... The media companies now fuelling the public mood via trial by TV are the very same companies that delighted in Brand’s sex-addict persona. As the Dispatches’ archival footage and testimonies make clear, those media corporations willingly exploited his persona – even allegedly at the risk of putting members of their staff and audiences in danger – to increase corporate profits. No one should regard them as good-faith actors in this latest development. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault.
In recent years, Brand has often argued that he went on a long and difficult personal journey of redemption, and that he is ashamed of the way he behaved in the past. There is at least ostensible evidence to back up Brand’s claims. There is zero evidence that the Dispatches documentary represents any kind of act of contrition by the media corporations now publicly reviling Brand for his behaviour. They haven’t seen the error of their ways. They are simply cashing in on Brand again – this time by bringing down the very celeb they built up. It’s all money in the bank for them. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault. ...
I don't understand the persistent need for people to foreground "The Media" as some actor in these situations.
In both cases, They relayed information and They are not a monolith, and often, if not always, the screeds about They betray an extreme lack of rigor and play on emotions
It is an industry comprised of multiple companies each with their own agendas, viewpoints etc. The publications involved in investigating Brand are not the same ones that profited from his exploits.
And even if they did profit in the past does not mean they relinquish any right to atone for their mistakes. Hollywood tried to change and improve after the Weinstein situation. And so should the UK industry as Brand isn't the only one accused.
We are talking about multiple cases of rape and sexual assault some involving a 16 year old girl. We need to not lose sight of who the real victims are here.
Indeed. Americans tend to believe that the entirely arbitrary value of 18 set forth by many, but not all, states for the age of consent is somehow also a fundamental ethical principle.
Unless you're a red pilled, crypto-fascist, conspiracy theorist like Russell Brand, in which case the "mainstream media" is one huge, shadowy, many-tentacled, Spectre-like organisation out to get you for your brave stand against vaccines. Apparently.
People who went to the same schools, received the same programming, control similar institutions with similar goals, and generally have uniform values, are acting in concert to take him out of commission. And you don't think it's a bit odd?
These women didn't even come out with their stories during the height of #MeToo when it was fashionable. But he starts drawing attention (getting more views than any CNN program) while talking shit about government authoritarianism during covid, and suddenly these "journalists" find multiple women.
He pissed off some powerful people with his alt-media views and now and he's getting the Julian Assange treatment to send a message to everyone else, that's all this is.
To say that Hollywood did anything other than damage control after Weinstein seems very naive.
“The media” doesn’t really have a diversity of agendas or views, they have a specific audience that they peddle outrage to in order to extract money. For example, as a bemused outside observer there’s very little difference between CNN and Fox News (admittedly I’ve seen very little of either), other than the audience they pander to.
No-one is trying to downplay what he allegedly did, but that’s why we have a legal system. That these accusations have been made publicly via media outlets and not via law enforcement doesn’t help the legal case against him though, as any eventual trial has almost certainly been prejudiced already due to how widespread the coverage has been.
It probably doesn’t really matter either.
That public opinion (which is managed and administered by a handful of media organisations) is ultimately the highest court in the land today is all very black mirror.
I agree that corporations shouldn't punish people for alleged deeds that are not proven in a court of law — that is, unless it affects them directly.
Imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them. That misbehaviour hasn't been proven in a court of law, it might even be the case that the barkeeper read the situation wrongly and threw that person out despite their innocence. Yet they should have the right to decide that, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enfore any kind of house rules unless they have two sworn witnesses for anything that happens.
Now the pressing question is whether youtube is in a comparable situation here. Russel Brand, whether he is innocent or not, could now — with all the spotlights pointed at him — use that situation to produce more outrage — outrage that would make him a shitton of money that would be coming from YouTube. Seen from that perspective that move from youtube might be more of a strategic preventive measure to avoid dragging their platform into it without having to censor the guy than any form of punishment (although it will be read as such).
Btw. I am not defending that position, I still think it is problematic and I still think social media platforms that resemble some sort of public square should have higher free speech standards than they do, but pick one freedom for corporations or free speech for it's customers, you cannot have both.
> imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them
Its absolutely correct to do it. While she was working at a bar in the caraibeans, my sister spotted a guy slipping something in a drink. The person who did it and both his friends weren't convicted (the police is useless and very 'assertive' towards victims there, especially women), but barred from all bar and restaurant owned by her employer
> 1st amendment says, and has always said, I have a right to make twitter and YouTube make you read my posts.
Weren't the same people who made this joke again and again when Trump was banned from Twitter the exact same people who then cried out loud when Musk took over and changed the rules?
No, I don't think so. I have no evidence they are the same. I'm part of the people that pointed out that 'free speech absolutist' banned accounts that never posted CP, and barely made fun of a burning car, for political reasons.
Corporate does corporate things. If Twitter was nationalized, 'rules for me and not for you' would be outrageous. Right now? If anybody is surprised it's their own damn fault.
Nah. I think you're trying to reference the "assassination coordinates" nonsense followed by journalist bans that were rescinded. Please be fair to Elon, he's in the arena.
IMHO, it IS premature if you believe he has some inalienable right to be on Youtube, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, these are only allegations. Yet, it's a company doing it, and they aren't bound by any "must-be-convicted-1st" rules, they can just block someone for any reason, they ( and other companies ) do it all the time, and in this case it's probably "better safe than sorry" type of risk management.
Taking away the livelihood of someone for unproven allegations is not oppression? Do you realize what Youtube is in the year 2023? It's how a lot of self-employed people make their living.
Are you one of those "it's not censorship, just make your own media platform" techbros?
Someone successfully did that! Tons of people that got demonetized on Youtube are doing great on Rumble. Including Russell Brand, as a matter of fact.
He also just got a strong statement of support from the owner of another large monetized video distribution platform (X fka Twitter). So he can always move his show there.
sigh... someone inevitably had to bring up a Nazi comparison...
Fact is, when you monetize videos on YouTube you enter a contract with them. If you fail to adhere to the contract (by violating the TOS/TOU, for example) then YouTube has every right to terminate your contract... You're always free to choose another platform that is more aligned with your content/values/actions/whatever...
I think this is a bad faith argument, conflating legal proceedings with life consequences for bad behavior. We have trials for criminal and civil cases in law courts. When your child gets sent home from school for swearing at the teacher, do you ask the school for a fair trial by jury?
We have consequences in everyday life all the time which don't require trials, just our own opinions. If I meet someone who seems sleazy (judging from my own opinion based on life experience), I am not going to encourage my daughter to date that person. We don't need trials by jury in our life to make decisions and take actions which have consequences.
The truth is, it is generally true in life that where there is smoke there is fire. And with Russell Brand there has been a LOT of smoke for a long time, certainly more than enough smoke to judge that you probably wouldn't trust him with your daughter. And when you have not one but many women, with evidence, along with many pieces of video and audio of Russell Brands previous outrageous behavior (e.g. calling a man to tell him publicly on the radio that he had sex with his granddaughter, telling notorious pedophile Jimmy Saville that he would send him over his female assistant...), then it becomes more and more likely that in this case we just have someone who at worse is a rapist and at best is a total creep and sex pest.
I certainly agree, before putting someone in prison they should have a fair trial. But no one is putting Brand in prison, are they?
So are you saying that if someone commits a crime and gets away with it at the time, there should be no consequences if the crime is later revealed or reviewed? That somehow, time makes this all better?
There were no consequences for Jimmy Saville too. Why? Because he was a powerful, wealthy man and it's hard for people to go against rich celebrities. Can you imagine being a young woman with no wealth or fame trying to go against Brand at the height of his celebrity? Or being a lowly Production Assistant at the BBC or Channel 4, wanting to complain but knowing nothing will happen or you may lose your job.
That there were no consequences back then doesn't mean there shouldn't have been, we have no idea what happened behind the scenes. It's been historically hard for women to speak up against powerful usually rich men.
We are talking about a joke made in a comedy programme. Making a joke in a comedy programme, even in conversation with someone later revealed to have been a sex offender, is not a crime. In fact, making outrageous jokes and being Russell Brand is what the BBC and Channel 4 paid him for at the time.
As for any actual sexual misconduct, that is a matter for the courts to decide; but in my mind there is no question that the BBC and Channel 4 enabled, encouraged and rewarded Brand's behaviour.
I think there is a line between somewhat risque humor and calling a grandfather to tell him you "fucked" his grand-daughter. I've seen plenty of edgy comedy but nothing like that. Or calling someone like Jimmy Saville and insinuating you will send your young, pretty assistant to be molested by him. And yes, before it was 100% known about Jimmy, everyone knew (at least where I was from) that he dodgy as hell.
You're acting like Russell just made a few juvenile fart and shit jokes... he didn't. Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter?
We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick. You don't need a courtroom trial to receive results from actions. If you go around calling everyone a dick-head every day, sooner or later someone will punch you in the face. Russell Brand has a legal right to freedom, so any attempt to take that away can only be done with a fair trial by jury. Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life.
Sigh. Please get your facts right. It was Jonathan Ross who said Russell Brand fucked Sachs' granddaughter (which I personally thought was well beyond the pale, as tasteless jokes go).
Russell Brand: Hello Andrew Sachs, this is Russell Brand … you are meant to be on my show now mate … I am here with Jonathan Ross. I could still do the interview to your answerphone.
Jonathan Ross: Let's do it …
Brand: Man … er, Andrew Sachs.
Ross: Don't call him Manuel, that's really bad manners. I apologise for Russell - he's an idiot.
Brand: I said Andrew Sachs! Look Andrew Sachs I have got respect for you and your lineage and your progeny, never let that be questioned.
Ross: Don't hint …
Brand: I weren't hinting! Why did that come across as a hint?
Ross: Because you know what you did…
Brand: That wasn't a hint …
Ross: He fucked your granddaughter!
[laughter in the studio]
Brand: That's his answerphone!
Ross: I'm sorry … I apologise Andrew, I apologise, I can't help it, you were talking about it and it was in my head, I apologise.
Brand: Jonathan!
Ross: I got excited, what can I say, it just came out.
Conveniently you missed this part (I guess it was not an accident):
Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs. I would like to create world peace, between the yellow, white and blacks, Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs. I said something I didn't have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter. But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual, it was consensual lovely sex. It was full of respect I sent her a text, I've asked her to marry me, Andrew Sachs …
So not only did he call up an old man saying he had sex with his grand-daughter, he made a gag about her not being on her period and it being consensual.
