I was reading about the allegations against Russell Brand and couldn’t help but wonder how it works legally that his revenue can be blocked based on allegations and before any juridical ruling.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t know much about the guy and what he did or didn’t do and agree that anyone should be punished according to their crimes.
But how is this possible with the principal of innocent until proven guilty? I’d be happy if someone could explain me.
Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal philosophy in the US court system.
Companies, and social media operate at the social level. Reputation and impressions matter. Companies are not bound by the same rules of conduct that courts are.
It’s unfortunate that the internet likes to have a character to hate, and fully engages in the hate machine when somebody is served up. Sometimes the target of the 3 minutes hate is innocent, and they just suffer even if their name is cleared. The damage is done.
Wouldn’t he just be able to sue them then?
The overwhelming majority of big companies include a morality clause in their sponsorship contracts that allows them to terminate deals with endorsers based on public sentiment.
They can usually terminate the agreement at any time for any reason
You can sue anybody for anything. So sure, do they have actionable grounds? No.
In private commerce there is no compunction for people to do business with you.
It becomes different if we talk about utilities, power water internet.
Ok I see
Let’s do a fun thought experiment.
Let’s say I open a gas station chain called " fuck Ted ".
If anybody with Ted on their credit card tried to fill up the tank it would just deny it. They go inside to talk to the cashier, and they saw the name was Ted they would say fuck you Ted and refuse to sell them anything.
A real fuck you in particular contender.
I think this would be a totally legal business. It’s not discriminating any protected class. Sucks to be Ted
In America, you have no rights as a worker. Get caught or alleged to have done something unethical? You will be fired long before charges are filed or a conviction, if those things ever happen.
In the same way, YouTube isn’t legally obligated to do business with people who a) are unpopular or b) otherwise misalign with whatever they think their brand is.
YouTube is not the government. They have no obligation to host him or anyone else, regardless of presumption of innocence. That’s a court thing, they have to presume innocence. No private company does though.
Further, he is not an employee of YouTube or Google. So they have no employer-employee relationship and his video monetization bears no connection with employment law.
It’s about ads. The great thing about putting videos on YouTube is that Google does the work of selling ad slots for you, the not-so-great thing is that because those advertisers are actually Google’s customers, if they think they might be upset to see their ad running in your video, they’ll err on the side of pulling it.
But I daresay if Russell Brand had advertisers working with him directly, most of them would also be suspending their relationships with him right now; nobody wants anything to do with this sort of allegation.
“Innocent until proven guilty” very specifically applies to punishment by the courts and government (which would be UK courts in this case). Everyone else can still think he’s a sleazebag and want nothing to do with him without knowing exactly which crimes he may have committed.
I could absolutely be fired by my employer for harassing colleagues in a way that wouldn’t be outright illegal. Same here for streaming companies, traditional TV production companies, etc not wanting to work with him.
Do you live in a country where the government would put a gun to YouTube’s head and say 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP BROADCASTING THIS MAN’S CHANNEL, PUT ADS ON IT, AND SHARE THE AD REVENUE WITH HIM, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME"?
That seems weird.
Depends on the contract between that man and YouTube. Most countries are strong in enforcing contract terms.
The idea that Google would give anyone a contract that says something other than “we’ll fuck you if we feel like it.” Hahahaha.
True, but that comment was still badly conceived. Because pretty much all countries would absolutely crack down on a platform, should there be a contract that states that there must be a conviction, and no morality clause. This can absolutely legally be in a contract.
deleted by creator
YouTube can do whatever the fuck they want on their network. Full stop.
IDGAF this idiot is scamming people with his antivax, pro Russian bs he can eat a bag of dicks and take a dive into the sun.
First they came for the dickbags, and I said nothing…
Google is a privately owned company. Brand could try to sue, but he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
This is the key bit:
A spokesperson for YouTube said: “We have suspended monetisation on Russell Brand’s channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.”
Somewhere in all the T&Cs you skim through is this clause - you break it, they withhold your money. If you are cleared, I assume they open the taps again and give you the money you would have earned.
Agreed. Except back pay. I believe when they’ve suspended your monetization, that money is gone. Black hole. There’s no backfill. I haven’t heard of it in any example
Thanks for the clarification. Odd that the “unintentional” outcome of this policy is that Google get to keep the cash.
That’s the important distinction. It’s not a black hole. The money isn’t gone. Google keeps the money.
Scary that it’s in their best interest to either let monsters grow a following, then demonetize them, and reap the reward, or occasionally whip up a controversy to steal from a popular creator.
Scary that it’s in their best interest to either let monsters grow a following, then demonetize them, and reap the reward, or occasionally whip up a controversy to steal from a popular creator.
That seems to be the current social media MO. I am sure it started out with utopian, egalitarian intentions (with YouTube, I remember, back in the day when you had to sift through a smorgasbord of codecs to find the right one to play a video) but the standard operating procedure is promoting extreme content because it drives engagement, then going “ah shucks, we didn’t know” which is enough to keep most regulatory bodies from escalating. The fact that this content is still making money, even if it is demonetised is the cherry on top. Every way they win and we don’t.
It’s much more lucrative to have a creator continue to make content and bring in ad revenue than to shut them down and keep what their current offerings bring in.
Why would I steal a million from you and shut you down when you bring in a million a month for me? All I would need to do to make up that money is to wait for you to put out more content.
In the case of youtube, there are 2 ways you getting paid can be paused. In the case of, for instance, a copyright claim, your video will either be taken down completely or, if left up, will typically still be monetized with the money going into escrow until the copyright claim is resolved, with the winning party getting paid. The 2nd kind is this kind, where they deem your video isn’t monetizable. Likely they think their advertisers would be upset to have their advertisers next to you or your content. In this case they just don’t run any adds at all, so there is no money for you to be given if the monetization is resumed.
Thanks for the clarification. 👍
It’s a private company, it can choose which third party content suppliers to do business with.
Is that not the case where you live?
Google is a private company that can choose who to do business with. By signing up to use the platform, you have to agree to their terms of service which state that they can decide to stop doing business with you at any time for any reason they deem. In this case, they chose to stop doing business with him by demonetizing his videos due to the allegations against him. He’s free to sue them, but that’s a battle that will be hard fought and could take years.
Does “de-monetization” simply mean Google isn’t paying him, or that they’re removing all ads (and revenue for themselves) from his videos?
I think it means they’re just not paying him. I believe they still play ads on demonetized videos.
There is a difference if the creator demonetizes a video, which I believe removes the ads.
For smaller channels that haven’t reached the threshold of monetization, they still have ads on their videos.
I’m including pre-roll ads in my calculation here.
So basically Google is “taking a stand” by increasing the amount of money they make off of his content, lol.
Yep that’s the one.
Both.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
YouTube has suspended Russell Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform following allegations of rape and sexual assault in a massive hit to his finances.
The video-sharing and social media site said it had suspended Brand’s channel from the YouTube partner programme after serious allegations against him, meaning his videos are no longer able to be monetised on the platform.
The 48-year-old comedian and actor has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame working for the BBC, Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films.
Suspending Brand’s ability to earn money from his YouTube channel is a major blow to the comedian’s finances.
YouTube pays creators a cut of the money it earns from showing adverts next to their videos, which can be a highly lucrative business.
A spokesperson for YouTube said: “We have suspended monetisation on Russell Brand’s channel for violating our creator responsibility policy.
The original article contains 600 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
