YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform

Post by jsiepkes » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 9:22 PM UTC

SR2Z wrote: post #106

jahsome wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They're saying "we won't silence you, but we're not hosting your video for free or paying you for this shit either." It's a pretty fair decision that avoids the legal system entirely. The person who uploaded the video can always request to have it taken down.

Post by andrekandre » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 9:23 PM UTC

misja111 wrote: post #16

boffinAudio wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its really atrocious on so many levels, and speaks to a real ethics issue we, in the West, are ill-prepared to address - first, that he could have gotten away with these alleged actions for so long, atrocity #1, but then - second, that he has had his livelihood completely upended on the basis of unproven allegations which have not yet been confirmed through the legal process that is a core issue in Western moral valu…

> it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he's upsetting the power structures that propagate these sexcrime narratives You're saying that there are 'power structures' that propagate 'these sexcrime narratives'. I'm obviously not casual observer enough because I don't know which power structures you are referring too. Could you please tell a bit more about them?

  > I don't know which power structures you are referring too. 

Post by jimnotgym » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 9:24 PM UTC

jimnotgym wrote: post #139

This 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

Post by nsajko » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

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…

Post by jjoonathan » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 9:28 PM UTC

rcxdude wrote: post #166

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…

The difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understand.