I’m guessing the challenge is advertisers. Advertisers buy ad space next to or in video content. No advertiser wants to buy ad space that is adjacent to or makes it look like they are supporting someone under public scrutiny. So as Google, where you need to sell good ad space to paying advertisers, bother with running ads next to Russel Brand or just say no and make that clear to advertisers to build confidence?
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 year ago
It’s not the fucking job of YouTube to judge and punish. We have judges and the Criminal Code for that. We should not let us ruled by corporations!
Copernican@lemmy.world 1 year ago
SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 1 year ago
Oh my God shut up. No one has the right to force a private company to pay them money. YouTube can do any fucking thing they want
Seudo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It is their job to make profits. Literally. Theyre legally bound by stake holder agreement to maximise profits, absolutely nothing to do with the justice system or moral codes.
cooopsspace@infosec.pub 1 year ago
Agree, there’s actual rapists and incels on YouTube that need banning before an alleged rapist or SA.
and they might have tainted any jurors ifa case did come about.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
He isn’t banned though.
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
No, but as a private firm it is there decision what they host, promote and show adverts against. He has no contract with YT guaranteeing an income, thats not how it works. If he wants a guaranteed income he should get back on TV with a contact, but he Burt those bridges when he become a conspiracy grifter.
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yea I understand that, but so many content creators get thrown under the bus by YouTube, twitch, etc. that I think there should be a law protecting individuals from big cooperations that they are dependent on. I know, it’s different in America compared to where I live, here, if you have someone Working for you and you fire that person, depending how long this person works for you already, you have to pay salary for up to 3 months. (There are few reasons that allow cancellation of contract immediately) After you got fired, you can go to a place called “Arbeitslosenkasse” where you get 80% of salary going forward as long as you try to get a new job.
So maybe thats why I find it odd when YouTube just flick a switch upon obligations…
Btw. I don’t know that guy the post is about and highly doubt that he is innocent given the infos I have seen yet.
Lazylazycat@lemmy.world 1 year ago
We have the same laws in the UK, but he’s self-employed. Can you not be self-employed where you live?
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I mean its the same in the UK with employment protections, but YouTubers wouldn’t be covered by that as they’re not employees and don’t have contracts. Google don’t really have to share any revenue with uploaders as they’re already providing the infrastructure and storage for free.
No one should rely on that as income and just see it as a bonus, to other income streams.
Lmaydev@programming.dev 1 year ago
Advertisers won’t want to be shown on his videos while this is ongoing.
Keeping them happy is in fact literally their job.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Didn’t know Google was the one that sentenced him to jail.
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Not giving money is punishment
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
No, it is a consequence of having bad publicity.
Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah but they clearly feel there is enough smoke to be worried about a fire and are entitled to cut ties. It may be the case if they don’t that people take their impartial inaction to be supporting him. They have ethics and morality clauses in their TOS.
jagoan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s one thing if they actually stop running ads on his videos. I bet they crank more ads on them instead.