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.

  • @erranto
    link
    English
    521 year ago

    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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      261 year ago

      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.

      • @sugartits
        link
        English
        211 year ago

        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_One_Demon
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          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.

        • @Smoogs
          link
          English
          -51 year ago

          Don’t want the risk of culpability ? Don’t want to consider others? Feel entitled? Then go Create your own distribution.

        • @Stabbitha
          link
          English
          -81 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            91 year ago

            Due to network effects, YouTube has a monopoly in video hosting. A monopoly is any company which has significantly more marketshare in its respective niche than all other companies in the same niche.

            Now, does YouTube fit this definition?

            Btw, there have been successful lawsuits against channel suspensions already from people making a living off of YouTube due to worker protection laws.

        • @PopcornTin
          link
          English
          -8
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      YouTube doesn’t need to presume shit. You’re confusing YouTube with the US government.

    • @Smoogs
      link
      English
      91 year ago

      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.

      • XIIIesq
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        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?

        • @Smoogs
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          he’s not EMPLOYED by YouTube. That is not what this is.

    • @nucleative
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      Yeah, I don’t know anything about this guy but this is an alarming decision if the headline is accurate.

      • XIIIesq
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        I really hope no one falsely accuses you of a sex crime, because you’ve just made your bed.

      • @erranto
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        if it were Keanu Reeves, He would get the Pretty privilege