[bjpless]

As a disclaimer, I’m not a Brand content consumer and I’m also not commenting on the validity of the claims.

I’m aware that he’s a popular populist and the slippery slope is obvious here, independent of the particulars of the specific case.

The playbook to silence a relatively loud political voice is now obvious from the YT response. It is a given that cynical actors on all sides will evolve to further exploit this strategy, especially so if accusers do not have to testify under oath.

YouTube, on a common sense basis, should have recognized that political reality today and tred more carefully — much more so than for a travel influencer, for example.

The long term game theory here, like brand boycotts, is hopefully that the exploitation of this strategy by all political players would lead to the strategy losing power due to general fatigue and whataboutisms.

[ngetchell]

I don't think "loud political voices" have the right to make money off of YT. YT seems generous to keep Brand on the platform during this odd period between accusation and conviction.

[bjpless]

I’m not raising a question about his rights or generosity.

He and other independent political pundits have large audiences and as a result generate valuable content for the platform.

If the game theory above plays out and cynical actors act cynically, it will ultimately hurt YT in the long term run and drive users to other platforms (I’d assume Twitter).

I think YT may be opening a can of worms for themselves.