I think it's more curious they're willing to at least imply moral imperative and say "this bad guy can't make money on our platform" but continue to distribute and profit off his content themselves. It's not immediately clear to me which is worse...
Since they didn't say that, no they probably don't think that. Just like me saying "I don't work for free" doesn't imply I think that my salary is also the exact net cost I have as expenditure for doing the work.
They didn't dispute that, they suggested a line of logic for the behaviour. It being a reply to your comment doesn't automatically mean it's an attempt to prove your comment wrong.
Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned?
Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent to allow all that has removed the ability from a user user to monetize his videos, but hasn't even silenced him.
I don't know if shutting down his channel and removing all the videos (which Google has a legal right to do) would be better.
> Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too?
Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
Monetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.
You're right, Youtube isn't forced to host the works of this horrid rule-breaker. They choose the position of platforming him and profiting off of him however.
Making the content isn't free either. If they don't like Russel Brand for whatever reason, they're free to deplatform him. Virtue signaling while lining your pockets is disingenuous.
