There are people whose main income is YouTube and if YouTube can do this to famous people, surely they can do it to smaller creators who are paying their bills with YouTube money.
Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.
The precedent has already been established well before YouTube made this decision.
In most places in the US you can lose your livelihood for any reason or no reason at all, safe for protected classes.
I’d rather see this energy be used to end fire at will and protect employees in general from losing their livelihood on a whim than to use this to pander to celebrities with questionable pasts under the guise of “it could happen to you!”
Losing one job is not remotely close to losing your livelihood.
They didn't saw off his hands, they demonetized him. He can go do stage shows or wash dishes or something if he wants to eat. He's famous and popular, he has a million ways of making an income.
People are acting like YouTube robbed him of something he was owed. They did no such thing.
>Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.
There are times it is very difficult to not be inflammatory on hacker news. Statements like this saying some new precedent is being set are are wild. Like have we even been on the same planet up till this point levels of cognitive dissonance.
Last week if the local paper would have written an article about one of one your co-workers being accused of sexual assault on a minor, and that the company "released them from duties the next day", you would have told me "Oh, that's the way it's always been, you don't want a rapist working for the company". In any right to work state accusations of impropriety are enough to terminate work contracts, end of story. But suddenly someones golden cow got tarnished and now we want something done?
Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.