Why are you trying to defend this incredibly gross and nasty person?
This was a prerecorded programme and the BBC chose to air it. "Gross and nasty" or not, this was viewed as mainstream entertainment by the BBC's bosses fifteen years ago.
Marina Hyde has a good piece in today's Guardian about this particular programme and how things have changed:
I remember this episode, and I remember other stuff Brand did in the early noughties.
Personally, I always thought Brand was a git. But if people claim Brand did or said stuff he didn't do or say, I think it ought to be pointed out. And if you can't see the implications of someone being deplatformed in this way ostensibly because of something they allegedly did fifteen or twenty years ago then I cannot help you.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. —H. L. Mencken
Google is not strictly speaking a lawmaker, but they have comparable impact.
From the transcript (starts about 1:00 min into the video):
I find this extremely disturbing and you know with the caveat that of course YouTube is a private company they are not bound to give you free speech rights or do process rights they're not bound by the First Amendment they can literally do whatever they want we don't have to like it we can criticize it and I think this is well worth criticizing this is not him being punished even for some speech some content he's produced on the platform which is some a problem we've had you know with YouTube in the past this the show has had problems with that in the past this is him being punished for and I'm not trying to detract from from the things people are saying about him but at this point these are Anonymous accusations that have not been substantiated through any kind of formal legal process the idea that you would be you would be canceled on us in a significant financial Revenue sort of way I know his main thing is Rumble but he also posts on YouTube for anonymous accusations against you reflecting behavior from decades ago uh I think that's pretty wild [...]
My point is the same whether he gets kicked off of Youtube or just has his advertisement rights removed. There is no god-given right granted us to be able to broadcast OR make money from Youtube.
If I own a bar or restaurant or club, I can prevent you from performing standup if I want and there doesn't even have to be a reason. It doesn't have to go to court and there doesn't even need to be evidence.
Right now what we are seeing are Russell Brand's metaphorical chickens coming home to roost.
> I think there is a line between somewhat risque humor and calling a grandfather to tell him you "fucked" his grand-daughter. I've seen plenty of edgy comedy but nothing like that.
> Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter?
Regardless of how distasteful you find it (it is), an entertainer pushing a poor taste line for comedic purposes is not really a fair comparison here. I'm unsure if this is intentional or not, but I'm trying to be charitable.
> We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick.
Sort of. The "being a dick" part is highly interwoven with the 'serious sexual crimes' accusations by the original reporting, and this makes the whole thing tricky and murky.
> Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life.
Agreed, however organisations knee-jerk banning people for (what are so far) unproven accusations is generally seen as "being a dick" too - the difference being we can definitively see this. On a site like HN, this is amplified due to the higher interests in social media powers, fair platforms, etc.
Also worth noting - a broadcaster like Channel 4 is not a monolith that produces all of the programmes that it airs. A lot of the programmes, like those in the Big Brother franchise, are produced by independent production companies and then shopped to multiple distributors like Channel 4, or Channel 5, or ITV2 (where the most recent series have aired) for broadcast.
Also, I would argue that media companies that do journalism should not shy away from having those journalists investigate other departments of those companies. And while those journalists ought to give those depts the right to respond to any accusations, they shouldn't necessarily wait until those depts have completed in-depth investigations of their own and concocted a full CYA strategy, before breaking the story.
(Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning the actions of media corporations)
Channel 4 was founded on the idea of being a public broadcaster that only used third party production companies for it's content. It's written into it's charter.
I really hate this modern trial by social media. There's a reason we have a legal system, courts, and process. If he's found guilty by the court, then hang him by his balls and cancel everything, I don't care.
But don't nuke anyone before the court says "guilty."
The ads I get in Youtube are full of obvious lies, AI generated garbage, clear copyright violations, and worse.
What makes matters worse is that comments get disabled aa does sharing. I can't even link to the problem. If I report the ad, it is there again tomorrow. It's almost as if that counts as interaction worthy of trying the ad again.
I personally don't like RB. I find the whole act to be off-putting. Though that is most often a sign of others liking the content.
I don't think letting the "reason" go unchallenged is responsible given the above.
He's not getting a massive boost to his views this week because of the content though, but because he's an alleged sex offender.
Of all the people demonetised by YouTube, already rich man can't profit from allegations of sex offences unless he can find brands willing to pay him directly has to be one of the least sympathetic.
What's the case law that social meedia sites are responsible for the content on their site? Youtube just recently won the ISIS recruitment case as a counter example [0].
What happened to Brand has nothing to do with the legal system, yet. He may or may not face legal proceedings. But as a celebrity who makes his living on social media, he both explicitly (terms of service) and implicitly bought into all that entails. That includes accusations made against him as a celebrity, whether or not those amount to a prosecutable crime. Google/YouTube are not the government or legal system, they have their own standards that Brand agreed to so he could profit from posting his content.
No one has a right to a social media platform. Brand does have a right to fair treatment under the law. It won't surprise me if he finds a way to monetize the accusations against him.
If you don't see the hypocrisy of celebrities leveraging social media to their advantage and profit, then whining and complaining about "free speech" when they cross the line or break the terms of service or otherwise run afoul of the rules, I don't know what to say.
It's not about what he said on YouTube though. He stands accused of having been a bad person. Maybe he was, but if all it takes for a YouTuber to be deprived of their income is to be accused of being a bad person (or of having committed a crime ten or twenty years ago), then that is obviously problematic ...
He didn’t get booted from YouTube because of his content. The YT terms of service say they can take action based on the person’s actions. Whether we agree with the rules or not YT has those rules and they own the platform, they can accept or kick off whomever they like.
People have always been tried in the media. We just have more media now, compressing time from days (newspapers) to hours (TV) to seconds (internet).
Harvey Weinstein got tried in the press because the police and Weinstein's enablers failed to do anything about him. I don't see that as a bad thing. The media have a role to play in society, and that sometimes includes penalizing or ostracizing people for their behavior before the slow legal system slogs around. In some countries the government and police are too inefficient or corrupt and the media is all people have. Why do we celebrate social media for things like the Arab Spring, but not for warning us about a possible rapist? Those are flip sides of the same bargain we've all made to some degree.
It's easy enough to ignore social media and not participate in it. Lots of people do it. Russell Brand made a different choice, turning himself into a social media (and TV) fixture, for fame and fortune, and sometimes that bull throws you off.
Don't confuse "trial by media" with "trial by private platform". Yes, there are some similarities, but social media platforms are a fundamentally NEW thing that didn't have an analogue before. And anyway, you're just doing an appeal to history here. Something can be bad even if it has existed for a long time.
When did "media" not have private owners? What we have now are public platforms with corporate owners. Newspapers and TV are private platforms with corporate owners. Google/YouTube aren't putting Russell Brand on trial through social media -- the portion of the public that pays attention to social media does that.
The corporations that own social media platforms respond to profit and threats to profit. If they keep Brand on YouTube he might make $X dollars for YouTube but cost them $5x dollars in advertising revenue, lost reputation and publicity black eye, and so on. Part of the media corporation standing (except for Twitter) comes from their apparent -- possibly insincere -- commitment to social issues, which includes #MeToo. So they err on the side of caution and try to keep the largest possible audience and pool of advertisers that they can.
Social media may represent "fundamentally new things," but not to Russell Brand. He adapted to social media, signed the contract, lives on the platforms, and makes lots of money. He knew the rules, or should have -- there's no way he's not aware of #MeToo and the consequences, fair or not, of reputational damage. He must know that Andrew Tate got the same treatment just a few months ago. We can debate the right or wrong of how YouTube demonetizes people, though I don't think "right" and "wrong" come into it with corporations that only respond to profit and their carefully groomed reputation. The social media celebrity game has rules, one of which is that you can't get credibly accused of rape or sexual assault all over British television. Brand signed up for that game and those rules. He's not a victim any more than I can call myself a victim when I lose at a Vegas casino.
Trial by social media only works if the world takes seriously the judgement in the court of public opinion. Of course, in prior eras someone could say "she's a witch!" in the town square and the authorities might join in with the burning. Because your fate was decided by public opinion, everyone cheered, you must be guilty, right? At some point we grew beyond that as a society, but we're regressing again. You don't exactly get burned, you just get kicked off of private business property, but maybe we're not far from that happening too.
> Google/YouTube are not the government or legal system, they have their own standards that Brand agreed to so he could profit from posting his content.
Right, Google is much bigger, more impactful and more monopolistic than many governments. We should apply way stricter standards to it than we do to most governments. It is easier to change your citizenship than to cut Google off your life.
So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
> So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to?
“Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes.
> Is that really a standard you want to set?
Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman?
> Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand?
In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
So do you support protections that apply to LGBT people or would you also ridicule them with your penis pills example that “obviously” shows that such protections can’t work? I am completely baffled by your stance and I don’t see any coherence in it.
You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube.
Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service.
The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech.
In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
> My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service.
And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay.
> The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content
> In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
> And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay.
Cool - but you didn't propose anything? Are you calling Russel Brand an employee of YouTube who deserves labor protection? Does YouTube get to fire Russel if he doesn't get enough views or stars? Does YouTube have to employ everyone? Do they pay FICA taxes on his earnings?
> What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
That's my point - I don't want the government making speech decisions - and it's expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment. Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one. They don't have police powers - and I'm certainly not giving it to them. The government does have police powers and if not restrained can not only fire you, but throw you in jail and worse.
If they're a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive behavior, beat them up over that. If you think there's a better way, build a competitor. But don't go giving the government more power to regulate speech.
Indeed, I didn’t. I just said that we should treat Google with at least the same scrutiny we treat the government. I didn’t say that porn should be allowed on YouTube. I didn’t say that Russel Brand is a YouTube employee. That’s all your weird imagination.
Employers and clients of private companies are protected all over the world for various reasons and it doesn’t result in weird problems you come up with. Should black people be Google employees to not get racially discriminated for using YouTube? No. It is a protected class. Should Germans be employed at a pharmacy to get the right to buy drugs? No. It’s a law that they can get it without any discrimination. I am talking about very basic things that already exist and we can’t even get past that in our discussion.
> Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one.
> They don't have police powers
I really can’t see much difference between Google banning me on monopolistic YouTube or the government banning me on monopolistic StateTube. You aren’t getting in jail in either case. Actually, there is one difference: StateTube would at least be governed by a democratically elected body.
