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

  • Kichae@kbin.social
    311·
    1 年前

    without any convictions or similar

    Even with a conviction, seems to me like it’s a question of hosting him or not. Demonitising him is Google trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

    • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      101·
      1 年前

      Demonetize means they don’t show ads on his channel at all. So they aren’t making money off of him.

      And it’s a smart move by them, because whether or not he’s guilty, no corporation is gonna be happy if Google displays their ads on his content right now. The court of public opinion is the only court that matters to marketing departments.