YouTube is not a court and Brand has not been found guilty of anything.
YouTube is enforcing its ToS, which Brand freely agreed to when he chose to begin using their platform to post his conspiracy theories.
> And it pads the pockets of shareholders
YouTube runs adverts on videos which are not part of the partnership program, but it is unclear (as far as I can see from this thread) whether they run adverts on de-monetised videos. Do you have a source either way?
In any case, YouTube did $29.9 billion of revenue in FY2022. The Guardian estimated that Brand's YouTube videos, of which there are five per week, likely gross him (pre-tax) in the order of $5,000. That's around $1.3m a year.
So yes, if YouTube is still running ads against Brand's YouTube videos then "the shareholders" are benefitting from an additional $1.3m per year which would otherwise have been paid out to Brand, but now that you know the aggregate benefit to YouTube constitutes 0.000044% of the service's annual revenue, I'm curious as to whether you think this had any bearing whatsoever on the decision to demonetise him, in line with their Terms of Service?
YouTube is enforcing its ToS, which Brand freely agreed to when he chose to begin using their platform to post his conspiracy theories.
> And it pads the pockets of shareholders
YouTube runs adverts on videos which are not part of the partnership program, but it is unclear (as far as I can see from this thread) whether they run adverts on de-monetised videos. Do you have a source either way?
In any case, YouTube did $29.9 billion of revenue in FY2022. The Guardian estimated that Brand's YouTube videos, of which there are five per week, likely gross him (pre-tax) in the order of $5,000. That's around $1.3m a year.
So yes, if YouTube is still running ads against Brand's YouTube videos then "the shareholders" are benefitting from an additional $1.3m per year which would otherwise have been paid out to Brand, but now that you know the aggregate benefit to YouTube constitutes 0.000044% of the service's annual revenue, I'm curious as to whether you think this had any bearing whatsoever on the decision to demonetise him, in line with their Terms of Service?