I hope we both at least can agree that having StateTube as a de facto monopoly would be bad. So why should YouTube, that seems clearly worse, be considered good?
Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards? How does that work? Nationalize Google?
No one forces me or Russell Brand to watch or post on YouTube. I don’t have social media accounts because I don’t want to give up my privacy or get subjected to their whims. Russell Brand made different choices.
> Who do you mean by “we” when suggesting stricter standards?
"We” are human beings who are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
> How does that work? Nationalize Google?
Social expectations, social awareness, legal means. It would work like all other customs and laws work: you get socially shunned and get legal trouble for your actions that don’t meet social expectations. Try to open a bar that doesn’t allow black people to enter it to see how those mechanisms work in practice.
Good luck getting enough people to care about a celebrity cancellation.
The only way to change the behavior of big corps like Google is not to give them money, and to get other people to do the same. I wouldn’t count on getting enough people worked up, though.
Russell Brand has his rights intact for now. Any damage to his dignity he did himself. He doesn’t have the right to post on YouTube, and YT has every right to decide who and what gets on their platform. Don’t like it? Don’t use it.
It’s not just about celebrity cancellation. This is just another form of a bigger problem. For example, many people got their Google accounts blocked for no reason and no recourse. There are stories about it on HN.
Yeah, LGBT rights and defunding police are more trendy issues to care about than the techno dystopia of tomorrow; but one doesn’t exclude the other. And hopefully the public sentiment will get there before it’s too late.
Yeah, those "many people" blocked for "no reason."
Google is free for most users. If they block someone from their services that's their prerogative. I doubt they do it randomly for "no reason," just like I doubt someone who says they got fired for "no reason." It might happen but more likely Google had a reason, just not one the blocked person agrees with or wants to tell anyone about.
What happens on YouTube with the advertising policies hardly seems to rise to "techno dystopia of tomorrow." Russell Brand didn't have his Google or YouTube accounts blocked. His videos are still there. YouTube de-monetized his channel, which means they won't run ads on his videos, and Brand won't make money on YouTube. YouTube has obligations beyond Russell Brand's ego and income -- they have contractual obligations to their advertisers and all of their users. No one has to watch or post on YouTube, and we don't descend into a dystopian hellscape if YouTube does one thing or another -- if it disappeared tomorrow most people in the world would barely notice, and a few wealthy celebrities living parasitically off of attention and advertising would have to get real jobs.
Note that social media can also act as public forums, which aren’t protected in the way entirely private institutions are. For instance, newspaper organizations are in a similar territory.
In what ways are newspapers a public forum? I can start printing a newspaper today and I don't have to publish your articles or your letters to the editors. They are absolutely private institutions.
No, but the question is on what basis dominant platforms _should_ be allowed to terminate someone's account.
>If you don't see the hypocrisy of celebrities leveraging social media to their advantage and profit, then whining and complaining about "free speech" when they cross the line or break the terms of service or otherwise run afoul of the rules, I don't know what to say.
If the only rule he has broken and the only line he has crossed is to be accused of a crime by others then hypocrisy is entirely irrelevant. Terminating an account on this basis should be illegal because it undermines the rule of law.
Most of us can lose our jobs and livelihood for a lot less. Brand will do alright unless he gets convicted.
Rule of law means the laws apply to everyone the same. It doesn’t mean private companies have to follow legal rules of evidence and procedure. Companies terminate accounts on the “basis” they can — in this case for violating terms of service. Celebrity or not, YouTube can kick people off when they have credible allegations of serious misconduct.
We're talking past each other. I don't dispute that Google can terminate Brand's account under current law. My point is that the law should be changed so that they can not do that purely on the basis of accusations.
The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective. If the consequences of accusations are no longer primarily decided in court, then the law becomes ineffective and even more unequal than it already is.
What consequences? He has to move to a different streaming platform?
What law would you change to force private companies to keep social pariahs and dangerous (but maybe not criminal) people on their platforms? Can I sell porn in your driveway?
Brand signed his rights to privacy away when he made himself a celebrity. This is what happens when celebrities screw up. Maybe not fair, but I don’t think it’s fair that Russell Brand makes $1M/mo on YouTube and I don’t.
>What consequences? He has to move to a different streaming platform?
Are you asking me what the consequences are for an entertainer to get removed from globally dominant distribution channels?
>Can I sell porn in your driveway?
This is getting silly. I'm not saying that every company has to publish everything. Google had a mutually profitable business relationship with Brand. They were more than happy to publish his content before these allegations were made.
> Google had a mutually profitable business relationship with Brand. They were more than happy to publish his content before these allegations were made.
Sure. I would be more than happy to hang out with Russell Brand too until I found out he might have raped three women. Then I'd think twice. Credible accusations of rape and sexual assault have a way of changing things.
Russell Brand will find a platform. He's been kicked off media platforms before -- he seems to invite controversy as part of his schtick. The people who want to pay to listen to Russell Brand can continue to do so, plenty of channels available not as sensitive to public opinion as Google.
Russell Brand is a smart guy. I assume he's heard of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, or Andrew Tate. He probably knows what happens in these situations. Getting knocked off of YouTube is the least of it. I'm willing to give Russell Brand the benefit of innocent until proven guilty, but YouTube has no obligation to risk their reputation or alienate a large number of their users, especially when everything we know about Russell Brand, from his own mouth, gives the impression that he probably did some things he was hoping wouldn't get made public. Celebrities always walk that line, their fame and income based on perception and reputation.
> I don't dispute that Google can terminate Brand's account under current law. My point is that the law should be changed so that they can not do that purely on the basis of accusations.
Why?
> The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective.
Sure.
> If the consequences of accusations are no longer primarily decided in court, then the law becomes ineffective and even more unequal than it already is.
If the scope of the law is expanded so that every change in relations between two persons not resulting from a mutual agreement to change requires going to court, the resulting social friction will make the law more ineffective where it is.
If Brand wants to only enter into business agreeements that are framed so that the only behavioral reason for termination by the other side is a ruling by a court that he violated some law, he can insist on those terms, but that's a expensive proposition for the other party and society, and I see it as absolutely undesirable that such conditions be a legal default or, worse, effectively obligatory as a matter of law.
>If the scope of the law is expanded so that every change in relations between two persons not resulting from a mutual agreement to change requires going to court, the resulting social friction will make the law more ineffective where it is.
Not every relation between two persons is between a globally dominant platform or infrastructure provider and a user of such a platform. The threshold for global gatekeepers must be higher.
Public figures are of course subject to the court of public opinion. That's what they signed up for. But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true.
> The threshold for global gatekeepers must be higher.
Maybe there are some aspects of Google’s operations that ought to be public utilities, but I have a lot of trouble seeing YouTube as one of them. It may be dominant in its particular structure (or some aspects of it, since YouTube does lots of different things in one platform, many of which have many strong competitors), but I don’t really see the case that it is essential. There’s lots of channels for video distribution with slightly different models.
> But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true.
There is, in that there are kinds of sanctions that private entities can not impose.
Russell Brand is not just a user of YouTube. He reportedly makes $1M/mo on that platform. He got demonetized, not kicked off or censored. Presumably his GMail account still works, and he can still upload to YouTube. The "dominant global platform" chose to not show ads on Brand's videos, which protects their advertisers from blowback and a bad look, and has the consequence of cutting into Russell Brand's income. Brand has a contractual relationship with YouTube that includes the possibility of demonetization (no ads on his videos) if he does something illegal or embarrassing to YouTube or their advertisers or other users. That's what happened. He's not the victim of a malign global infrastructure provider.
There's no "legal blast radius," just one celebrity who got his wings clipped because of credible accusations made in the British press -- a TV documentary ran about Brand's alleged sexual assaults. Piers Morgan tried to discuss this on his show (which you can watch on YouTube). This is not the first time Russell Brand has got into trouble with media , or with his treatment of women. He had to resign from his show on BBC 2 and left the BBC paying fines for his antics.
Edit: I just checked YouTube. Russell Brand's channel is still there, videos still available. His About page points to Rumble, where he presumably can still get paid by advertisements. He also has Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, locals.com channels running, and a book for sale on Amazon. Most of us, most content producers on YouTube, can only dream of Brand's level of exposure (and his income). And most of us won't have credible allegations of rape made by multiple women.
What perhaps should happen depends on points of view and interpretations — subjective and changeable. Let’s talk about what did happen because arguing about should just wastes time unless you have an actionable plan and the means to make actually change something.
Russell Brand got accused, credibly, of sexual assault by multiple women. That makes him a pariah. Google/YouTube don’t want the reputation damage so they close him down on their platform.
Russell Brand chose to live his life in public, as a celebrity. This is what happens to celebrities when their sponsors and fans and enablers lose confidence in them. That’s the game he signed up for. Part of the celebrity bargain is that public perception means more than truth, and that works both ways.
Brand can continue saying and posting whatever he wants. No one silenced him. He just can’t do it on YouTube anymore for money. I don’t get to keep a rental car because Hertz let me drive it for a weekend, because we had a contract. So did Russell Brand.
As I said, in my view globally dominant platforms and infrastructure providers (such as payment networks, etc) should not be allowed to terminate accounts based on public sentiment alone. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.
I want to bring up something else though. We don't actually know the reasons why Google has terminated his account (at least I don't). Perhaps the accusations and the reputational risk were not the only reasons.
Google could legitimately want to block Brand from using Youtube as a stage to attack his accusers and run his own media campaign related to the case. That would be an entirely different matter, but in my view this should be handled by more selective restrictions.
Google/YouTube gave a reason, it was quoted in an article in The Guardian, I think. Violated terms of service, which apparently includes offline behavior, subject to YouTube's discretion.
We may or may not disagree, but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again). I only commented on what did happen, and why I don't think Google/YouTube did anything legally wrong, or even ethically objectionable, given that their interests differ from Russell Brand's interests and no longer intersect since Brand became a social pariah. Google has to cater to a lot more customers than Russell Brand and his audience, and has to consider public opinion about alleged celebrity rapists.
We all have our interpretations and ideas about how YouTube and the world at large should work. I try not to spend a lot of time and energy trying to reconcile reality with how I think things should work.
>but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again)
Well then we're really talking past each other because that's the only thing that interests me about this case. What actually happned is neither surprising nor particularly mysterious.
We are in a situation where a handful of globally dominant platforms and infrastructure providers can unilaterally shut people down for any reason whatsoever. Those of us whose livelihood depends on those platforms need more rights.
