[housemusicfan]

Who made YouTube judge and jury?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here.

Nor do your examples hold water. This isn't a situation of "you were caught stealing paperclips on video". Rather, it's more a case of Sally the tart from accounting has accused you of fingering her in a pub toilet ten years ago when you were both drunk and now ten years later she decides she's upset so let's engage the digital lynch mob and proceed with ruining your life because we all know women never lie.

[voganmother42]

If you think the examples you are replying to are bad...your example...wow

And I am sure information wont matter to you...but just in case:

The majority of sexual assaults are not reported.

Somewhere between 2-10% of reports are false.

You are contributing to making it worse for victims.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[housemusicfan]

10%?! 10% is huge. So we should assume presumption of guilt with a 10% error rate?

If 10% of all planes crashed, you would never set foot on one. For comparison, the chance of dying in a plane crash is 0%... to the 7th or 8th decimal place.

The people that should be ashamed are those making false accusations, and those dumb enough to believe them.

[voganmother42]

You can presume or do anything you want with statistics, but your example was gross and if you think 10% chance of it being correct means you should spout it…yikes

But saying things like that, well..its bad for victims of false accusation as well, notice how I didn’t specify?

Good news is, people who put the type of comments out there like yours - they are their own reward - enjoy the world you are making for yourself, il steer well clear

[hn_acker]

A single person can have different standards for different situations. Your plane crash example is not about guilt, it's directly about life and death. The threat of being wrong about Russell Brand's alleged sexual assault is quite far removed from my own fear of death. If I mistakenly believe the allegations, I get a personal lesson in the risks of jumping to conclusions and trust YouTube a bit less, but I can still rest relatively easy knowing that criminal courts in the US still use the presumption of innocence. If I mistakenly believe in Brand's innocence, I trust myself a little less, and the next time I find out about a famous stranger's rape allegations I read into it and ask myself whether the denials read like Brand's denials.

But I digress. In this case, YouTube, not a random commenter on Hacker News, had a decision to make. Consider these four possibilities:

1. YouTube demonitizes, allegations are false. YouTube gets social ire from people online and angry politicians, and a few complaints from advertisers, but even the angry people will probably continue to use YouTube due to switching costs.

2. YouTube demonitizes, allegations are true. YouTube pats itself on the back in hindsight. Little changes, but the status quo was good for YouTube anyway.

3. YouTube doesn't demonitize, allegations are false. YouTube temporarily loses a few advertisers before the truth comes out, but things return to the status quo in a few months.

4. YouTube doesn't demonitize, allegations are true. A few advertisers leave for a year or longer. News organizations eagerly field complaints from advertisers and disgruntled YouTube employees.

None of the possibilities are devastating, including money-wise. On the other hand, the fourth possibility is worst for YouTube's reputation by a significant margin, and at a 90% chance too.

[lesuorac]

> Who made YouTube judge and jury?

Non-sequitor. YT does not need the power of a court decision to take this action. It's basically the same question of "Who made YouTube President"; it's irrelevant.

> Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here.

I mean YT could decide that your country isn't eligible for YT depending on local laws and block content. Which they do.

[gooseus]

Well, I assume Youtube and their community are the judges and juries of Youtube.

I am merely one humble judge and jurist of these comment threads, and I rule that your comment here is disgusting and ignorant.

I recommend a sentence of 100 hours of civics and legal Youtube to help alleviate you of your ignorance. And 1 hour of berating following a public reading of your comment to a group of female accountants dressed as your mother.