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

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        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

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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