Google's interest to shield itself from reputational damage should not be permitted to outweigh all other considerations.
Brand's management company/agent dropped him too. Should they have to continue to represent Russell Brand while the accusations pile up, his reputation sinks, and anyone associated with him risks collateral damage? He has rights, but he isn't the only one with rights.
No one has a right to publish on a platform owned by a private entity. That is not freedom of speech. Brand was not de-monetized "for any reason whatsoever." He did not get censored by the government. He got kicked off YT for specific reasons stated by YouTube. They aren't just randomly booting people off or arbitrarily making up the rules as they go. Google absolutely has every right to protect their brand and their customers, and that does outweigh whatever rights you imagine Russell Brand has to continue posting on YouTube and profiting from it.
>Brand's management company/agent dropped him too. Should they have to continue to represent Russell Brand while the accusations pile up, his reputation sinks, and anyone associated with him risks collateral damage?
His management agent is not a globally dominant platform or infrastructure provider.
Russell Brand was not banned or kicked off the internet, Google, or even YouTube. His videos got demonetized because YouTube had ethical and contractual obligations to their advertisers and users. Focus on the penalties Brand has actually suffered -- demonetization of his videos, cancellations of some tour dates, book publisher getting squeamish -- rather than extrapolating the incident into an imaginary global soul-crushing dystopia.
It may turn out that Brand got wrongfully accused, though I doubt it, given that multiple women who don't know each other doing that seems unlikely, especially given Brand's self-admitted promiscuity and sex addiction, and cringe behavior towards women you can easily find. But if he's not guilty then he'll get his YouTube monetization back, and thanks to the UK's libel laws he would make a small fortune suing the TV channel and newspapers and the accusers.
> Brand does have a right to fair treatment under the law.
I’m not sure if that’s accurate, but maybe some lawyers here can enlighten me. As far as I know, if you run a business in a country’s jurisdiction, you need to follow their laws. It’s not anarchy/wild west. I can’t make a ToS for my bakery that only serves people of a certain race, for example. The same applies to online businesses. And don’t tell me this is an obvious discrimination but this case is different, so on and so forth. It’s because the law forbids it. And of course, big tech can’t ignore the law. They shouldn’t deprive anyone of their right to use their service to the fullest, especially if they are public companies.
Brand violated YouTube’s terms of service. Can you show that YT singles Brand out and allows other celebrity accused rapists to continue posting? He’s not the first.
No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights.
> singles Brand out and allows other celebrity accused rapists to continue posting? He’s not the first.
Accusing is something, guilty is another. And even if found guilty, how’s that a violation? Do you kick out an ex-convict from the grocery store? As long as no promotion for violence, you don’t get to deny them the service.
> No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights.
No, everyone has the right, just like you have the right to go to walmart. If they close, fair, it’s like bankruptcy for a company and no longer required to pay debt, your company legal entity doesn’t exist anymore, but as long as you are operating, whatever applies to grocery stores applies to big tech, I don’t know why some people think big tech are above the law, in fact, given how influential they are, a special restrictions should be applied to them, this is not some random IRC chat with nicknames back in the 90s and if you gat banned, you go to another room, social media is now people digital identities, imagine LinkedIn suddenly started banning people, and people are no longer able to look for jobs and the likes? Or a dating site mogul that owns most dating apps suddenly decided to ban your account and they use AI to recognize your face, you are basically out of the dating pool! Yeah, laws should be adjusted per how dependent we are on the digital world, this is not the 90s anymore.
I have no right to enter a Walmart store, or any store. Private businesses can refuse service to anyone. They can make rules up, like I must wear shirt and shoes. Some restaurants refuse service if I don’t wear a jacket and tie. Aside from discriminating against protected minorities and ADA violations, businesses have considerable leeway when it comes to whom they choose to serve, or not.
Look at how Elon Musk arbitrarily treats people he doesn’t like, or who criticize him, on Twitter. He’s probably not breaking any laws. He owns the platform, he gets to make the rules. No one has to use it, and no one has a right to use it.
Reality may not match how you or I would like the world to work, or what we think of as fair.
Protected minority, covered by civil rights law. You must know the difference. People accused of sexual assault and rape do not comprise a protected minority. Internet celebrities happy to make money from advertising and pushing boundaries until they get caught or go too far do not comprise a protected minority.
YouTube did not ban all Brits, or all comedians, or all white men with long hair. They demonetized one person. There's no sign out front that says "No White British Comedians With Long Hair." Russell Brand is not a victim. He doesn't have any right to get money from advertisers on a platform he chooses to publish on. That is hardly comparable to a restaurant excluding people based on their skin color.
Point is, Walmart, a private company, does have restrictions on what it can and can't do, like who they allow in their stores, so it's not as black and white as private business = absolute rule over interior of the building.
I didn't say Walmart can do whatever they want to their customers, for any reason they dream up. I said that I have no right to enter a Walmart store. No one does.
As a company incorporated in the United States, Walmart has to abide by lots of laws, including laws that prohibit racial discrimination. That does not equate to anyone having a right to enter their stores. It means Walmart can't exclude people solely on the basis of race. They can refuse to let me in for any number of reasons, or no reason, but if they tell me it's because of my skin color or disability they have broken the law.
Every night when Walmart closes they refuse entry to everyone, for an obvious reason, imposed fairly on everyone, and none of us has a right to enter the store. Suppose I roll up in a wheelchair as they're locking the doors at night, and they won't let me in because the store is closed. They made up that closing time, no law tells them when to close. If I sue Walmart claiming they denied me entry because I have a disability, they will rightfully say I was denied entry because the store was closed to everyone. I think you can see how that plays out. That's the difference between not having any right to enter the store and having the right not to suffer discrimination as a protected minority.
And when the dust settles and I lose in court, Walmart can bar me from their stores if they want to because I sued them. But not because I have a disability.
YouTube has not deleted Russell Brand's channel. Go look, it's all still there.
They did stop running advertisements on his videos, called demonetization. YouTube has contractual obligations to their advertisers, and those reputations, and their own, to consider, along with the opinions of millions of other users.
That’s frustrating but not illegal or evidence of a conspiracy. Relying on YouTube or any social media platform for an income has some risks, just like most jobs that can lay you off or fire you for no reason.
Russell Brand was supposedly making $1M/mo on YouTube until a few days ago. That’s pretty good risk/reward to me, especially considering he has other platforms to move to.
The Brand allegations came after a thoroughly researched traditional media investigation.
The only part of this which is "trial by social media" is Brand's choice of venue to deny them. I'm not sure any principle of jurisprusdence involves social media being obliged to subsidise his denials by wrapping unwilling advertisers around them and sending him a cut.
> But don't nuke anyone before the court says "guilty."
Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law.
However, there is quite reasonable circumstantial evidence that he's guilty - five or six serious allegations from independent women, which multiple news organisations have assessed and found credible.
There's also been a fresh look at his behaviour with activities which I don't believe have been contested - like having an affair with a 16-year old when he was 30. He doesn't need to be found guilty for advertisers to decide that kind of odious behaviour is something that they don't want to be associated with.
What's the alternative? Legally force YouTube to give him a platform and lose revenue?
> Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law.
I don’t get this part, so assuming he found guilty, and now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work because he found guilty on something, you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there, or not accessing YT if it was used as a platform for those allegations, remember, law is flawed too and full loopholes and not perfect, and there are so many cases of false court outcomes.
I don't believe any country guarantees a right to be given work.
> He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work
Yes, he's a public figure, but so what? No one is denying him a right to seek work, but equally organisations are free to decline to work with him.
Why should Brand have a right to millions of pounds of revenue from a Youtube channel? I don't.
> you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there
You think if multiple credible witnesses accused a doctor of sexual abuse he should be free to carry on medical practice as long as he does it at a different hospital?
We don't have a legal right to perform stand-up in a club, nor is there a legal right to be able to upload videos to Youtube. If I own a pub and want to ban Russell Brand based on no evidence at all, I'm allowed to do so.
Russell Brand DOES have a legal right to bodily autonomy and freedom to walk around the world etc. So to take that away DOES take a legal trial and a jury etc.
Private entities get to make the call based on whatever they like whether someone gets to perform on their website or in their venue. If I think someone is "dodgy" or whatever, I can bar them from performing in my club and the same applies to Youtube.
In life sometimes there are consequences for behaving badly and Russell is finally facing some of them.
I also really hate this modern trial by social media, but YouTube is entirely within their rights here. However, they are not free to do this without criticism, and we should continue to criticize them over this kind of thing until they stop it.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around.
Brand has been the subject of a joint investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 where the claims are backed by a significant amount of evidence vetted by their lawyers. These aren't reckless publications.
These claims have subsequently led to at least some of the involved parties submitting police reports alleging sexual assault. And from reports by the newspapers the expectation is that more parties are coming forward.
This is not trial by TV, social media etc. These are serious claims being taken very seriously because of the strength of the evidence presented to date.
As such, Youtube is absolutely correct here to err on the side of caution.
Let's be honest. Do you think Russell Brand would have been cancelled this hard if he was a boring centrist instead of spending the past 18 months talking about Ukrainian "bio-Nazi labs"?
Neurodivergent people are being persecuted for wrongthink.
Hang on a minute. He is accused of having had an "emotionally abusive and controlling relationshp" with a 16-year-old when he was 31. That is not the same as rape. The age of consent in the UK is 16, and 16-year-olds are legally sexually active all the time in the UK.
Brand has also not been accused of passing along a girl to a known pedophile. He is accused of having joked about sending his assistant to Jimmy Savile, on a BBC Radio 2 comedy show in 2007. (The BBC did not fire him for that.)
You said "He is alleged to have passed along a girl to a known pedophile."
He is not even alleged to have done that. What's been reported is that he joked on a BBC radio show about visiting Savile and bringing along his assistant.
Five years before the allegations against Savile emerged, the older star told Brand he “doesn’t usually meet fellas but if you’ve got a sister then that’s ok”.
Brand explained he didn’t have a sister but instead named a personal assistant he could meet.
“I’ve got a personal assistant,” Brand told Savile. “And part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She’s very attractive, Jimmy.”
Savile answered: “Well, well that’s a good start. You could send her along to do some research.”
Asked by Brand what she should wear to meet Jimmy, the paedophile presenter replied: “I’d actually prefer her to wear nothing.”
Brand burst into laughter as Savile insisted: “There’s nothing wrong with that.”
