YouTube suspends Russell Brand’s revenues from his channel
www.theguardian.com
Google-owned company says move is due to it ‘violating our creator responsibility policy’

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.

  • Sorchist@kbin.social
    152·
    10 months ago

    Do you live in a country where the government would put a gun to YouTube’s head and say 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP BROADCASTING THIS MAN’S CHANNEL, PUT ADS ON IT, AND SHARE THE AD REVENUE WITH HIM, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME"?

    That seems weird.

    • redballooon@lemm.ee
      21·
      10 months ago

      Depends on the contract between that man and YouTube. Most countries are strong in enforcing contract terms.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        5·
        10 months ago

        The idea that Google would give anyone a contract that says something other than “we’ll fuck you if we feel like it.” Hahahaha.

        • redballooon@lemm.ee
          1·
          10 months ago

          True, but that comment was still badly conceived. Because pretty much all countries would absolutely crack down on a platform, should there be a contract that states that there must be a conviction, and no morality clause. This can absolutely legally be in a contract.