Asklemmy

43757 readers

2316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Russell Brand allegations question from non American (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by El_Dorado@beehaw.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was reading about the allegations against Russell Brand and couldn't help but wonder how it works legally that his revenue can be blocked based on allegations and before any juridical ruling.

Don't get me wrong I don't know much about the guy and what he did or didn't do and agree that anyone should be punished according to their crimes.

But how is this possible with the principal of innocent until proven guilty? I'd be happy if someone could explain me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for the clarification. Odd that the "unintentional" outcome of this policy is that Google get to keep the cash.

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's the important distinction. It's not a black hole. The money isn't gone. Google keeps the money.

Scary that it's in their best interest to either let monsters grow a following, then demonetize them, and reap the reward, or occasionally whip up a controversy to steal from a popular creator.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

Scary that it’s in their best interest to either let monsters grow a following, then demonetize them, and reap the reward, or occasionally whip up a controversy to steal from a popular creator.

That seems to be the current social media MO. I am sure it started out with utopian, egalitarian intentions (with YouTube, I remember, back in the day when you had to sift through a smorgasbord of codecs to find the right one to play a video) but the standard operating procedure is promoting extreme content because it drives engagement, then going "ah shucks, we didn't know" which is enough to keep most regulatory bodies from escalating. The fact that this content is still making money, even if it is demonetised is the cherry on top. Every way they win and we don't.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's much more lucrative to have a creator continue to make content and bring in ad revenue than to shut them down and keep what their current offerings bring in.

Why would I steal a million from you and shut you down when you bring in a million a month for me? All I would need to do to make up that money is to wait for you to put out more content.