There is no suggestion that Brand, Savile or Brand’s personal assistant ever met up following the interview.
Al Franken was required to resign from the Senate for allegations that were never (and never would) rise to the levels of the allegations against Brand.
What do you mean by “required “? Franken voluntary resigned to hold himself to the same standards he’d hold others to. He could have fought calls for his resignation but didn’t.
Sole reason for his political pivot: he knew the centrists and left wing people would let him be thrown under the bus if any of this came to light, but his new audience would think it some deep state lie that if anything proves Brand is even more truthful than they'd previously assumed.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn’t this exactly what trial by TV is? Trial by its nature presents evidence (strong or not), but the point of trial by TV is that the public, not the court, decides the legality of actions, where legality is interpreted broadly.
It is much more akin to an employer/employee relationship and in that situation it is very normal for you to be suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.
Let's look at it the other way. Brand has a substantial following, but he doesn't get nearly as many views in such a short space of time for videos that aren't denying sex offences. The private companies could reward him for this notoriety by advertising, or not. Did they make the wrong choice?
And ultimately the actual consequences Brand is suffering from which people are expressing concern over aren't losing access to credit or mobility, it's losing ad revenue from his infamy, a booking agent and charity figurehead status. I don't think you can argue these should be inalienable rights, and it's especially tough to make a good case that the charity working to end violence against women should be forced to continue using the alleged rapist as a figurehead unless and until he is actually proven beyond guilty in a court of law.
Fair points, but it doesn't answer the question asked - what are his "inalienable rights" and where should that line drawn? GPs examples were good - banks, taxis, etc. Should his local cafe be allowed to refuse service?
I think I changed my mind a little based on the reply.
When I think about how I would use youtube (signup, upload some crap, maybe get a couple of views), it feels like a service which is notionally open to anyone. And I have a problem with someone being denied that, without it going to trial first. And even afterward, too - let the judge apply the sentence; don't have the public decide on extra ways to punish him.
But at his level of notoriety I concede that it's a bit more like him being on Netflix. I have no problem with Netflix deciding to greenlight or cancel shows based on the perceived whims of the public (even if they were morons to pull the episode of Community where Chang went Drow-face.)
> and where should that line drawn?
Even though my comment headed in that direction, it's hard to even imagine what that line would look like. I guess that's why case law exists.
> Brand has been the subject of a joint investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 where the claims are backed by a significant amount of evidence vetted by their lawyers. These aren't reckless publications.
Try as you might, the above will never create the certainty in an reasonable person's mind as an actual legal conviction would. As we all know, even some of most well put together cases fall apart under the scrutiny of cross examination.
And I don’t trust any of these “not-reckless-publications” on anything let alone to ruin someone’s life, let’s see who’s funding those lawyers and publications..
And if found guilty, I don’t see why he’s denied monetization, are you saying there no ex-convicts on these platforms and making money too?! This is stupid.
> These claims have subsequently led to at least some of the involved parties submitting police reports alleging sexual assault. And from reports by the newspapers the expectation is that more parties are coming forward.
This is accurate, but to give context:
> A spokesperson for the Met said: "We are aware of reporting by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches about allegations of sexual offences.
> "On Sunday 17 September, the Met received a report of a sexual assault which was alleged to have taken place in Soho in central London in 2003. Officers are in contact with the woman and will be providing her with support.
> "We first spoke with The Sunday Times on Saturday 16 September and have since made further approaches to The Sunday Times and Channel 4 to ensure that anyone who believes they have been the victim of a sexual offence is aware of how to report this to the police.
It appears no claims to the police were made prior to or during the reporting, and the one there now is only due to the police actively following up. This is of course a serious matter, but does not appear to the the flood of claims that can be infered from the above.
When reading something like this I'm always reminded of the many cases where it turned out to be absolutely groundless. See Rammstein. You might not like their lifestyle, but let's leave law enforcement to ... law enforcement and judges. You do so much damage with wrong convictions because it feels right. Let's wait and see, then condemn.
I remember in Boston explosion how one social media site (I think it was Reddit?) they went full detective mode and ended up accusing innocent people with their pictures all over the internet.
I don't get it. Even if all allegations are true.. that would mean he committed crimes over 10 years ago. Aren't ex-convicts allowed to monetize a YouTube channel that's completely unrelated to the allegations? Why does YouTube need to penalize him? Is there a YouTube policy that explains this?
Well, I have no idea why they make their decisions, but purely from an argument point of view, if we take the concept of prison as a "debt to society", ex-convicts paid theirs, if guilty, Brand hasn't.
Exactly! I just questioned the same point in another comment, even if he found guilty, why he can’t make money off the platform? Especially for a public figure.
This is just youtube using a convenient excuse to steal money from him. They aren't going to stop playing ads on it, they just get to keep all of it. The perverse incentive is absurd.
I don’t know this person or this incident, but it seems nowadays if you want to end someone’s career and/or public image, you just need to invite some women they have been with and call it sexual assault. That goes without saying, is there a court order to stop monetizing his channel? He seems to be a public figure, so his main income is .. being public. What did he actually say to have him cancelled, or whom did he annoy?
I don't know if there was ever a time in the world, where an accusation did not automatically mean guilt. However, it seems in modern times, because of the ease at which information can be disseminated, that you are guilty by accusation first.
I don't really know anything about this guy, and YouTube is a private company like Twitter, they can do whatever they want now, but something just seems inherently unfair to punish based on accusation alone. Even if its multiple people.
Prove it, then punish, is the only way to at least strive for a fair system.
I don't know this incident, but the person is a famous actor who has kind of turned into a political commentator and spiritual coach (if that makes sense). The cynic in me says that (just like Joe Rogan) because he's a very popular, widely listened to, _independent_ media production, traditional media wants them gone and would do almost anything in their influence to discredit or remove these people.
I'd encourage you to look at the viewership numbers for people like Joe Rogan, Russel Brand, and their peers in independent media, and then look at viewership numbers for CNN, etc and 'traditional'-style media companies and you can see why they may have targets on their backs.
Because they're such big targets, it really makes me scrutinize and extra skeptical about things brought against them, not because I believe they haven't done crimes or are good people, but because there's so much incentive by so many others to simply knock them out of the game by any means.
161 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 366 ms ] threadWorth reading:
A few thoughts on the Russell Brand furore, by Jonathan Cook:
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2023-09-17/thoughts-russe...
... The media companies now fuelling the public mood via trial by TV are the very same companies that delighted in Brand’s sex-addict persona. As the Dispatches’ archival footage and testimonies make clear, those media corporations willingly exploited his persona – even allegedly at the risk of putting members of their staff and audiences in danger – to increase corporate profits. No one should regard them as good-faith actors in this latest development. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault.
In recent years, Brand has often argued that he went on a long and difficult personal journey of redemption, and that he is ashamed of the way he behaved in the past. There is at least ostensible evidence to back up Brand’s claims. There is zero evidence that the Dispatches documentary represents any kind of act of contrition by the media corporations now publicly reviling Brand for his behaviour. They haven’t seen the error of their ways. They are simply cashing in on Brand again – this time by bringing down the very celeb they built up. It’s all money in the bank for them. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault. ...
we've had this for years now.
In both cases, They relayed information and They are not a monolith, and often, if not always, the screeds about They betray an extreme lack of rigor and play on emotions
It is an industry comprised of multiple companies each with their own agendas, viewpoints etc. The publications involved in investigating Brand are not the same ones that profited from his exploits.
And even if they did profit in the past does not mean they relinquish any right to atone for their mistakes. Hollywood tried to change and improve after the Weinstein situation. And so should the UK industry as Brand isn't the only one accused.
We are talking about multiple cases of rape and sexual assault some involving a 16 year old girl. We need to not lose sight of who the real victims are here.
Brand was 31 at the time, according to media reports.
So age of consent is not relevant.
Unless you're a red pilled, crypto-fascist, conspiracy theorist like Russell Brand, in which case the "mainstream media" is one huge, shadowy, many-tentacled, Spectre-like organisation out to get you for your brave stand against vaccines. Apparently.
These women didn't even come out with their stories during the height of #MeToo when it was fashionable. But he starts drawing attention (getting more views than any CNN program) while talking shit about government authoritarianism during covid, and suddenly these "journalists" find multiple women.
He pissed off some powerful people with his alt-media views and now and he's getting the Julian Assange treatment to send a message to everyone else, that's all this is.
“The media” doesn’t really have a diversity of agendas or views, they have a specific audience that they peddle outrage to in order to extract money. For example, as a bemused outside observer there’s very little difference between CNN and Fox News (admittedly I’ve seen very little of either), other than the audience they pander to.
No-one is trying to downplay what he allegedly did, but that’s why we have a legal system. That these accusations have been made publicly via media outlets and not via law enforcement doesn’t help the legal case against him though, as any eventual trial has almost certainly been prejudiced already due to how widespread the coverage has been.
It probably doesn’t really matter either.
That public opinion (which is managed and administered by a handful of media organisations) is ultimately the highest court in the land today is all very black mirror.
Imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them. That misbehaviour hasn't been proven in a court of law, it might even be the case that the barkeeper read the situation wrongly and threw that person out despite their innocence. Yet they should have the right to decide that, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enfore any kind of house rules unless they have two sworn witnesses for anything that happens.
Now the pressing question is whether youtube is in a comparable situation here. Russel Brand, whether he is innocent or not, could now — with all the spotlights pointed at him — use that situation to produce more outrage — outrage that would make him a shitton of money that would be coming from YouTube. Seen from that perspective that move from youtube might be more of a strategic preventive measure to avoid dragging their platform into it without having to censor the guy than any form of punishment (although it will be read as such).
Btw. I am not defending that position, I still think it is problematic and I still think social media platforms that resemble some sort of public square should have higher free speech standards than they do, but pick one freedom for corporations or free speech for it's customers, you cannot have both.
Its absolutely correct to do it. While she was working at a bar in the caraibeans, my sister spotted a guy slipping something in a drink. The person who did it and both his friends weren't convicted (the police is useless and very 'assertive' towards victims there, especially women), but barred from all bar and restaurant owned by her employer
At least, I keep being told that's the case on the way to explaining why civilization is being destroyed
Weren't the same people who made this joke again and again when Trump was banned from Twitter the exact same people who then cried out loud when Musk took over and changed the rules?
Corporate does corporate things. If Twitter was nationalized, 'rules for me and not for you' would be outrageous. Right now? If anybody is surprised it's their own damn fault.
