399
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
399 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
58133 readers
4079 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
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 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.