United Kingdom

4083 readers

330 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

[–] Rambi@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right I should have worded that better, so apologies for being rude. I just think they demonotised him because it's actually pretty clear he is guilty (even if it is just to protect themselves) and your post was kind of adding to the narrative that it's just a witch hunt when demonotised videos don't even have the ads anyway.

But I understand you were just making a point about private companies having too much power over the livelihoods of creators etc which I agree with. I'm sure you didn't have ill intent so like I say I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.

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

Thanks, I'm so used to super-angry replies on any slightly contentious internet discussion that I probably got the wrong sentiment from your message! I definitely don't want to be misleading anyone and I'm happy to have discovered that I was wrong about that particular bit.

[–] Rambi@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think think you even got the wrong sentiment I was definitely being rude lol. I think l was just in a bad mood and interpreted your post uncharitably but when I read your comments on the post later I saw you didn't have any ill intentions and felt bad for jumping to conclusions. Glad this exchange ended on good terms any way.

[–] smeg 2 points 1 year ago

I'm glad too, I don't think it was ever this civil on Reddit!