YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money off his channel — The suspension comes following the publication of rape and sexual assault allegations against the British star

•

Do you know any corporation that would?

treefrog

•

Most corporations would suspend his account completely for damage control.

They're suspending his income. That's theft.

I made a joke comment, well since they're taking his money, I'm sure it's going to victims. Right?

And you come along and point out that, in your belief, all corporations steal revenue from their content providers when they get accused of a crime. Show me one other platform that's done this. Suspended revenue (i.e. stealing revenue) prior to conviction rather than canceling content.

Note the BBC cancelled him. Google is still making money off an accused rapist. In fact, more. Because said rapist isn't getting a cut.

Eldritch

•

No, they aren't. His videos aren't being promoted or monotonized. Search and find some. Since they will not be getting promoted to you. You will see no advertisements directly before or during. Because they aren't.

treefrog

•

Thanks for the correction.

LarryTheMatador

•

•

Has he been banned from using the Internet? No? Then you’re spewing bullshit. YouTube doesn’t have to host his content and advertisers don’t need to pay him for it. He isn’t entitled to shit. He can fuck off to some right-wing hellscape of a site that will platform him. That’s capitalism baby!

•

FYI, even if ISP's were absorbed the the government and made into a utility as you suggest, Google would still own YouTube and still be able to demonetize whoever it wants.

I'm not sure why this thread is such a swarm of brainless zero IQ takes.

reagansrottencorpse

•

Get out of here with your critical thinking!!!

Shakes fist

•

Reddit-ass post

sizzler

•

Well at least we've learnt the all important hyphen eh?

thecrotch

•

You think Google should be forced to host content from a rapist?

Fantomas

•

Again. Not a rapist until proven so in a court. And yes, I understand the difficulty in proving it and I believe him to be guilty, but not a rapist until proven so.

I know there is a huge failing by the courts with these types of cases but we must avoid trial by media at all costs.

•

As long as the content itself is legal, why shouldn't they?

Where do you draw the line? Rapist, Alleged rapist, Murderer, someone who committed assault, fraud? They'd have to demonitize a good chunk of the entertainment industry.

refurbishedrefurbisher

•

Add communist to the list. Happened before, and history tends to repeat itself.

LarryTheMatador

•

•

Actually YouTube should be exclusively rapist-produced.

RobotToaster

•

For 700 years one of the central principles of British law has been that someone shouldn't be punished without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.

It's scary how many people are willing to throw that out the window and behave like medieval peasants lynching witches.

sentient_loom

•

Yep. I understand that it's hard to prosecute rape, but without rule of law we're fucked.

WorldWideLem

•

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone's social status or reputation.

•

Who's throwing him in prison? He's isn't facing any legal consequences as a result of this news. He's facing social consequences from organisations that no longer want to be associated with him. He's free to being a libel case in the UK if he wants to clear his name, but instead he put up a video claiming "they're" out to get him.

WorldWideLem

•

I don't think it's that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person's reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

Slotos

•

Bullshit. If they wanted to cut ties and protect their image, they could block the channel and wash their hands.

This here is pure profiteering.

•

Profiteering by a mega corporation, say it ain't so!!

•

No one should see YT as a "livelyhood" as no one has a contract with them guaranteing income.

sentient_loom

•

YouTube is big business. Of course content makers should be able to rely on it for livelihood.

OscarRobin

•

I agree to an extent, however the reason behind Google cancelling his ads is almost certainly not because Google doesn't want to monetize as much content as humanly possible, but because they expect or know that their advertisers don't want their ads next to an alleged (and possibly convicted in the future) rapist / sexual predator.

Clbull

•

Google used to be incredibly hands-off about these things, only terminating someone if they were actually convicted in a court of law.

Compare the cases of Austin Jones (who didn't have his YouTube channel terminated until he was actually convicted of distributing child porn and sentenced to ten years in prison) and EDP445 (who was caught in a pedophile hunter sting operation and was immediately terminated from all social media.)

Blizzard

•

Google again pretending to be the moral police. Based on accusations of something that might or might not have happened 20 years ago. Apparently they don't have a problem with him being on their platform or showing ads on his videos though, they just want to save some money and look like they're doing the right thing (they are not).

Fantomas

•

Can't wait for a future where multibillion dollar corporations decide what's right and wrong and also who is and isn't guilty.

•

What do you mean, wait?

Blizzard

•

That future is now...

•

The year is 2023

JoeClu

•

I think we're there. The future is today.

•

Can you show me such an instance?

Because demonetising videos on their own platform is not the same as jailing someone.

Eldritch

•

Perhaps it's time to bring back the peril partnership.

•

They aren't showing ads on his videos.

•

Google is still the authority of Youtube, and can decide any number of dumb policies they so desire.

Their platform their rules, they did not overstate their authority.

•

And here you are, pretending to be unbiased

flossdaily

•

Just a reminder that there are a far more allegations against Trump, and Trump has been found liable for rape, and yet Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

topinambour_rex

•

Even if I find this appealing, I wonder why you need to do this whataboutism.

