this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
396 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
59086 readers
3755 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you ever get accused of a crime, your whole life should be cancelled as a precautionary measure /s
Another way this could be phrased is - Following serious allegations of rape and sexual assaults advertiser's do not wish to be associated with Russell Brand so YouTube stops showing their adverts on his channel
But why can't those advertisers just block him as an individual?
We are now in a world where accusations now result in a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
No need for YouTube to blanketly make the decisions for all advertisers
This is how advertising works. Advertisers do not want to be responsible for vetting every placement, part of what the publisher is being paid for in "run-of-site" / "run-of-network" advertising is curation of ad-adjacent content.
There's a difference between accusations and a four year media investigation. Especially UK media that has to adhere to pretty strict libel laws. They've had to make sure they have the receipts and proof for the papers legal team to sign off on the story. This isn't like Zoe Quinn chucking out some accusations on Twitter and ending up with a bloke topping himself. Also if you remember, Depp lost his lible case in the UK.
There's nothing stopping him getting his own advertising on his channel, he hasn't been banned from YouTube.
Why does Google have to restrict which form of advertising he needs to use?
By confining him to certain types of advertising, it makes him less appealing to advertisers.
What if these accusations end up being false? I'm not losing sleep over Russell Brand losing money but if we hold the same logic it could damage smaller entities that can't afford it.
We see this with channels like the Armchair historian. Google demonitized that channel just because they had Nazi flags in a historical context when talking about WWII.
Another case could be made for anyone who wants to defame another individual. If someone doesn't like management for a local restaurant that advertises on YouTube, someone can just say "I heard from several people you had rats in your restaurant" or "I heard you had racist employees in your restaurant". We now live in a world where just the allegation is enough to damage an entity, regardless of if it is based in fact.
In this instance it isn't just an allegation though - one of the women has evidence she went to a rape crisis centre on the same day, which Channel 4 was able to confirm with the centre, and text messages from Brand on the same day where he apologised for his rape.
Why would Google continue to profit from his actions? That would be mental.
We only saw this with Amber Heard. Speaking of simping, Depp had an army of incels and "men's rights" douchers behind him from the get go. Anyone who had any objective comments about that whole case would get chewed out and brigaded by a bunch of insecure woman beaters standing up for poor little Johnny Depp. The worst was how everyone acted like they knew both of their lives inside and out, and they really believed that they were experts on their situation because they watched livestreamed court proceedings. It is a great example, just in the opposite direction.
Just watched a documentary about it which made Depp look pretty bad. I still believe he was more of a victim than her.
Why in the fuck do you people think you can ignore the recording of her taunting him about how no one would believe him and then what a FUCKING PUSSY she kept calling him? The evidence she's a huge piece of shit is there. Him too to a degree, but she's at another level. He lost part of his finger. Can't fake that shit.
It's a bit more than an accusation, it's a four year investigation by several media outlets signed off by their legal department. Not someone on twitter.
The thing is, he isn't cancelled.
Nobody who can say they are cancelled actually are cancelled, because if they were actually cancelled you wouldn't hear anything from then.
Anyway, he still is allowed to post Youtube videos, just doesn't get money from Google for them.
"nobody who can say they were cancelled actually are cancelled" don't you think that means you should redefine what "cancelled" means in your head?
Russell Brand is a wealthy, famous Hollywood star who does not know who you are and will never give you the love you needed from your father.
You have allowed yourself to become so cynical that the only reason you can conceive of for speaking up in another person's defense is that it might be part of some psychological complex from childhood.
Give me another reason to stand up for a famous hollywood star you know nothing real about, just a carefully and expensively crafted media persona.
I'm all for a good discussion around the social implications of false accusations, but there's an exceptional amounting of simping going on for one specific special boy.
Aside from false accusations - how about tech monopolies (only beholden to profits/shareholders) being judge, jury and executioner?
I think Brand is a narcissistic prick, but that doesn't mean I don't care how he's treated by even bigger evils.
Yes, Brand has been executed by having his YouTube account demonetized. There's no difference between not being paid by YouTube, but still being allowed to post videos, and being convicted of a crime. No difference whatsoever.
I stopped reading at the insult. This is not Reddit. If you can't talk to me without insulting me, I'm not interested. I'll just block you if it happens again. If you want to talk to me without the insults, fine.
My bad. I assumed you were trolling. If you honestly didn't know what executioner referred to in that context, I sincerely apologise.
I was being sarcastic about it, but I don't think that warranted an insult. I'm just saying people shouldn't be worked up just because he isn't being paid anymore. He can still post videos. He hasn't been banned. He's also filthy rich, so this won't really affect him. Sure, Google is doing it based on accusations (with good evidence), not a conviction, but it's taking the most minor of actions that I would hardly call draconian overreach.
Unless people think he deserves to be paid by Google, which I sure don't since I don't think anyone deserves that, there shouldn't be an issue here.
Ahhh, so you were trolling then. Then I rest my case.
Sarcasm is not trolling. What nonsense.
I agree that capitalism is bad.
But since we live in a capitalist country, I do my part as an informed consumer and I don't use Google products.
But this particular brand of whining about "big tech" is so stupid. Google risks losing advertisers. Google acts to not lose it's advertisers. Cry a river that in a capitalist economy a business takes action to protect its income source.
He helped save Sarah Marshall, that has to count for something