When a channel is demonetized does that mean YouTube doesn't run ads at all on the channel's content, or do they still run ads and just don't pay out the share to the creator?
Agree. One can only interpret this as ham-fisted virtue signaling by YouTube management and perhaps with staff support.
If they are continuing to host and serve the Brand videos, they are defacto saying, "content by this person doesn't hurt our platform in a material way, but we've decided this person is bad and we want to show ourselves punishing him." And the best part is they are tangibly rewarded in this by not having to pay the creator's share of the revenue. No matter what Brand may or may not be guilty of... continuing to stream his content without paying for it is despicable and immoral.
Properly thought about, moral judgement of what YouTube is doing is completely independent of anything Brand had done.
This is irrelevant as to how to morally judge Google's actions.
If someone finds a way into my home, steals some stuff, and then I block the path that they took to get in or had the ability to block that path: the thief is still culpable of a moral transgression against me. Even if I didn't take the action I could to prevent the thief from entering my home again and they did so and stole more: the thief is still willful committing a moral transgression against me. It may be unwise for me to not take preventative measures, but it doesn't change the correctness of judging the thief as a miscreant. The thief's willful act to steal is all that matters in judging them and the same holds for Google here (again, assuming they are continuing to stream and profit from Brand's content without compensating him).
To suggest otherwise is a different form of the old trope of the woman that gets raped, but dresses and acts suggestively is at fault. Her actions may not have been wise, but the moral (and criminal) judgment still goes against the perpetrator who acted willfully to commit the crime and it does so without regard to the woman's actions.
The ability to upload to YT is at YouTube's own discretion and thus their terms are imposed on that content. YouTube doesn't have to host his stuff if they don't want to, nor do they have to give them any money. Brand has the legal right to switch to a competing video platform.
I would put forward that a less morally dubious way for YT to handle this would be to pull ads, and send the creator a pay-for-hosting agreement that they're required to sign if they want to keep the content online.
I think it's more curious they're willing to at least imply moral imperative and say "this bad guy can't make money on our platform" but continue to distribute and profit off his content themselves. It's not immediately clear to me which is worse...
Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I have as expenditure for doing the work.
They didn't dispute that, they suggested a line of logic for the behaviour. It being a reply to your comment doesn't automatically mean it's an attempt to prove your comment wrong.
Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned?
Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent to allow all that has removed the ability from a user user to monetize his videos, but hasn't even silenced him.
I don't know if shutting down his channel and removing all the videos (which Google has a legal right to do) would be better.
> Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too?
Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
Monetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.
You're right, Youtube isn't forced to host the works of this horrid rule-breaker. They choose the position of platforming him and profiting off of him however.
Making the content isn't free either. If they don't like Russel Brand for whatever reason, they're free to deplatform him. Virtue signaling while lining your pockets is disingenuous.
Went to YouTube.coms Russel Brand page, clicked the shortest video, let it play.
After the video, ad played, then the next Russell Brand video.
Next video was longer and included marked ads throughout the video, clearly pausing the ad content and labeled with a pop-up.
Also, YouTube still has its pop up that say, "Video contains paid promotion," so they know he is profiting off the video and are still allowing it AND YouTube is profiting from ad between videos.
Overall, I'd say YES, they are still allowing ads, they probably just suspended payments for "In-video" YouTube 3rd parts ads, really only 1 of 4 ad types they are serving.
Both YouTube and Russel Brand continue to make money off ads on Russell Brands videos on YouTube.
I don't think this is quite right - as the other comments point out, Youtube will still play ads and they take 100% cut of the money. They have already announced that Brand is demonetized, so they will pay him 0% while taking 100% of the ad revenue for themselves.
Somethings that happen from I remember from other demonetised channels:
- no revenue share from YT
- no superchats (via YT)
- most of the ads are turned off due to brand deals with YT and risk of being associated with some banned channel
YouTube ads are a tiny % of revenue. Celebrities on YT make their money from brand deals, not ads. Remember "Adpocalypse" and the beginning of all this ultra clean PC talk online? Before all that, sure you could make a living from YT ads, but many channels don't even have them on because it's cents. For example I have over 50k views on some videos, but the ad revenue is nothing.
"“He is most likely making £2,000 to £4,000 per video, not taking into account any affiliate deals and brand sponsorships that might be running in the background,” she said.
Based on five videos a week, this could easily produce the best part of a £1m a year."
Glad to see you deleted your other reply that was just rude.
I'd agree with the other person (and even if I agreed with you, I'd still point out that your language and attitude are quite against the HN guidelines, which are worth reading: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )
I'd personally be surprised if Russel Brand had more than $1M/yr in sponsorship deals relating to his YouTube content, which would be 50/50 split between that and ads (I think likely to be more like 75/25 in favour of ads for him).
Yes for many celebrities, and even YouTube content creators, their sponsorships will be far more valuable than the platform's ads. But I doubt there are big-money deals lining up for the kind of conspiracy nonsense he puts out now days.
(And sure, Brand also makes money from work other than YouTube, but that's not relevant to the question of what % of money for YT content comes from YT ads vs. sponsors.)
"A tiny %" to me would be 1, maybe 2%. Do you really believe he's earning $100 mil a year? I read that his estimated worth is in the low 20 millions but I can't recall where I saw that.
No, but it is kind of a good point because it looks like they turned of youtubes "in-video" ads but he still has clearly marked paid promotions and "built in" ads/promotions he does like a podcast. So both Brand and YouTube are still making almost the same money right now even though they, "aren't monetizing".
The direct parent commenter (i.e. the person the comment responds to) cannot downvote. It just does not show a downvote button for them, only an upvote button. So the downvotes have to come from everyone else.
Benny, there are valid reasons to downvote for you first comment to say nothing about your replies. Your top level comment is now gray and that is not because of jahsome.
