YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management / income stream protection. Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service.
YouTube is a massive platform and inherently has power. People used the exact same argument for Twitter but I don’t think you can deny that arbitrary management choices made a huge difference in how it worked, which had substantial impacts that a private company shouldn’t have.
I continue to assert that the solution to this is not to regulate how an individual private company decides who to associate with (which is a core First Amendment right), but rather to pass strong anti-trust laws to prevent any one company from individually having enough power over society.
YouTube should be free to decide who can be on its platform however it sees fit. However, YouTube shouldn’t hold such power over us that when they arbitrarily ban someone it severely harms them.
Network effects mean that most internet platforms form natural monopolies, as a hypothetical scenario in which there are dozens of video websites with idiosyncratic communities, rules and technical constraints would add friction that most inhabitants of the current ecosystem would loathe. This arguably makes Youtube more similar to a public transportation service - imagine if New York's MTA having banned Russell Brand from using its services, and your proposed solution were that strong antitrust laws ought to have forced its deconsolidation and return to the '20s setup with the IRT, BRT and IND networks being separate, so a ban from just one of the public transport networks would not be so dramatic to the individual.
More generally, I have to say that this commonly held idea of corporations enjoying First Amendment rights does not strike me as a natural or necessary interpretation of the FA; and moreover, it frequently seems to be invoked so selectively that the same people who consider a gargantuan public corporation's right to deny custom at will to be a "core First Amendment right" simultaneously snicker at the invocation of First Amendment rights for private individuals they are politically or morally opposed to, and consider instances of politically or morally motivated rejection of customers by small and completely fungible privately held businesses to be a civil rights issue that should definitively not be decided on a First Amendment basis.
> Network effects mean that most internet platforms form natural monopolies
I'm not entirely convinced. I think it's more "unlimited VC money so platforms could operate at a loss for a decade" had way more to do with entrenching these "natural" monopolies.
I recall plenty of social media/video sharing/etc. sites back in the day. I hosted a number of them. They did not die due to lack of popularity, but due to lack of ability to pay for bandwidth and server costs. VC funded folks could just spam money for free, while being told to not even worry about revenue or monetization.
This is around the time the word "startup" became a joke - and instead described a vastly funded corporate enterprise vs. a couple guys in a garage.
Network effects are certainly a thing, but they are so warped by cheap money and the ability to operate for years at huge losses that I'm not convinced they are as strong as suggested. You had no way to compete with Youtube back then backed by Google money. They effectively had free bandwidth for a decade while they figured things out. Competitors actually had to pay bills and staff with actual revenue. The game was over before it began.
> Network effects mean that most internet platforms form natural monopolies
I don’t think these monopolies are nearly as natural as something like transportation on rail infrastructure.
I think there’s a ton of regulation that can and should be applied to these companies that would bite away at how “natural” these monopolies appear (though, some of these require new legislation, for sure, which might be impossible given Congress in the modern area).
We could regulate interoperability, and force major media organizations to provide interpretation to their competitors (similar to how MVNO’s are allowed to buy their backend infra from the major players at or near cost).
We could prevent these “natural monopolies” from being embedded in a larger organization. YouTube’s monopoly might not appear nearly so natural if it was forced to be separated from the rest of Google and stand on its own.
Facebook’s monopoly would not be so natural if it had been prevented from buying every apparent threat to its business in the last decade. If you split up Facebook into its data collection systems, Facebook itself, the ad sales business, Instagram, and WhatsApp, suddenly it’s monopolies aren’t so natural.
Hell, the standard VC playbook of the 2010s was essentially the definition of anti-competitive practices: ignore the costs, ignore the revenues, just lose money on the business in an attempt to dominate the market to a degree that you can raise costs on consumers and no one will be able to stop you. That was the exact VC playbook, and also almost a perfect description of monopolistic behavior and anti-competitive practices.
I don’t think these are natural monopolies at all. I think Congress and regulators were both asleep at the switch for decades while these monopolies slowly formed out of pretty standard anti-competitive practices.
Tear down their walled gardens, separate these behemoths into their actual distinct lines of business, and prevent them from buying every competitor they see and they won’t be so unassailable.
Or just aggressively tax large/high-revenue companies.
And speaking of taxing! I'm not sure why highly-successful companies draw so many more "they have too much power" criticisms than highly-successful individuals who often have power over media companies and spend a lot on lobbying politicians.
For the broader media ecosystem, we used to have stronger regulations preventing individual entities (be them individuals of corporations) from owning certain percentages of the media ecosystem.
I’d be a fan of modernizing that concept, defining social media companies as being a part of the media ecosystem, and lowering that ownership percentage.
Force individual social media companies to be broken up into smaller entities, and force a rollback of a lot of the traditional media consolidation.
It's easy to imagine such things when it relates to owning all the movie theaters or television stations in a given market. But if it's just because people choose to type YouTube into their browser or upload to YouTube over competitors, how do propose to do it?
I would mainly focus on regulating inter-operability, and countering the network effects so that when you have more than a certain share of the media ecosystem you become defined as a “Major Media” organization, and that designation creates additional regulations that you must follow.
