Comment on 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

erranto@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • sugartits@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • Stabbitha@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨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.

        source
    • PopcornTin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s simple, just don’t do something that will get you banned fifteen years later when the winds change direction.

      source

      • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You just compared clothing choice to rape. Seek therapy.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • SoBoredAtWork@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Right. “just build your own YouTube” is the solution. 👍

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
    • That_One_Demon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨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.

      source
• Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • 13esq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨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?

    source

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
• prole@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source
• nucleative@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source

  • pineapplepizza@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s more alarming if he is innocent

    source
• Mdotaut801@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Mm…I don’t think that’s usually the case with all allegations of this nature. You may be partially right but I think people are all over this one because of how “sketchy” he is in the first place. If someone like let’s say…Keanu Reeves is accused of something like this, everyone would probably side with Keanu because of who he is and who he always has been.

  source

  • 13esq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
  • erranto@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source