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

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

    Do you know if they still monetize those videos and just don’t send his share anymore or they are completely demonetized?

    • FMT99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just a sample size of 1 but when I just loaded his videos (for the first time ever) they showed no ads.

    • smeg@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess you could watch the videos without an adblocker and see if any ads show up

        • livus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @calavera totally.

          I was looking for a traveling exhibition from the Tate Modern art gallery and the algorithm thought that meant I should like Andrew Tate.

          That was weeks ago and my recs are still a bit cursed. Hate to think how bad it would get if we actually watch on purpose.