YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money off his channel — The suspension comes following the publication of rape and sexual assault allegations against the British star::YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.
I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn’t be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.
Well I’m sure Google will be donating the money to sexual assault non profits rather than pocketing the profits right?
Right?
Most corporations would suspend his account completely for damage control.
They’re suspending his income. That’s theft.
I made a joke comment, well since they’re taking his money, I’m sure it’s going to victims. Right?
And you come along and point out that, in your belief, all corporations steal revenue from their content providers when they get accused of a crime. Show me one other platform that’s done this. Suspended revenue (i.e. stealing revenue) prior to conviction rather than canceling content.
Note the BBC cancelled him. Google is still making money off an accused rapist. In fact, more. Because said rapist isn’t getting a cut.
Has he been banned from using the Internet? No? Then you’re spewing bullshit. YouTube doesn’t have to host his content and advertisers don’t need to pay him for it. He isn’t entitled to shit. He can fuck off to some right-wing hellscape of a site that will platform him. That’s capitalism baby!
Again. Not a rapist until proven so in a court. And yes, I understand the difficulty in proving it and I believe him to be guilty, but not a rapist until proven so.
I know there is a huge failing by the courts with these types of cases but we must avoid trial by media at all costs.
As long as the content itself is legal, why shouldn’t they?
Where do you draw the line? Rapist, Alleged rapist, Murderer, someone who committed assault, fraud? They’d have to demonitize a good chunk of the entertainment industry.
For 700 years one of the central principles of British law has been that someone shouldn’t be punished without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.
It’s scary how many people are willing to throw that out the window and behave like medieval peasants lynching witches.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.
If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?
Bullshit. If they wanted to cut ties and protect their image, they could block the channel and wash their hands.
This here is pure profiteering.
I agree to an extent, however the reason behind Google cancelling his ads is almost certainly not because Google doesn’t want to monetize as much content as humanly possible, but because they expect or know that their advertisers don’t want their ads next to an alleged (and possibly convicted in the future) rapist / sexual predator.
Google used to be incredibly hands-off about these things, only terminating someone if they were actually convicted in a court of law.
Compare the cases of Austin Jones (who didn’t have his YouTube channel terminated until he was actually convicted of distributing child porn and sentenced to ten years in prison) and EDP445 (who was caught in a pedophile hunter sting operation and was immediately terminated from all social media.)
Google again pretending to be the moral police. Based on accusations of something that might or might not have happened 20 years ago. Apparently they don’t have a problem with him being on their platform or showing ads on his videos though, they just want to save some money and look like they’re doing the right thing (they are not).
Can’t wait for a future where multibillion dollar corporations decide what’s right and wrong and also who is and isn’t guilty.
Just a reminder that there are a far more allegations against Trump, and Trump has been found liable for rape, and yet Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Even if I find this appealing, I wonder why you need to do this whataboutism.
I think it’s important to point it out. The other rapist is exalted when he should be getting shut down too.
Imagine hating someone so much you bring him into any convo you enter. We get it bro, orange man bad, last I heard he is in jail or something. now shut up!
I can’t stand Trump but I also can’t stand people who don’t shut up about him either, some people make talking about Trump part of their personality and it’s on both sides… but in this case the way the person framed their comment makes sense
Great, now demonitize the catholic church while you’re at it.
Just spray Dennis Prager with a can of RAID so the fucker’ll skitter back to whatever dark corner of the universe he crawled out of.
Actually permetherins (the class powerful general purpose insecticides found in RAID) don’t have much of an effect on lizards 🤷
Is it against YT TOS or did they take the liberty with this decision
Second, as much as I have always found him sketchy and a very irritating person, I am very alarmed by the erosion of people’s right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. even when I know that he is quite capable of the committing those allegation
A platform can choose themselves who they extend the platform to.
It may not be justice, but if Youtube decides to demonetise every video featuring red sweaters, then they have the liberty to do so.
That’s too much power for a monopoly to have. And YouTube is quite close to a monopoly.
Maybe “more fool you” but entire livelihoods and businesses rely on YouTube not cutting them off at any random moment with no notice or warning.
That’s why it’s so important to just build your own website and to stop being dependent on other people for anything you have.
YouTube sucks, but it’s not a monopoly. It’s nowhere close to one. Monopolies are not “there’s only one product.” People love spouting monopoly to every mainstream product like iPhone and Windows.
YouTube has plenty of competition in video hosting. There’s more professional high cost ones like Netflix. Less giving but just as easily accessible is TikTok. Hell there’s even PornHub.
Just because YouTube has a unique combination of services that has allowed self employment for many people that can’t get it easily on existing sites does not mean that competition does not exist. Many content creators on YouTube actually advertise a competing site on YouTube.
Before we can start offering solutions we need to have a good understanding on what the problem is and what it isn’t.
But YouTube doesn’t have a monopoly, you’re more than welcome to start up a competing video hosting site and steal their customers. YouTube is providing a platform, for people to upload and store their videos for free – they have every right to decide who they do and don’t want on their platform.
It’s simple, just don’t do something that will get you banned fifteen years later when the winds change direction. Sure, red sweaters were cool back then, but now they mean something wildly different. We’ll give you three strikes for three videos with one second of a red sweater. And you’re deleted for so many strikes. Thanks, bu-bye.
YT is a private company supplying a server. They can set their own policy (TOS which is neither enforceable by law for either side) and they don’t actually owe anyone their livelihood. It’s like getting kicked off of any platform,even Etsy. Etsy doesn’t then owe you money that you could have made. You don’t own potential money. It’s not promised to you. They are a platform. Not your distributor. And even at that you can be kicked from a distributor anytime as they can also have policies on content they will associate with. If they decide it’s disagreeable, that in itself is a breach of contract.
I don’t think the debate is whether YouTube is allowed to choose who is or isn’t on their site, but whether it is OK to subject someone to the result of a trial by social media.
If someone made an accusation against you, would you think it’d be right of your employer to sack you, or would you like the chance to defend yourself legally first?
Yeah, I don’t know anything about this guy but this is an alarming decision if the headline is accurate.
