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?
I found a page of other unfair practices that google is using to steal our cash: https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements
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.
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.
It's not "saving" their customers (advertisers). It's denying wages to the producer.
I can't see it as anything other than virtue signaling, coupled with a profit.
It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.
Russell Brand has 1.4 million followers on Rumble
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.
But he can private the videos at anytime. Even unlisting it would remove all ads while allowing people to find the videos (via links).
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.
Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face doesn't seem to be a canny strategy here (or anywhere?)
Please link to any example of one of Brand's youtube videos that is still running ads
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.
1. https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxUtzzTeakkcWlZp531K_jZ6JGWUSKbU7...
"“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."
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/how-russell-...