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.

  • jetA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    Agreed. Except back pay. I believe when they’ve suspended your monetization, that money is gone. Black hole. There’s no backfill. I haven’t heard of it in any example

      • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months 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.