If anything, capitalism best explains this move. It’s better to get rid of a potential liability before the liability materializes.
You explicitly agree to their TOS and TOU when signing up, and if you violate them (as determined by YouTube themselves!) you're out.
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along...
Nothing to see there, move along /s
Are you one of those "it's not censorship, just make your own media platform" techbros?
He also just got a strong statement of support from the owner of another large monetized video distribution platform (X fka Twitter). So he can always move his show there.
But you'll be glad to know the UK govt is pressuring Rumble to demonetize him: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1704808395658727715
Fact is, when you monetize videos on YouTube you enter a contract with them. If you fail to adhere to the contract (by violating the TOS/TOU, for example) then YouTube has every right to terminate your contract... You're always free to choose another platform that is more aligned with your content/values/actions/whatever...
YouTube is not a Museum
We have consequences in everyday life all the time which don't require trials, just our own opinions. If I meet someone who seems sleazy (judging from my own opinion based on life experience), I am not going to encourage my daughter to date that person. We don't need trials by jury in our life to make decisions and take actions which have consequences.
The truth is, it is generally true in life that where there is smoke there is fire. And with Russell Brand there has been a LOT of smoke for a long time, certainly more than enough smoke to judge that you probably wouldn't trust him with your daughter. And when you have not one but many women, with evidence, along with many pieces of video and audio of Russell Brands previous outrageous behavior (e.g. calling a man to tell him publicly on the radio that he had sex with his granddaughter, telling notorious pedophile Jimmy Saville that he would send him over his female assistant...), then it becomes more and more likely that in this case we just have someone who at worse is a rapist and at best is a total creep and sex pest.
I certainly agree, before putting someone in prison they should have a fair trial. But no one is putting Brand in prison, are they?
You can hardly accuse the media of being consistent in their moral outrage.
For the Andrew Sachs "joke" see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ross#The_Russell_Bran...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_c...
There were no consequences for Jimmy Saville too. Why? Because he was a powerful, wealthy man and it's hard for people to go against rich celebrities. Can you imagine being a young woman with no wealth or fame trying to go against Brand at the height of his celebrity? Or being a lowly Production Assistant at the BBC or Channel 4, wanting to complain but knowing nothing will happen or you may lose your job.
That there were no consequences back then doesn't mean there shouldn't have been, we have no idea what happened behind the scenes. It's been historically hard for women to speak up against powerful usually rich men.
As for any actual sexual misconduct, that is a matter for the courts to decide; but in my mind there is no question that the BBC and Channel 4 enabled, encouraged and rewarded Brand's behaviour.
You're acting like Russell just made a few juvenile fart and shit jokes... he didn't. Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter?
We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick. You don't need a courtroom trial to receive results from actions. If you go around calling everyone a dick-head every day, sooner or later someone will punch you in the face. Russell Brand has a legal right to freedom, so any attempt to take that away can only be done with a fair trial by jury. Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/27/russell-brand-...
[Speaking on Andrew Sachs' answerphone]
Russell Brand: Hello Andrew Sachs, this is Russell Brand … you are meant to be on my show now mate … I am here with Jonathan Ross. I could still do the interview to your answerphone.
Jonathan Ross: Let's do it …
Brand: Man … er, Andrew Sachs.
Ross: Don't call him Manuel, that's really bad manners. I apologise for Russell - he's an idiot.
Brand: I said Andrew Sachs! Look Andrew Sachs I have got respect for you and your lineage and your progeny, never let that be questioned.
Ross: Don't hint …
Brand: I weren't hinting! Why did that come across as a hint?
Ross: Because you know what you did…
Brand: That wasn't a hint …
Ross: He fucked your granddaughter!
[laughter in the studio]
Brand: That's his answerphone!
Ross: I'm sorry … I apologise Andrew, I apologise, I can't help it, you were talking about it and it was in my head, I apologise.
Brand: Jonathan!
Ross: I got excited, what can I say, it just came out.
Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs. I would like to create world peace, between the yellow, white and blacks, Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs. I said something I didn't have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter. But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual, it was consensual lovely sex. It was full of respect I sent her a text, I've asked her to marry me, Andrew Sachs …
So not only did he call up an old man saying he had sex with his grand-daughter, he made a gag about her not being on her period and it being consensual.
Why are you trying to defend this incredibly gross and nasty person?
Marina Hyde has a good piece in today's Guardian about this particular programme and how things have changed:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-...
I remember this episode, and I remember other stuff Brand did in the early noughties.
Personally, I always thought Brand was a git. But if people claim Brand did or said stuff he didn't do or say, I think it ought to be pointed out. And if you can't see the implications of someone being deplatformed in this way ostensibly because of something they allegedly did fifteen or twenty years ago then I cannot help you.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. —H. L. Mencken
Google is not strictly speaking a lawmaker, but they have comparable impact.
https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand
They are just withholding revenue. I am not defending sexual abuse. My point is well articulated here by The Hill's Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_Kjd0xXNA
From the transcript (starts about 1:00 min into the video):
I find this extremely disturbing and you know with the caveat that of course YouTube is a private company they are not bound to give you free speech rights or do process rights they're not bound by the First Amendment they can literally do whatever they want we don't have to like it we can criticize it and I think this is well worth criticizing this is not him being punished even for some speech some content he's produced on the platform which is some a problem we've had you know with YouTube in the past this the show has had problems with that in the past this is him being punished for and I'm not trying to detract from from the things people are saying about him but at this point these are Anonymous accusations that have not been substantiated through any kind of formal legal process the idea that you would be you would be canceled on us in a significant financial Revenue sort of way I know his main thing is Rumble but he also posts on YouTube for anonymous accusations against you reflecting behavior from decades ago uh I think that's pretty wild [...]
If I own a bar or restaurant or club, I can prevent you from performing standup if I want and there doesn't even have to be a reason. It doesn't have to go to court and there doesn't even need to be evidence.
Right now what we are seeing are Russell Brand's metaphorical chickens coming home to roost.
In your bar or restaurant example, I think even in the US, that could be a breach of contract.
> Can you imagine calling your girlfriends father and bragging about your sex with his daughter?
Regardless of how distasteful you find it (it is), an entertainer pushing a poor taste line for comedic purposes is not really a fair comparison here. I'm unsure if this is intentional or not, but I'm trying to be charitable.
> We are discussing there being real life consequences (not jail) for being a dick.
Sort of. The "being a dick" part is highly interwoven with the 'serious sexual crimes' accusations by the original reporting, and this makes the whole thing tricky and murky.
> Russell brand has no "right" to broadcast on Youtube, nor does he have any "right" to perform a gig in a pub, so pubs, websites, etc, can refuse him for any reason they like, that's life.
Agreed, however organisations knee-jerk banning people for (what are so far) unproven accusations is generally seen as "being a dick" too - the difference being we can definitively see this. On a site like HN, this is amplified due to the higher interests in social media powers, fair platforms, etc.
Also, I would argue that media companies that do journalism should not shy away from having those journalists investigate other departments of those companies. And while those journalists ought to give those depts the right to respond to any accusations, they shouldn't necessarily wait until those depts have completed in-depth investigations of their own and concocted a full CYA strategy, before breaking the story.
(Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning the actions of media corporations)
What makes matters worse is that comments get disabled aa does sharing. I can't even link to the problem. If I report the ad, it is there again tomorrow. It's almost as if that counts as interaction worthy of trying the ad again.
I personally don't like RB. I find the whole act to be off-putting. Though that is most often a sign of others liking the content.
I don't think letting the "reason" go unchallenged is responsible given the above.
Of all the people demonetised by YouTube, already rich man can't profit from allegations of sex offences unless he can find brands willing to pay him directly has to be one of the least sympathetic.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf
No one has a right to a social media platform. Brand does have a right to fair treatment under the law. It won't surprise me if he finds a way to monetize the accusations against him.
If you don't see the hypocrisy of celebrities leveraging social media to their advantage and profit, then whining and complaining about "free speech" when they cross the line or break the terms of service or otherwise run afoul of the rules, I don't know what to say.
Harvey Weinstein got tried in the press because the police and Weinstein's enablers failed to do anything about him. I don't see that as a bad thing. The media have a role to play in society, and that sometimes includes penalizing or ostracizing people for their behavior before the slow legal system slogs around. In some countries the government and police are too inefficient or corrupt and the media is all people have. Why do we celebrate social media for things like the Arab Spring, but not for warning us about a possible rapist? Those are flip sides of the same bargain we've all made to some degree.
It's easy enough to ignore social media and not participate in it. Lots of people do it. Russell Brand made a different choice, turning himself into a social media (and TV) fixture, for fame and fortune, and sometimes that bull throws you off.
The corporations that own social media platforms respond to profit and threats to profit. If they keep Brand on YouTube he might make $X dollars for YouTube but cost them $5x dollars in advertising revenue, lost reputation and publicity black eye, and so on. Part of the media corporation standing (except for Twitter) comes from their apparent -- possibly insincere -- commitment to social issues, which includes #MeToo. So they err on the side of caution and try to keep the largest possible audience and pool of advertisers that they can.
Social media may represent "fundamentally new things," but not to Russell Brand. He adapted to social media, signed the contract, lives on the platforms, and makes lots of money. He knew the rules, or should have -- there's no way he's not aware of #MeToo and the consequences, fair or not, of reputational damage. He must know that Andrew Tate got the same treatment just a few months ago. We can debate the right or wrong of how YouTube demonetizes people, though I don't think "right" and "wrong" come into it with corporations that only respond to profit and their carefully groomed reputation. The social media celebrity game has rules, one of which is that you can't get credibly accused of rape or sexual assault all over British television. Brand signed up for that game and those rules. He's not a victim any more than I can call myself a victim when I lose at a Vegas casino.
Right, Google is much bigger, more impactful and more monopolistic than many governments. We should apply way stricter standards to it than we do to most governments. It is easier to change your citizenship than to cut Google off your life.
“Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes.
> Is that really a standard you want to set?
Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman?
> Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube.
Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech.
In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay.
> The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content
> In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
Cool - but you didn't propose anything? Are you calling Russel Brand an employee of YouTube who deserves labor protection? Does YouTube get to fire Russel if he doesn't get enough views or stars? Does YouTube have to employ everyone? Do they pay FICA taxes on his earnings?
> What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.
