 1 year ago
I mean, I think the closest analogy is to a TV station and a TV show.
The TV station isn't the employer of the people making a show.
On the other hand, they a show and a station contract on a season-by-season basis, so AFAIK, normally a show is guaranteed payments for the remainder of a season. Youtubers don't get that guarantee. But then again, a show is obligated to actually keep making shows until the end of the season, and that isn't true of Youtubers.