Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#121

Post by MuffinFlavored »

hermannj314 wrote: post #22
keiferkif wrote: post #9

most unsurprising cancelation ever. His whole schtick was being an impulsive, out-of-control drug and sex fiend.

His YouTube channel had a bit too much JAQing for me, but definitely was not based on the characters he plays in movies.

> JAQing

> Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: ""[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#122

Post by iterminate »

somenameforme wrote: post #20

So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…

I disagree with the premise of your comment but on a factual note: Russell Brand has been litigious on this very issue, he has threatened to take legal action and taken legal action against people who have spoken up about him. He has been widely "known" to be a predatory rapist for years but has used his money to intimidate those who wanted to speak up.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#123

Post by JohnMakin »

Nextgrid wrote: post #105
JohnMakin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action, this phrase is meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.

Maybe this should be reconsidered when a "private company" controls a large majority of humanity's social fabric and/or popular culture?

How do you propose this actually work out? Every time youtube, twitter, facebook, etc wants to ban someone they have to submit a request to the government or be subject to its oversight? That's far more dystopian.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#124

Post by singleshot_ »

cameldrv wrote: post #93
coldpie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a protected class. > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up This, however, t…

There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric, water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service providers, etc. The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons might be will vary dependi…

All of the entities you mentioned exclusive of internet platforms have in common that they transport goods or passengers for a fee and are open to the public. Internet platforms are not common carriers despite how badly some want to thwart private property rights.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#125

Post by snakeyjake »

somenameforme wrote: post #20

So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…

>So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty?

I'm not a court. Are you a court?

I hope you're not a court. Sentient buildings weird me out.

If four employees came to me and accused someone of harassing them, I would weigh the evidence and if warranted, fire the employee. No court involved.

When you are self-righteous prick as prickly as brand, it is extremely easy to believe the accusers.

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#127

Post by MuffinFlavored »

coldtea wrote: post #91
mikhailfranco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many years in that 90s-00s period. He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were, and continue to be, illegal in the UK; perhaps sex-addicts are always close to the edge of criminality. However, all those potential crimes are a long time ago. The police and his accusers have chosen to stay silent for a long time. Some potentially self-incriminating stor…

> He was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many years in that 90s-00s period And even as such, had no complaints against him who bothered to go to the police and file/sue, not even at the height of me-too. Then only things I've read are things like "he make lewd comments". Then, on 2019 (? and they release now?) they get anonymous accusations, and even those to the press, not the police (the police mer…

> And even as such, had no complaints against him who bothered to go to the police and file/sue, not even at the height of me-too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66838794

From the article:

> One woman alleges that Brand raped her without a condom against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She says Brand tried to stop her leaving until she told him she was going to the bathroom. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times says it has confirmed via medical records

Is that not a "complaint against him who bothered to go to the police"?

Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

#128

Post by smcleod »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #38
yellow_postit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nit: Advertisers, or at least those with deep pockets, hate controversy. That drives advertising platforms to hate it. Though the fact that X hasn’t hemorrhaged even more money seems to be finding where that argument intercepts the value for views advertisers will place.

The only ads I see on X these days are from Apple. There used to be more variety.

I almost only see ads on Twitter/X on the rare occasion I visit it anymore, I very rarely used to.
Post reply on HN