United Kingdom

4041 readers

290 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

127

YouTube suspends monetisation of Russell Brand's channel (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by smeg to c/unitedkingdom

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Alphabets in a catch 22. Either they demonetize it and become the villain, or keep them monetization up and become the villain.

I'm sure their creator click through contract says something about moral turpitude and character. So they can rely on that.

I look forward to the EU saying that if you monetize users content you owe them legally a percentage of the income. Anything else is just contract law

Btw https://russellbrand.store/ which is linked directly from https://www.russellbrand.com/ , has put his gift store under review. So it's not just YouTube.

[–] smeg 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they wanted to do something slightly less greedy they could remove or disable the videos instead of (presumably) still profiting off them, though you could argue that that could be even more of an overreach.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It'd be worse from a public participation perspective. But it would be more consistent. Either this person is so evil that you can't do any business with them, or they're not.

Personally I'm against all deplatforming, but YouTube being wishy-washy is annoying

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

clearly the solution is 50% monetization

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 8 points 1 year ago

Or divert the monetization that would have gone to the original creator, whose currently unpopular, and donate it to a charity in their name. Clean hand syndrome