United Kingdom

4083 readers

304 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

54 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

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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

[–] smeg 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Bill@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

"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?

load more comments (1 replies)