YouTube suspends monetisation of Russell Brand's channel
YouTube suspends monetisation of Russell Brand's channel
The comedian and actor is accused of historical rape and sexual assaults, which he denies.
Or in other words "Megacorp reminds you that it can and will decide to pocket cut your income based on the court of public opinion".
This is not a discussion about the allegations against him, this is about the fact that Google have decided to pocket the income they would otherwise be giving him (not taking down the videos, oh no, they're probably bringing in even more ad revenue now!) without any convictions or similar. Not that Google is an employer (I'm sure they consider payments they make to video uploaders to be some kind of generous untaxable gift), but should an employer have the power to take away a source of income based on allegations, no matter how heinous?
Edit: seems they're actually not putting ads on his videos at all now, which was a surprise to me
without any convictions or similar
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.
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.
My thoughts exactly
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 a 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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
And a Youtuber can pull their content that they've already made down whenever they want. Like, either YouTube or Brand can, at any point and for any reason, terminate the relationship.
Also, YouTube doesn't get any exclusivity. Brand can put his shows on YouTube and Vimeo and OnlyFans and as many other services as he wants. The only Youtuber that I've followed much, a guy that drives around the US in an RV with his cat, puts some stuff up on Patreon, some on YouTube (and sells some merch). He puts as much content/time or as little on any platform as he wants. Maybe he never uploads anything to YouTube again, maybe he puts a lot up in a given month.
Do you know if they still monetize those videos and just don't send his share anymore or they are completely demonetized?
This is not a discussion about the allegations against him
based on the court of public opinion
without any convictions or similar
Idk, seems like you’ve already started the discussion in your post
Maybe bad phrasing on my part. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, even if he's looking pretty guilty. I didn't want to duplicate chat that already happened on the other articles posted, I wanted to chat about the power that Google apparently has here.
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 (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/08/21/2148215/dad-photographs-son-for-doctor-google-flags-him-as-criminal-notifies-police). 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.
If they're not displaying ads at all now then I guess that's slightly better than I initially assumed, thanks for the clarification
I've never forgiven that arsehole for what he did to Andrew Sachs.
TBF that was as much Jonathon Ross's fault and the broadcaster'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.
It's pretty BS that your life can be completely destroyed from false allegations. I'm not saying that the allegations against him are false, but he has already suffered all of the social fallout, regardless of guilt. What if it comes back that he's not guilty and the whole thing is a hit job? Or was an extortion scheme he wouldn't participate with? Again, I'm not saying it is or isn't. What I'm saying is that people and society judge others based on the accusations against them, not the facts. Since we know this to be true, it might be prudent to prevent publication of accusations before conviction. I'm not sure, because I'm not an expert and haven't given it much thought. I just know that the way society responds now is reactive and potentially devastating for people who are actually innocent.
If you're a woman working in the media right now, it would be useful to know this so that you can avoid any one-to-one meetings with him. Holding this information back could be putting people in real danger.
Lol, if its the will of the people then banana peels it is! Sadly I've never experienced such schadenfreude but I've been hanging out at the fruit market recently so hopefully not long now.
Seriously though, the point of my original statement was that there are already multiple other threads talking about the actual allegations and I didn't want to duplicate.
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!
Russell and Youtube have been making a FORTUNE off of his misinformation and concern trolling arguments riding the algorithm.
Plot 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?