De-tubing

[northernladuk]

YouTube have their own terms and conditions which every content creator accepts when they sign up with them. He breached those so they turned around and said you can't make money of your content. They haven't taken his content down which they can do in other situations.
.

This is true but it would be interesting to know what he's breached. He's not been legally charged with anything, just all the accusations. I assume the terms have some wooly term is like 'actions that would bring harm, distress or reputational damage to youtube' or something that would allow them to pull it just based on the anger and upset of some people.

EDIT:-

Ah
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youtube...t-allegations/

"If creators have off-platform behavior, or there's off-platform news that could be damaging to the broader creator ecosystem, you can be suspended from our monetization program,

Goes on to talk about sparking a debate about the policies which is totally understandable. If it was damaging the broader creator ecosystem should they not take his account down, not just stop his revenues?

That said, as you say, at the end of the day it's YouTube's call whether anyone else thinks it's right or wrong.

[vetran]

One assumes if the allegations are unfounded (might be possible) he can sue them for loss of earnings/breach of contract?

If his content hasn't been taken down then where is the money going?

[JustKeepSwimming]

One assumes if the allegations are unfounded (might be possible) he can sue them for loss of earnings/breach of contract?

If his content hasn't been taken down then where is the money going?

Youtube just doesn't run ads (or they run cheap limited ads from advertisers who don't really care). It's not some kind of punishment, it's to prevent cascade effect of advertisers withdrawing from youtube because their brand is being associated with something they don't like. In 2017 there was a widescale advertiser boycott against youtube which made them tighten up.

Funny enough, several big companies have pulled their adverts from Rumble because they don't want to be associated with all this.

What youtube has done is absolutely in line with their current attitude/policy on demonetisation, including allegations/defence of criminality which don't have the political scope as Brand's.

[northernladuk]

One assumes if the allegations are unfounded (might be possible) he can sue them for loss of earnings/breach of contract?

I suspect the wording of the terms are so wooly they can use any reason they want to remove the ads so any action is unlikely to work.

If his content hasn't been taken down then where is the money going?

They've turned off adverts to no money being generated.

I just don't understand how stopping his revenue actually fixes anything. Just a principle thing.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I just don't understand how stopping his revenue actually fixes anything. Just a principle thing.

You don't see why advertisers don't want to be associated with Brand?

You don't see why Youtube would act to please advertisers?

You don't see why an MP (or many others) don't like the idea of Brand profiting from even accusations of a crime? Even if he is innocent, the whole 'Deep state is out to get me' is damaging to society.

[SueEllen]

I just don't understand how stopping his revenue actually fixes anything. Just a principle thing.

Yes to protect their greater ecosystem.

They will also hide his stuff through their algorithm so unless you subscribe you won't accidentality come across it. Rememberthey share advertising revenue with the content creators.

You are aware if TikTok don't like a creators content they use their algorithm to hide it?

Basically all social media sites have ways of hiding content so unless you have a habit of live streaming on their platform, they don't need to ban you from it.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Also ad revenue is generally a minority of a creators income. Especially someone like Brand who will routinely have videos demonistised, like the anti-vax 'discussions'.

[vetran]

You don't see why advertisers don't want to be associated with Brand?

You don't see why Youtube would act to please advertisers?

You don't see why an MP (or many others) don't like the idea of Brand profiting from even accusations of a crime? Even if he is innocent, the whole 'Deep state is out to get me' is damaging to society.

Well after the debanking scandal one does wonder. Don't forget the thousands of Police officers who should have been sacked years ago, the babies killed and died because of incompetence and the government workers that spend their time zipping themselves up in bags alone or slitting their wrists in the woods. We should question such things as our government has been caught with dirty hands repeatedly.

I dislike Brand with a passion but cannot really support him being treated unreasonably. Though covering his groin in honey and burying him a fire ant colony looks pretty reasonable to me.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Well after the debanking scandal one does wonder. Don't forget the thousands of Police officers who should have been sacked years ago, the babies killed and died because of incompetence and the government workers that spend their time zipping themselves up in bags alone or slitting their wrists in the woods. We should question such things as our government has been caught with dirty hands repeatedly.

I dislike Brand with a passion but cannot really support him being treated unreasonably. Though covering his groin in honey and burying him a fire ant colony looks pretty reasonable to me.

There was no debanking scandal. There was a grifter grifting.

Everyone knows Big Pharma is a thing, everyone knows that politicians are more often than not varying degrees of corrupt. Everyone knows that Governments engage in shady tulip in the name of national security.

That's not the same as 'There is microchips in vaccines!!!'

[vetran]

There was no debanking scandal. There was a grifter grifting.

Everyone knows Big Pharma is a thing, everyone knows that politicians are more often than not varying degrees of corrupt. Everyone knows that Governments engage in shady tulip in the name of national security.

That's not the same as 'There is microchips in vaccines!!!'

which of these Muslims was grifting?

https://www.newarab.com/news/explain...being-targeted

ooh that Gina Miller is a bit dodgy

https://www.theguardian.com/business...unts-every-day


who mentioned vaccines oh yes you...