Some of those would be interoperability focused (so, YouTube could have competitiors that are only attempting to provide a competing front-end and ad-serving business, while being able to take advantage of YouTube’s storage, bandwidth, and video serving at or near cost, similar to how the MVNO’s are allowed to piggyback off the big carriers). Interoperability would be focused on allowing new competitors to reasonably compete with a slice of YouTube, without forcing them to compete with the entire business.
The biggest one would be forcing divestment of different aspects of the business. I would allow the data collection apparatus that is Google to own the media company that is YouTube. I wouldn’t allow the ad serving business to be owned by the same entity that is the video distribution and playback company. I wouldn’t allow Google to own any other media properties aside from YouTube.
Basically, if you’re a single entity that on its own breaches the ownership threshold, then that single entity becomes the entire business. Everything else must be divested or separated.
Judging by the history of the web, there's a very strong tendancy to form natural monopolies, so I'm not entirely sure you can just legislate away their dominance.
I'd rather see them classed as common carriers. That can't just arbitrarily ban people from the network.
>Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service.
Obviously there's problems with this reasoning right? Why bother mentioning pointless rationalization here? You and Youtube both know there's only one video service that offers long form format and that's youtube themselves.
Just tell it like it is. Youtube having a monopoly over online video content is effectively gagging and censoring Brand because of the alleged crimes influencing their business. It is not technically eliminating freedom of speech but it is both practically and effectively doing the same thing.
This points to a an overall problem within the US today regarding freedom of speech. We effectively do not have freedom of speech because all public speaking platforms are controlled by business interests.
That's what's going on here. Not some "oh you're free to go to another video service" bullshit.
He can mention other means for his fans to support him (Patreon et al) and fund raise | blog elsewhere with links to youtube, etc.
It's not beyond the bounds of reason that he may even see an increase in revenue over a longer time period as a result of wearing sackcloth and ashes and complaining about youtube .. just not direct YT revenue.
> You and Youtube both know there's only one video service that offers long form format and that's youtube themselves.
There are others, but YouTube has the largest audience. That's why Brand chose to use it as his platform. There was never a promise of a continuous business relationship. Things get blurry if YouTube decides to keep serving ads with Brand's videos, but doesn't pay him. They can do it, because that's how they wrote the T&Cs, but it doesn't seem fair. I don't think book publishers stop paying royalties to authors who have been accused of criminal behaviour; they may stop printing their books or even pull the books off the shelves, but the accounts will be settled and there will be no further monetization of the author's content.
Exactly. Don't be a coward... say what you mean. Those sentences are synonyms for "fuck off". Use the correct terminology, don't pretend you're being reasonable or rational.
I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?
> I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point.
They've been the target of that twice at least, in 2017 over hate speech [1], in 2019 over pedos[2]. Large brands spend insane amounts of money on advertising, and they do not want their content to appear next to people facing allegations of sexual misconduct or otherwise bad behavior.
Hell just look at Twitter and how much advertising income they lost in the matter of a few months [4], as brands didn't want their ads to show up next to actual Nazis [3]. And instead of recognizing this and getting rid of the Nazis, Musk wants to sue the ADL [5].
They will show ads between videos, and maybe they do that when one or the other is demonetized, but they do not show interstitials on demonetized channels.
It is way too conspiratorial, simply because when it's demonetized it's still shown completely for free with no limits on number of views.
It's as simple as the execs at every fortune 500 company with an advertising budget being religious in some form and being shown "here's your Diet Coke ad next to <insert spiderman+elsa/terorrism/podcast debating if hitler was bad>" by someone with an agenda/some journalist' article. Even if they don't really care, it's enough of a reason to go to Google and get a marketing discount for x years.
At this point I can't tell if Musk sustained a brain injury/infection at some recent date, or he had a handler that was keeping him from touching pointy things and they quit or he fired them and now we're getting unfiltered Musk all day every day.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
It's always possible to make your substantive points while staying within the guidelines. Please do.
> Ultimately the citizens of N Korea are 'free' to move elsewhere
They literally are not. They are held in by landmines and barbed wire. Nobody is going to execute Brand and his entire extended family if he moves away from YouTube. But that WILL happen if you leave North Korea.
Ultimately you can climb over the barbed wire fence and jump over the land mines.
They absolutely have agency to try. Just the same as Brand has agency to set up his own YouTube alternative.
Where do you want to set the limits? Is it at you and your extended family being executed?
What about starving people in Africa? They won't be executed if they leave, so it's their own fault for staying? What about USians that want an abortion? They can travel to another country, what about the first world unemployed in a recession? They could travel off to Africa and subsistence farm rather than complain about their mortgage.
Brand doesn't have a practical alternative to YouTube, so simply saying he can go elsewhere is stupid.
Why should he go? He is not being censored. He is still allowed to post videos, ask for Patreon support, sell tshirts etc… Youtube simply cancelled their commercial partnership.
Rumble is doing well and Brand already has a deal with them. Twitter supports long form video now and the owner is a big supporter. Plenty of other places
