Oh god he's going end up broadcasting on Twitter isn't he.
He's already on Rumble, getting paid by Peter Thiel.
YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
131–140 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#132So 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…
> based solely on accusations
This is not true. The independent corroborating evidence is also material. Contemporaneous records from a rape clinic is powerful evidence.
More generally, innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a social one. From a social perspective, that's never been the standard, nor should it be. Bad folks have often been shunned without convictions - that's why the norm has been "resign in disgrace," not "get thrown in prison"
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#133So 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…
"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.
Then let’s change the law. It’s obvious over the past few years that companies can’t be trusted with freedom of association or freedom of speech. Let’s strip them of both.
If you are incorporated (and therefore benefit from government-provided protection from liability and lower tax rates) then you no longer get to choose your customers; you’re a common carrier and must provide the same service to all customers. You can only terminate a customer for non-payment (if you’re a paid service) or if the customer takes actions that directly threaten your business (eg attempts to hack your service).
Social media companies may no longer promote or suppress content; they can only provide tools to let users do so themselves (eg filter/block/subscribe/tag). Advertisers can use similar filters for ad placement.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#134The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.
> The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window.
More like yet another reflection of the extant overton window.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#135The Monetization Window is the new Overton Window. I think people underestimate how much Youtube's monetization policy influences what popular creators put in videos. Because it's not just the money - it also effects how videos are promoted by the algorithm.
Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016. Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized.
I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a private platform. If you want better accountability argue for an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas" bullshit.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#136So 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…
"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.
> "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a philosophical concept that many legal systems subscribe to in the context of criminal law.
> Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action
Indeed, it’s very similar in the sense that the concept of the freedom of speech goes way beyond the 1st amendment. It existed before it. And it is the first amendment that exists because of the freedom of speech, not the other way round.
> A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.
Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree with.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG telling social media companies which people should have their speech censored.
Uh, I guess one could phrase it that way but it's rather dishonest.
It'd be akin to saying a police officer testifying that they saw X person shoot Y person as attempting to deplatform X person.
--
Honestly the only thing questionable in the twitter files was the USG telling twiter which accounts were their cy-ops accounts so they wouldn't get banned.
Twitter having a policy of you can't do Y on the platform and the USG asking Twitter if X person is violating Y is not illegal censorship.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#138So 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?
YouTube isn't a court of law, fortunately.
If he's innocent, he can sue them.
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#139This is difficult for me. I'm not pro censorship, but I would like a way to not have to hear about Russell Brand at all. Is that possible?
I don't want to hear from him or about him. I don't want to hear from people that like him. I didn't want to hear Radio 4 talking about it this morning. I don't want to stop his free speech, I just want to avoid him
Re: YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG telling social media companies which people should have their speech censored.
Didn't he read an acronym wrong and it was a nongovernmental agency in one of the most prominent examples he used? And Biden wasn't in office for the laptop stuff but Trump was for the stuff they requested get removed?