Or in other words “Megacorp reminds you that it can and will decide to pocket cut your income based on the court of public opinion”.

This is not a discussion about the allegations against him, this is about the fact that Google have decided to pocket the income they would otherwise be giving him (not taking down the videos, oh no, they’re probably bringing in even more ad revenue now!) without any convictions or similar. Not that Google is an employer (I’m sure they consider payments they make to video uploaders to be some kind of generous untaxable gift), but should an employer have the power to take away a source of income based on allegations, no matter how heinous?

Edit: seems they’re actually not putting ads on his videos at all now, which was a surprise to me

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      TBF that was as much Jonathon Ross’s fault and the broadcaster’s fault.

      Poor girl. It’s shocking to think how culturally accepted and mainstream misogyny was at the time.

      • loobkoob@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that saga is probably an example of a level of misogyny that wasn’t acceptable. There was absolute outrage about it at the time, it became a pretty huge scandal. I agree that misogyny was far too culturally acceptable and mainstream at the time (and still is in some areas) but that is one instance where it certainly wasn’t brushed aside.