That's my point - I don't want the government making speech decisions - and it's expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment. Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one. They don't have police powers - and I'm certainly not giving it to them. The government does have police powers and if not restrained can not only fire you, but throw you in jail and worse.
If they're a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive behavior, beat them up over that. If you think there's a better way, build a competitor. But don't go giving the government more power to regulate speech.
Indeed, I didn’t. I just said that we should treat Google with at least the same scrutiny we treat the government. I didn’t say that porn should be allowed on YouTube. I didn’t say that Russel Brand is a YouTube employee. That’s all your weird imagination.
Employers and clients of private companies are protected all over the world for various reasons and it doesn’t result in weird problems you come up with. Should black people be Google employees to not get racially discriminated for using YouTube? No. It is a protected class. Should Germans be employed at a pharmacy to get the right to buy drugs? No. It’s a law that they can get it without any discrimination. I am talking about very basic things that already exist and we can’t even get past that in our discussion.
> Google isn't a government entity and I don't want them to be one.
> They don't have police powers
I really can’t see much difference between Google banning me on monopolistic YouTube or the government banning me on monopolistic StateTube. You aren’t getting in jail in either case. Actually, there is one difference: StateTube would at least be governed by a democratically elected body.
I hope we both at least can agree that having StateTube as a de facto monopoly would be bad. So why should YouTube, that seems clearly worse, be considered good?
No one forces me or Russell Brand to watch or post on YouTube. I don’t have social media accounts because I don’t want to give up my privacy or get subjected to their whims. Russell Brand made different choices.
"We” are human beings who are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
> How does that work? Nationalize Google?
Social expectations, social awareness, legal means. It would work like all other customs and laws work: you get socially shunned and get legal trouble for your actions that don’t meet social expectations. Try to open a bar that doesn’t allow black people to enter it to see how those mechanisms work in practice.
The only way to change the behavior of big corps like Google is not to give them money, and to get other people to do the same. I wouldn’t count on getting enough people worked up, though.
Russell Brand has his rights intact for now. Any damage to his dignity he did himself. He doesn’t have the right to post on YouTube, and YT has every right to decide who and what gets on their platform. Don’t like it? Don’t use it.
Yeah, LGBT rights and defunding police are more trendy issues to care about than the techno dystopia of tomorrow; but one doesn’t exclude the other. And hopefully the public sentiment will get there before it’s too late.
Google is free for most users. If they block someone from their services that's their prerogative. I doubt they do it randomly for "no reason," just like I doubt someone who says they got fired for "no reason." It might happen but more likely Google had a reason, just not one the blocked person agrees with or wants to tell anyone about.
What happens on YouTube with the advertising policies hardly seems to rise to "techno dystopia of tomorrow." Russell Brand didn't have his Google or YouTube accounts blocked. His videos are still there. YouTube de-monetized his channel, which means they won't run ads on his videos, and Brand won't make money on YouTube. YouTube has obligations beyond Russell Brand's ego and income -- they have contractual obligations to their advertisers and all of their users. No one has to watch or post on YouTube, and we don't descend into a dystopian hellscape if YouTube does one thing or another -- if it disappeared tomorrow most people in the world would barely notice, and a few wealthy celebrities living parasitically off of attention and advertising would have to get real jobs.
No, but the question is on what basis dominant platforms _should_ be allowed to terminate someone's account.
>If you don't see the hypocrisy of celebrities leveraging social media to their advantage and profit, then whining and complaining about "free speech" when they cross the line or break the terms of service or otherwise run afoul of the rules, I don't know what to say.
If the only rule he has broken and the only line he has crossed is to be accused of a crime by others then hypocrisy is entirely irrelevant. Terminating an account on this basis should be illegal because it undermines the rule of law.
Rule of law means the laws apply to everyone the same. It doesn’t mean private companies have to follow legal rules of evidence and procedure. Companies terminate accounts on the “basis” they can — in this case for violating terms of service. Celebrity or not, YouTube can kick people off when they have credible allegations of serious misconduct.
The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective. If the consequences of accusations are no longer primarily decided in court, then the law becomes ineffective and even more unequal than it already is.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-...
What law would you change to force private companies to keep social pariahs and dangerous (but maybe not criminal) people on their platforms? Can I sell porn in your driveway?
Brand signed his rights to privacy away when he made himself a celebrity. This is what happens when celebrities screw up. Maybe not fair, but I don’t think it’s fair that Russell Brand makes $1M/mo on YouTube and I don’t.
Are you asking me what the consequences are for an entertainer to get removed from globally dominant distribution channels?
>Can I sell porn in your driveway?
This is getting silly. I'm not saying that every company has to publish everything. Google had a mutually profitable business relationship with Brand. They were more than happy to publish his content before these allegations were made.
Sure. I would be more than happy to hang out with Russell Brand too until I found out he might have raped three women. Then I'd think twice. Credible accusations of rape and sexual assault have a way of changing things.
Russell Brand will find a platform. He's been kicked off media platforms before -- he seems to invite controversy as part of his schtick. The people who want to pay to listen to Russell Brand can continue to do so, plenty of channels available not as sensitive to public opinion as Google.
Russell Brand is a smart guy. I assume he's heard of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, or Andrew Tate. He probably knows what happens in these situations. Getting knocked off of YouTube is the least of it. I'm willing to give Russell Brand the benefit of innocent until proven guilty, but YouTube has no obligation to risk their reputation or alienate a large number of their users, especially when everything we know about Russell Brand, from his own mouth, gives the impression that he probably did some things he was hoping wouldn't get made public. Celebrities always walk that line, their fame and income based on perception and reputation.
Why?
> The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective.
Sure.
> If the consequences of accusations are no longer primarily decided in court, then the law becomes ineffective and even more unequal than it already is.
If the scope of the law is expanded so that every change in relations between two persons not resulting from a mutual agreement to change requires going to court, the resulting social friction will make the law more ineffective where it is.
If Brand wants to only enter into business agreeements that are framed so that the only behavioral reason for termination by the other side is a ruling by a court that he violated some law, he can insist on those terms, but that's a expensive proposition for the other party and society, and I see it as absolutely undesirable that such conditions be a legal default or, worse, effectively obligatory as a matter of law.
Not every relation between two persons is between a globally dominant platform or infrastructure provider and a user of such a platform. The threshold for global gatekeepers must be higher.
Public figures are of course subject to the court of public opinion. That's what they signed up for. But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true.
Maybe there are some aspects of Google’s operations that ought to be public utilities, but I have a lot of trouble seeing YouTube as one of them. It may be dominant in its particular structure (or some aspects of it, since YouTube does lots of different things in one platform, many of which have many strong competitors), but I don’t really see the case that it is essential. There’s lots of channels for video distribution with slightly different models.
> But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true.
There is, in that there are kinds of sanctions that private entities can not impose.
Russell Brand is not just a user of YouTube. He reportedly makes $1M/mo on that platform. He got demonetized, not kicked off or censored. Presumably his GMail account still works, and he can still upload to YouTube. The "dominant global platform" chose to not show ads on Brand's videos, which protects their advertisers from blowback and a bad look, and has the consequence of cutting into Russell Brand's income. Brand has a contractual relationship with YouTube that includes the possibility of demonetization (no ads on his videos) if he does something illegal or embarrassing to YouTube or their advertisers or other users. That's what happened. He's not the victim of a malign global infrastructure provider.
There's no "legal blast radius," just one celebrity who got his wings clipped because of credible accusations made in the British press -- a TV documentary ran about Brand's alleged sexual assaults. Piers Morgan tried to discuss this on his show (which you can watch on YouTube). This is not the first time Russell Brand has got into trouble with media , or with his treatment of women. He had to resign from his show on BBC 2 and left the BBC paying fines for his antics.
Edit: I just checked YouTube. Russell Brand's channel is still there, videos still available. His About page points to Rumble, where he presumably can still get paid by advertisements. He also has Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, locals.com channels running, and a book for sale on Amazon. Most of us, most content producers on YouTube, can only dream of Brand's level of exposure (and his income). And most of us won't have credible allegations of rape made by multiple women.
Russell Brand got accused, credibly, of sexual assault by multiple women. That makes him a pariah. Google/YouTube don’t want the reputation damage so they close him down on their platform.
Russell Brand chose to live his life in public, as a celebrity. This is what happens to celebrities when their sponsors and fans and enablers lose confidence in them. That’s the game he signed up for. Part of the celebrity bargain is that public perception means more than truth, and that works both ways.
Brand can continue saying and posting whatever he wants. No one silenced him. He just can’t do it on YouTube anymore for money. I don’t get to keep a rental car because Hertz let me drive it for a weekend, because we had a contract. So did Russell Brand.
I want to bring up something else though. We don't actually know the reasons why Google has terminated his account (at least I don't). Perhaps the accusations and the reputational risk were not the only reasons.
Google could legitimately want to block Brand from using Youtube as a stage to attack his accusers and run his own media campaign related to the case. That would be an entirely different matter, but in my view this should be handled by more selective restrictions.
We may or may not disagree, but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again). I only commented on what did happen, and why I don't think Google/YouTube did anything legally wrong, or even ethically objectionable, given that their interests differ from Russell Brand's interests and no longer intersect since Brand became a social pariah. Google has to cater to a lot more customers than Russell Brand and his audience, and has to consider public opinion about alleged celebrity rapists.
We all have our interpretations and ideas about how YouTube and the world at large should work. I try not to spend a lot of time and energy trying to reconcile reality with how I think things should work.
Well then we're really talking past each other because that's the only thing that interests me about this case. What actually happned is neither surprising nor particularly mysterious.
We are in a situation where a handful of globally dominant platforms and infrastructure providers can unilaterally shut people down for any reason whatsoever. Those of us whose livelihood depends on those platforms need more rights.
Google's interest to shield itself from reputational damage should not be permitted to outweigh all other considerations.
No one has a right to publish on a platform owned by a private entity. That is not freedom of speech. Brand was not de-monetized "for any reason whatsoever." He did not get censored by the government. He got kicked off YT for specific reasons stated by YouTube. They aren't just randomly booting people off or arbitrarily making up the rules as they go. Google absolutely has every right to protect their brand and their customers, and that does outweigh whatever rights you imagine Russell Brand has to continue posting on YouTube and profiting from it.
His management agent is not a globally dominant platform or infrastructure provider.
