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

  • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or the people uploading should be aware of their precarious position and make sure to have back up revenue streams like patreon. Unless you have a contact with YT commiting them to provide you with a cut of profits, you’ve no leg to stand on. Not that Brand is in any danger of this bankrupting him.

    • smeg@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While this is true in a cut-throat business world, we’ve had regulation on issues like forcing Uber to treat their employees as employees. While this isn’t exactly the same it doesn’t seem like a huge leap to say well some people are starting to use this for an income, we the state should ensure it has similar protections to other forms of income. Well, that’s my thoughts on it, I’m no employment-law-speaker!

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uber isn’t regulated like that everywhere, we did it in the UK more because of how it was undermining minicab firms that did have to treat staff as employees.