Russell Brand: YouTube suspends star's channels from making money from adverts
www.bbc.co.uk
The comedian and actor is accused of historical rape and sexual assaults, which he denies.

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

  • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
    11·
    1 year ago

    I guarantee that if YouTube were treated legally as an employer, Youtube would shut down. It’s not an employer. It’s a free video hosting platform that shares some of the revenue that it makes. The fact that people treat it as an employer is the problem. There is nothing to stop Brand or anyone else, using sponsorship or other paid promotion if they would like to monetise their videos. They just can’t rely on Youtube’s advertising machine.