It may turn out that Brand got wrongfully accused, though I doubt it, given that multiple women who don't know each other doing that seems unlikely, especially given Brand's self-admitted promiscuity and sex addiction, and cringe behavior towards women you can easily find. But if he's not guilty then he'll get his YouTube monetization back, and thanks to the UK's libel laws he would make a small fortune suing the TV channel and newspapers and the accusers.
I’m not sure if that’s accurate, but maybe some lawyers here can enlighten me. As far as I know, if you run a business in a country’s jurisdiction, you need to follow their laws. It’s not anarchy/wild west. I can’t make a ToS for my bakery that only serves people of a certain race, for example. The same applies to online businesses. And don’t tell me this is an obvious discrimination but this case is different, so on and so forth. It’s because the law forbids it. And of course, big tech can’t ignore the law. They shouldn’t deprive anyone of their right to use their service to the fullest, especially if they are public companies.
No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights.
Accusing is something, guilty is another. And even if found guilty, how’s that a violation? Do you kick out an ex-convict from the grocery store? As long as no promotion for violence, you don’t get to deny them the service.
> No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights.
No, everyone has the right, just like you have the right to go to walmart. If they close, fair, it’s like bankruptcy for a company and no longer required to pay debt, your company legal entity doesn’t exist anymore, but as long as you are operating, whatever applies to grocery stores applies to big tech, I don’t know why some people think big tech are above the law, in fact, given how influential they are, a special restrictions should be applied to them, this is not some random IRC chat with nicknames back in the 90s and if you gat banned, you go to another room, social media is now people digital identities, imagine LinkedIn suddenly started banning people, and people are no longer able to look for jobs and the likes? Or a dating site mogul that owns most dating apps suddenly decided to ban your account and they use AI to recognize your face, you are basically out of the dating pool! Yeah, laws should be adjusted per how dependent we are on the digital world, this is not the 90s anymore.
Look at how Elon Musk arbitrarily treats people he doesn’t like, or who criticize him, on Twitter. He’s probably not breaking any laws. He owns the platform, he gets to make the rules. No one has to use it, and no one has a right to use it.
Reality may not match how you or I would like the world to work, or what we think of as fair.
YouTube did not ban all Brits, or all comedians, or all white men with long hair. They demonetized one person. There's no sign out front that says "No White British Comedians With Long Hair." Russell Brand is not a victim. He doesn't have any right to get money from advertisers on a platform he chooses to publish on. That is hardly comparable to a restaurant excluding people based on their skin color.
As a company incorporated in the United States, Walmart has to abide by lots of laws, including laws that prohibit racial discrimination. That does not equate to anyone having a right to enter their stores. It means Walmart can't exclude people solely on the basis of race. They can refuse to let me in for any number of reasons, or no reason, but if they tell me it's because of my skin color or disability they have broken the law.
Every night when Walmart closes they refuse entry to everyone, for an obvious reason, imposed fairly on everyone, and none of us has a right to enter the store. Suppose I roll up in a wheelchair as they're locking the doors at night, and they won't let me in because the store is closed. They made up that closing time, no law tells them when to close. If I sue Walmart claiming they denied me entry because I have a disability, they will rightfully say I was denied entry because the store was closed to everyone. I think you can see how that plays out. That's the difference between not having any right to enter the store and having the right not to suffer discrimination as a protected minority.
And when the dust settles and I lose in court, Walmart can bar me from their stores if they want to because I sued them. But not because I have a disability.
They did stop running advertisements on his videos, called demonetization. YouTube has contractual obligations to their advertisers, and those reputations, and their own, to consider, along with the opinions of millions of other users.
https://kkoz.medium.com/youtube-frustration-reaching-a-boili...
That’s frustrating but not illegal or evidence of a conspiracy. Relying on YouTube or any social media platform for an income has some risks, just like most jobs that can lay you off or fire you for no reason.
Russell Brand was supposedly making $1M/mo on YouTube until a few days ago. That’s pretty good risk/reward to me, especially considering he has other platforms to move to.
The only part of this which is "trial by social media" is Brand's choice of venue to deny them. I'm not sure any principle of jurisprusdence involves social media being obliged to subsidise his denials by wrapping unwilling advertisers around them and sending him a cut.
I'm also not convinced that consent is quite as complex as commercial aviation...
Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law.
However, there is quite reasonable circumstantial evidence that he's guilty - five or six serious allegations from independent women, which multiple news organisations have assessed and found credible.
There's also been a fresh look at his behaviour with activities which I don't believe have been contested - like having an affair with a 16-year old when he was 30. He doesn't need to be found guilty for advertisers to decide that kind of odious behaviour is something that they don't want to be associated with.
What's the alternative? Legally force YouTube to give him a platform and lose revenue?
I don’t get this part, so assuming he found guilty, and now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work because he found guilty on something, you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there, or not accessing YT if it was used as a platform for those allegations, remember, law is flawed too and full loopholes and not perfect, and there are so many cases of false court outcomes.
I don't believe any country guarantees a right to be given work.
> He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work
Yes, he's a public figure, but so what? No one is denying him a right to seek work, but equally organisations are free to decline to work with him.
Why should Brand have a right to millions of pounds of revenue from a Youtube channel? I don't.
> you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there
You think if multiple credible witnesses accused a doctor of sexual abuse he should be free to carry on medical practice as long as he does it at a different hospital?
#MeToo
Russell Brand DOES have a legal right to bodily autonomy and freedom to walk around the world etc. So to take that away DOES take a legal trial and a jury etc.
Private entities get to make the call based on whatever they like whether someone gets to perform on their website or in their venue. If I think someone is "dodgy" or whatever, I can bar them from performing in my club and the same applies to Youtube.
In life sometimes there are consequences for behaving badly and Russell is finally facing some of them.
Brand has been the subject of a joint investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 where the claims are backed by a significant amount of evidence vetted by their lawyers. These aren't reckless publications.
These claims have subsequently led to at least some of the involved parties submitting police reports alleging sexual assault. And from reports by the newspapers the expectation is that more parties are coming forward.
This is not trial by TV, social media etc. These are serious claims being taken very seriously because of the strength of the evidence presented to date.
As such, Youtube is absolutely correct here to err on the side of caution.
Neurodivergent people are being persecuted for wrongthink.
He is alleged to have passed along a girl to a known pedophile.
I actually don't care who the person is. If that is true then they should be in jail. End of story.
16 is the age of consent in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_U...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66831593
Brand has also not been accused of passing along a girl to a known pedophile. He is accused of having joked about sending his assistant to Jimmy Savile, on a BBC Radio 2 comedy show in 2007. (The BBC did not fire him for that.)
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/sep/17/russell...
And Saville is a known pedophile.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/a-timeline-o...
He is not even alleged to have done that. What's been reported is that he joked on a BBC radio show about visiting Savile and bringing along his assistant.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/russell-brand-ji...
Five years before the allegations against Savile emerged, the older star told Brand he “doesn’t usually meet fellas but if you’ve got a sister then that’s ok”.
Brand explained he didn’t have a sister but instead named a personal assistant he could meet.
“I’ve got a personal assistant,” Brand told Savile. “And part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She’s very attractive, Jimmy.”
Savile answered: “Well, well that’s a good start. You could send her along to do some research.”
Asked by Brand what she should wear to meet Jimmy, the paedophile presenter replied: “I’d actually prefer her to wear nothing.”
Brand burst into laughter as Savile insisted: “There’s nothing wrong with that.”
There is no suggestion that Brand, Savile or Brand’s personal assistant ever met up following the interview.
But it's not proof that he is guilty.
But I think what people are taking issue with is: what should private companies be allowed to do with that information?
Should his bank cancel his credit cards? Should taxis refuse service? What would 'erring on the side of caution' look like for other services?
It is much more akin to an employer/employee relationship and in that situation it is very normal for you to be suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.
And ultimately the actual consequences Brand is suffering from which people are expressing concern over aren't losing access to credit or mobility, it's losing ad revenue from his infamy, a booking agent and charity figurehead status. I don't think you can argue these should be inalienable rights, and it's especially tough to make a good case that the charity working to end violence against women should be forced to continue using the alleged rapist as a figurehead unless and until he is actually proven beyond guilty in a court of law.
When I think about how I would use youtube (signup, upload some crap, maybe get a couple of views), it feels like a service which is notionally open to anyone. And I have a problem with someone being denied that, without it going to trial first. And even afterward, too - let the judge apply the sentence; don't have the public decide on extra ways to punish him.
But at his level of notoriety I concede that it's a bit more like him being on Netflix. I have no problem with Netflix deciding to greenlight or cancel shows based on the perceived whims of the public (even if they were morons to pull the episode of Community where Chang went Drow-face.)
> and where should that line drawn?
Even though my comment headed in that direction, it's hard to even imagine what that line would look like. I guess that's why case law exists.
Try as you might, the above will never create the certainty in an reasonable person's mind as an actual legal conviction would. As we all know, even some of most well put together cases fall apart under the scrutiny of cross examination.
And if found guilty, I don’t see why he’s denied monetization, are you saying there no ex-convicts on these platforms and making money too?! This is stupid.
This is accurate, but to give context:
> A spokesperson for the Met said: "We are aware of reporting by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches about allegations of sexual offences.
> "On Sunday 17 September, the Met received a report of a sexual assault which was alleged to have taken place in Soho in central London in 2003. Officers are in contact with the woman and will be providing her with support.
> "We first spoke with The Sunday Times on Saturday 16 September and have since made further approaches to The Sunday Times and Channel 4 to ensure that anyone who believes they have been the victim of a sexual offence is aware of how to report this to the police.
It appears no claims to the police were made prior to or during the reporting, and the one there now is only due to the police actively following up. This is of course a serious matter, but does not appear to the the flood of claims that can be infered from the above.
also american: ...
He is free to use whatever other means he wants to spread his ideas. It's not like he's being shipped off to a forced labour camp.
I don't really know anything about this guy, and YouTube is a private company like Twitter, they can do whatever they want now, but something just seems inherently unfair to punish based on accusation alone. Even if its multiple people.
Prove it, then punish, is the only way to at least strive for a fair system.
I'd encourage you to look at the viewership numbers for people like Joe Rogan, Russel Brand, and their peers in independent media, and then look at viewership numbers for CNN, etc and 'traditional'-style media companies and you can see why they may have targets on their backs.
Because they're such big targets, it really makes me scrutinize and extra skeptical about things brought against them, not because I believe they haven't done crimes or are good people, but because there's so much incentive by so many others to simply knock them out of the game by any means.