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::YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.

  • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    168
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn’t be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well I’m sure Google will be donating the money to sexual assault non profits rather than pocketing the profits right?

      Right?

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Most corporations would suspend his account completely for damage control.

          They’re suspending his income. That’s theft.

          I made a joke comment, well since they’re taking his money, I’m sure it’s going to victims. Right?

          And you come along and point out that, in your belief, all corporations steal revenue from their content providers when they get accused of a crime. Show me one other platform that’s done this. Suspended revenue (i.e. stealing revenue) prior to conviction rather than canceling content.

          Note the BBC cancelled him. Google is still making money off an accused rapist. In fact, more. Because said rapist isn’t getting a cut.

    • Methylchloroisothiazolinone@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you allow corporations to operate as lawless autocracies that are above the law they tend to do what ever they damn well please. Maybe we should have regulated the internet as the utility that it is rather than gift it to billionaires.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Has he been banned from using the Internet? No? Then you’re spewing bullshit. YouTube doesn’t have to host his content and advertisers don’t need to pay him for it. He isn’t entitled to shit. He can fuck off to some right-wing hellscape of a site that will platform him. That’s capitalism baby!

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        FYI, even if ISP’s were absorbed the the government and made into a utility as you suggest, Google would still own YouTube and still be able to demonetize whoever it wants.

        I’m not sure why this thread is such a swarm of brainless zero IQ takes.

        • Fantomas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again. Not a rapist until proven so in a court. And yes, I understand the difficulty in proving it and I believe him to be guilty, but not a rapist until proven so.

          I know there is a huge failing by the courts with these types of cases but we must avoid trial by media at all costs.

        • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As long as the content itself is legal, why shouldn’t they?

          Where do you draw the line? Rapist, Alleged rapist, Murderer, someone who committed assault, fraud? They’d have to demonitize a good chunk of the entertainment industry.

    • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

      If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

      • Slotos@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bullshit. If they wanted to cut ties and protect their image, they could block the channel and wash their hands.

        This here is pure profiteering.

    • OscarRobin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree to an extent, however the reason behind Google cancelling his ads is almost certainly not because Google doesn’t want to monetize as much content as humanly possible, but because they expect or know that their advertisers don’t want their ads next to an alleged (and possibly convicted in the future) rapist / sexual predator.

    • Clbull@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Google used to be incredibly hands-off about these things, only terminating someone if they were actually convicted in a court of law.

      Compare the cases of Austin Jones (who didn’t have his YouTube channel terminated until he was actually convicted of distributing child porn and sentenced to ten years in prison) and EDP445 (who was caught in a pedophile hunter sting operation and was immediately terminated from all social media.)

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one should see YT as a “livelyhood” as no one has a contract with them guaranteing income.