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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by runarberg »

robertlagrant wrote: post #296
runarberg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m under no legal obligation either to deny the allegations until proven. And in this case I choice to believe the victims. And I will keep calling them victims until proven otherwise.

I don't understand this comment, sorry. Who's talking about your legal obligations? I'm talking about what you know vs what you assume.

You are saying it is wrong of me to call the victims, victims, and should instead call them ‘accusers’. I’m saying I am under no legal obligations to do so. I believe their stories and I believe they are victims, so I am allowed to call them victims.

Now I think there might be slander to call the accused something like an abuser, so I don’t do that (yet). However there is no slander laws which disallow me from using words which indicate that I believe the victims, so I’m not calling them ‘accusers’, I call them victims, because that is what I believe they are.

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

#332

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Airsinner wrote: post #279
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that government (e.g. US Constitution). Once you venture into private parties evaluating other private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's still freedom of speech and association to…

> government doesn't itself have civil rights

Neither do corporations. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine you refuse to talk to Trump supporters - most people would say that's your right.

> It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people

imagine the outrage if Tomorrow YouTube deletes accounts for anyone that supported Trump

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

#333

Post by woooooo »

jjoonathan wrote: post #253
jtbayly wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG telling social media companies which people should have their speech censored.

Not even close. Taibbi made it sound like Biden, who wasn't in office, pulled strings to have the government lean on Twitter to suppress important scandalous revelations from Hunter Biden's Laptop. The reality was that Trump was in office at the time and the Biden team, as private citizens, requested TOS enforcement on Hunter's naked pics and received it. Yes, some of the TOS enforcement hit conservative outlets mere…

Taibbi specifically had tons of meeting notes on "alignment" between twitter's content policy team and people from DOJ, FBI, etc.

Yes, Trump was president at the time.

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

#334

Post by ribosometronome »

nsajko wrote: post #207
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…

> innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a social one Yes, legalism is often taken too far, but that doesn't mean that mob rule is a good thing. > Bad folks have often been shunned without convictions Are you sure about that? I'd sooner say that only losers get "shunned". Powerful politicians don't get "shunned" for their corruption, actually sometimes it seems to help with their popularity. Likewise wi…

Your rhetoric doesn't sound far off from that of people who called BLM protests mob riots. But they were protesting against militarized police, hardly the weak.

Or hell, from the other side of the political spectrum, Jan 6th was some real mob mentality behavior. But I'd hardly consider the "US government" weak.

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

#335

Post by cgio »

roenxi wrote: post #302
jjoonathan wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I think he understands. Constantly criticizing mainstream media for low standards while having far lower standards yourself is the kind of thing that you have to put significant ongoing effort into rationalizing. Consumers of alt media can do it thoughtlessly. Producers ? I'm not convinced.

> ... having far lower standards yourself ... How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger. Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot…

I would question your third point in the spirit of doubting narratives. This is the podcasters' narrative, but intuitively a podcaster has less scale and therefore is much cheaper to be incentivised towards specific narratives.

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

#336

Post by ToDougie »

prometheus76 wrote: post #195
lesuorac wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is government censorship via a third party not a problem for you?

It clearly isn't. Wait until the tables turn on them, though :)

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

#337

Post by Supply5411 »

ministryoftruth wrote: post #298

[flagged]

This reads like you're saying its a bad thing to prove the existence of these manipulative power structures because it happens to make someone more credible. Like "No, no, power structures, stay hidden, you're only helping him."

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

#338

Post by ceejayoz »

asdfman123 wrote: post #294
rcxdude wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don't buy into the bad faith arguments. They aren't genuinely "asking questions," they're trying to bring what they already believe into the mainstream.

AKA https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off

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

#339

Post by pauldenton »

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?

Sure. Look at how #Metoo handled sexual allegations Then it died when Tara Reade allegations started threatening Joe Bidens power, and the power structure that was propagating #Metoo stopped exerting power and "suddenly everyone stopped caring about #Metoo, it's out of the news cycle"

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

#340

Post by mrguyorama »

robertlagrant wrote: post #165
Fezzik wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innocent until proven guilty is a standard for court proceedings. I am not a court, and I can even disagree with what a court decides. I can use my own judgment to draw conclusions and form opinions. For example, I can be confident that OJ is a murderer even though be was not convicted and was declared not guilty.

This is a category error. Courts use a methodology that's the best one we have for discovering the truth. They don't always do it well (e.g. the OJ case) and you as an individual can use the same methodology to understand if something happened or not. It's the methodology, not the "being a court" that is key.

I as an individual do not have the powers of a court, and cannot do the things a court can do to ACTUALLY get close to "the truth", and must rely on what little information I am allowed to have.
Post reply on HN