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

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

Post by MockObject »

threeseed wrote: post #144
efitz wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You need to understand that the majority of people simply don't agree with you. They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and stay away from those that don't.

This seems like a generalization with as many counterexamples as examples. Also, users don't actually want censorship, they want a tailored experience that filters out whatever content they don't like.

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

#182

Post by nvm0n2 »

curiousllama wrote: post #132
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…

> 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 "resi…

[flagged]

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

#183

Post by jamiek88 »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #167
curiousllama wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "resi…

[flagged]

>If it was really bad?

Well, that’s enough of this thread for me.

Unfuckingbelievable.

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

#184

Post by mrtksn »

c7DJTLrn wrote: post #143

Putting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of his videos a few years ago and they were interesting discussions of the news with a particular emphasis on questioning everything which I see as a healthy habit. Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outr…

Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist, has been writing about this issue since half a decade now: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po...

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

#185

Post by droptablemain »

Anonymous allegations from more than a decade ago, procured by a fishing reporter, should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves. This is absurd, regardless of whether the accusations are ultimately true or not. Beyond the absurdity, this is tyrannical.

Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. There's simply very little of substance here.

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

#186

Post by burkaman »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #167
curiousllama wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "resi…

[flagged]

Think about what makes this alleged crime "really bad", and then consider if that might make it difficult for a victim to come forward. There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in the UK.

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

#187

Post by runarberg »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #136
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.

> "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 existe…

> Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree with.

The morality in this instance does not follow this principle. If people find these allegations credible—and most should—the morally correct action is to deplatform him and delete his content.

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

#188

Post by c7DJTLrn »

tjrgergw wrote: post #175
c7DJTLrn wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?

I'm not a court of law. I can say whatever I want. What happened to freedom of speech?

I never said you weren't free to say what you want. Clearly you don't intend to argue in good faith though.

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

#189

Post by zztop44 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #148
snakeyjake wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 accuser…

> When you are self-righteous prick as prickly as brand, it is extremely easy to believe the accusers. This is why courts use the only system that has a chance of finding the truth.

Yes but the courts are legally empowered to lock someone in a cage for years. So they should be working by a different standard than a company firing someone.

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

#190

Post by curiousllama »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #167
curiousllama wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "resi…

[flagged]

Should have? Yes, it would have been better.

Is it reasonable to expect them to do so? Maybe. Probably not pre Me-Too, and especially if they didn't know about each other.

Does it change my interpretation either way? Not really. Contemporaneous records from an independent third party undercut most of my concerns.

Notably, many US states don't have statutes of limitation for rape. Practical reasons can be overcome.

Post reply on HN