[nothatscool]

When YouTube does this it means that they tacitly endorse the behaviour of everyone who is currently monetised at the moment. I’m sure it would be easy to find many monetised channels with similar allegations as well as people who have actually been convicted of crimes.

Edit: for example, someone like Chris Brown is convicted of domestic abuse as well as accused of many other incidents. He appears to be monetised on youtube.

>If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action.

So why does this apply to Russell Brand but not to Chris Brown who is convicted of violence against another YouTube user? It must mean that youtuber endorses the behaviour and criminal activity of Chris Brown.

[crazygringo]

I think "endorse" is far too strong of a word. No, YT isn't "endorsing" Chris Brown.

But it certainly raises the question of YT being arbitrarily punitive. Rather than endorsing, it ignores certain allegations while demonetizing others.

[dmix]

It’s never been that arbitrary at YouTube though. Pretty easy to spot patterns. It’s very obvious that it’s a small motivated human group doing this, not just a faceless process protecting their profits using some hyper capitalist risk projection with advertisers, where the news cycle comes in and the outputs go out.

[Tokumei-no-hito]

Because chris brown isn’t making anti-establishment content. It’s selectively applied and curiously both the accusations (10+ years old) and this fallout occur right around the start of election season.

If his content was on the other side of the aisle he’d be defended not demonetized.

[Capricorn2481]

Because Chris Brown is never in the news for this shit. He gets a free pass because men in R&B and Hip Hop, like Charlemagne, like to give him a pass.

If there were weeks of Chris Brown articles, tech companies would certainly distance themselves