When you allow corporations to operate as lawless autocracies that are above the law they tend to do what ever they damn well please. Maybe we should have regulated the internet as the utility that it is rather than gift it to billionaires.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn’t be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.
LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Get out of here with your critical thinking!!!
Shakes fist
GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 1 year ago
Reddit-ass post
sizzler@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Well at least we’ve learnt the all important hyphen eh?
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
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!
FaeDrifter@midwest.social 1 year ago
FYI, even if ISP’s were absorbed the the government and made into a utility as you suggest, Google would still own YouTube and still be able to demonetize whoever it wants.
I’m not sure why this thread is such a swarm of brainless zero IQ takes.
thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
[deleted]Fantomas@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 year ago
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.
refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Add communist to the list. Happened before, and history tends to repeat itself.
GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 1 year ago
Actually YouTube should be exclusively rapist-produced.
LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Hells nah. Theres two villains in this story
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 year ago
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.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yep. I understand that it’s hard to prosecute rape, but without rule of law we’re fucked.
WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Who’s throwing him in prison? He’s isn’t facing any legal consequences as a result of this news. He’s facing social consequences from organisations that no longer want to be associated with him. He’s free to being a libel case in the UK if he wants to clear his name, but instead he put up a video claiming “they’re” out to get him.
WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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?
Slotos@feddit.nl 1 year ago
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.
Lmaydev@programming.dev 1 year ago
Profiteering by a mega corporation, say it ain’t so!!
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
No one should see YT as a “livelyhood” as no one has a contract with them guaranteing income.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
YouTube is big business. Of course content makers should be able to rely on it for livelihood.
OscarRobin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
Clbull@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.)
EDP445
treefrog@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Well I’m sure Google will be donating the money to sexual assault non profits rather than pocketing the profits right?
Right?
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Do you know any corporation that would?
treefrog@lemm.ee 1 year ago
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.
Eldritch@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No, they aren’t. His videos aren’t being promoted or monotonized. Search and find some. Since they will not be getting promoted to you. You will see no advertisements directly before or during. Because they aren’t.