Submitted 2 years ago by smeg@feddit.uk to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
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.
I guarantee that if YouTube were treated legally as an employer, Youtube would shut down. It's not an employer. It's a free video hosting platform that shares some of the revenue that it makes. The fact that people treat it as an employer is the problem. There is nothing to stop Brand or anyone else, using sponsorship or other paid promotion if they would like to monetise their videos. They just can't rely on Youtube's advertising machine.
Or the people uploading should be aware of their precarious position and make sure to have back up revenue streams like patreon. Unless you have a contact with YT commiting them to provide you with a cut of profits, you’ve no leg to stand on. Not that Brand is in any danger of this bankrupting him.
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.
Do you know if they still monetize those videos and just don’t send his share anymore or they are completely demonetized?
Completely demonetise
Just a sample size of 1 but when I just loaded his videos (for the first time ever) they showed no ads.
Alphabets in a catch 22. Either they demonetize it and become the villain, or keep them monetization up and become the villain.
I’m sure their creator click through contract says something about moral turpitude and character. So they can rely on that.
I look forward to the EU saying that if you monetize users contact you owe them legally a percentage of the income. Anything else is just contract law
It’d be worse from a public participation perspective. But it would be more consistent. Either this person is so evil that you can’t do any business with them, or they’re not.
clearly the solution is 50% monetization
Or divert the monetization that would have gone to the original creator, whose currently unpopular, and donate it to a charity in their name. Clean hand syndrome
This is not a discussion about the allegations against him
based on the court of public opinion
Idk, seems like you’ve already started the discussion in your post
Google has this power, and uses it quite often. And you don’t have to be famous, or even do anything wrong to lose access to your Google account, and your family photos, your email address, your phone number… or anything else you’ve trusted Google to handle for you.
Meet Mark (tech.slashdot.org/…/dad-photographs-son-for-docto…). Mark’s young son had an infection on his penis and he was asked by the doctor’s office to take a photo so the doctor could evaluate it (this was during Covid). Google’s AI child porn detector flagged it, and started a process which got the police involved (they quickly realized that there was no crime), but Google still shutdown Mark’s account and hasn’t given it back.
If you have anything you value inside Google’s (or any other company’s) ecosystem, you should have a backup because this happens quite often (don’t even think about doing a chargeback against Google if they take money from you that they shouldn’t have).
“Innocent until proven guilty” only applies to the state. I wouldn’t want him chasing my daughter, would you? Private companies and individuals are fully entitled to treat him like he’s guilty based on their own appraisal of the evidence.
I agree with you about Google. Even though it’s good that the rapist doesn’t get to make bank by spreading conspiracy theories, it’d be better if they took the videos down. Whereas traditional media outlets and theatres are cancelling his shows and saying (as is their right) that they don’t want to work with him, Google’s like “we’ll work with you but we’re not paying you”. Not exactly the ethical stance they make it out to be, is it?
They aren’t making more ad revenue off of his channel, because demonetized channels do not display ads via Google. It doesn’t mean shit if he’s innocent. The court of public opinion is the only court that matters to marketing departments, and he’s hot enough right now that no corporation is going to want to be associated with him.
Maybe you should edit your post as not to misinform more people given that you stated something as a fact that you basically just fabricated.
“This is a discussion about…not about…”
This is now a discussion about slipping on banana peels. Has anyone ever slipped on a banana peel like in ye ole timey cartoons?
yea they should’ve suspended him instead. youtube are cowards.
I’ve never forgiven that arsehole for what he did to Andrew Sachs.
TBF that was as much Jonathon Ross's fault.
Poor girl.
It's shocking to think how culturally accepted and mainstream misogyny was at the time.
I think that saga is probably an example of a level of misogyny that wasn't acceptable. There was absolute outrage about it at the time, it became a pretty huge scandal. I agree that misogyny was far too culturally acceptable and mainstream at the time (and still is in some areas) but that is one instance where it certainly wasn't brushed aside.
whole lotta rapist supporters in here
I assumed he was already banned from YouTube which is why he’s on the alternative video sites for wronguns like Rumble.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
YouTube has suspended Russell Brand’s channels from making money from adverts for “violating” its “creator responsibility policy”.
“If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action,” a YouTube spokesperson said on Tuesday.
YouTube’s decision to block his revenue streams applies to “all channels that may be owned or operated” by the 48-year-old, it confirmed to the BBC.
Ahead of its broadcast, Brand took to his online social media video platforms - YouTube, Instagram and X (formerly known as Twitter), as well as Rumble- to pre-emptively deny all claims of misconduct, saying he was the subject of “a coordinated attack” involving “very serious allegations that I absolutely refute”.
On Monday, one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault when she was 16 has told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour his behaviour was an “open secret”.
Brand still has a presence on Rumble, where he has 1.4 million followers, and he hosts a regular show every weekday, but there was notably no new episode on Monday.
The original article contains 443 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It means this is a controversial topic and there will be a lot of interesting opinions in this thread.
Russell and Youtube have been making a FORTUNE off of his misinformation and concern trolling arguments riding the algorithm.
Ploy twist, Google was mollesting Brand all along, now he has Stockholm syndrome which he alleviates by making videos about wacky shit.
Getting cancelled with the standard playbook?
What’s he say on his channel?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGr_PVUHn2I
TLDR bad news is coming, I refute the accusations, it’s a coordinated media campaign.
My question was more like “what is his channel about?” but I clicked and got the answer.
Basically uncovering? Commenting on? Corrupt media it seems…
Mostly vaccine misinfo.
Kichae@kbin.social 2 years ago
Even with a conviction, seems to me like it's a question of hosting him or not. Demonitising him is Google trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 years ago
Demonetize means they don’t show ads on his channel at all. So they aren’t making money off of him.
And it’s a smart move by them, because whether or not he’s guilty, no corporation is gonna be happy if Google displays their ads on his content right now. The court of public opinion is the only court that matters to marketing departments.