•

I think it’s important to point it out. The other rapist is exalted when he should be getting shut down too.

zoe

•

•

Oh wow. Just like that, Russell is rapist.

https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/a-timeline-of-sexual-assault-allegations-against-russell-brand

•

Yeah. Here:

Of all those claims, these stuck out:

a 16 year old in 2006 when he was 30 and gave her instructions to hide from parents. Underage is rape.
In 2012 he is accused of raping a woman who was treated in a Rape Treatment Center afterwards.
In 2020, there was another 16 year old and evidently his manager believed him at first and then issued a statement saying he was misled and terminated business with him.

Tatters

•

16 is not underage in the UK, where this is alleged to have happened.

Tesco

•

While it's not "technically" underage rape, let's be honest it basically is. No normal person thinks it's acceptable for some in there 30s to have a relationship with a 16 year old.

The law is there to protect say an 18 year old in collage, where it's common for 16-18 year olds to be in the same classes, not for creepy 30+ year olds.

essteeyou

•

That's not how the law works though. You can drink whatever alcohol you can legally buy the second you turn 18 (in the UK). The same applies for sex at 16. Maybe you don't like it, but 16 is the age of consent for sex, with whoever else is legal.

vashti

•

Both child grooming and emotional and sexual assault are illegal in the UK, bizarre as this may seem to you.

Tatters

•

I fully support them being illegal, why would you think that would be bizarre to me?

I merely pointed out, in the case of the 16 year old schoolgirl, she was not legally underage, no matter how shocking and disturbing we may find Brand’s behaviour, which I do. I don’t think she has made any claims of rape or assault against Brand, but others have. I don’t know what laws, if any, apply to his treatment of her, but I don’t think underage sex is one of them.

If we think something is already illegal when it isn’t, then it reduces the incentive to change the law - why make something illegal when you already think it is? Possibly the UK needs new legislation to vary the age of consent depending on the participants, as in other states.

•

I only see allegations, no convictions. Remember what happened to Kevin Spacey and Julian Assange?

For what it's worth: I'm not saying he's innocent. But to go from allegation to conviction, you'll need a judge in my book. Not a trial by media.

I_Fart_Glitter

•

Youtube yanks monetization from much poorer people for much more mysterious and never revealed reasons. It's a privately owned business, known for fucking over its content creators.

•

Well there are cases where one unnamed source makes an unprovable accusation, and then there are cases with multiple alleged victims over the span of a decade...

•

don't pretend like it would be impossible for the powers that be to conjure up people to make simultaneous accusations to get someone out of the public arena

•

Yes, this is true about Spacey being innocent. I have personally known people who have made false allegations so I don’t doubt it happens.

•

I was falsely accused of rape once

flossdaily

•

Just trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance for Trump supporters who maybe haven't thought about it in these terms.

xc2215x

•

Trump supporters are more dangerous.

w2tpmf

•

Does he have a monetized YouTube channel?

PostalDude

•

Imagine hating someone so much you bring him into any convo you enter. We get it bro, orange man bad, last I heard he is in jail or something. now shut up!

mikeboltonshair

•

I can’t stand Trump but I also can’t stand people who don’t shut up about him either, some people make talking about Trump part of their personality and it’s on both sides… but in this case the way the person framed their comment makes sense

PostalDude

•

Just glad there ain't a karma system lol

mikeboltonshair

•

Fuck that, nothing wrong with being downvoted to shit, it’s your opinion some people may not like it but so what, plus internet points don’t mean anything

PostalDude

•

True that my friend, true that!

TurnItOff_OnAgain

•

Great, now demonitize the catholic church while you're at it.

Cyberflunk

•

And pragerU

derin

•

Just spray Dennis Prager with a can of RAID so the fucker'll skitter back to whatever dark corner of the universe he crawled out of.

riskable

•

Actually permetherins (the class powerful general purpose insecticides found in RAID) don't have much of an effect on lizards 🤷

derin

•

Unlike PragerU you've actually taught me something!

•

I guarantee you they spend wayyy more money on production than they make in views.

erranto

•

Is it against YT TOS or did they take the liberty with this decision

Second, as much as I have always found him sketchy and a very irritating person, I am very alarmed by the erosion of people's right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. even when I know that he is quite capable of the committing those allegation

•

A platform can choose themselves who they extend the platform to.

It may not be justice, but if Youtube decides to demonetise every video featuring red sweaters, then they have the liberty to do so.

sugartits

•

That's too much power for a monopoly to have. And YouTube is quite close to a monopoly.

Maybe "more fool you" but entire livelihoods and businesses rely on YouTube not cutting them off at any random moment with no notice or warning.

•

That's why it's so important to just build your own website and to stop being dependent on other people for anything you have.

SoBoredAtWork

•

Right. "just build your own YouTube" is the solution. 👍

•

PeerTube exists yet you still whine.

That_One_Demon

•

YouTube sucks, but it's not a monopoly. It's nowhere close to one. Monopolies are not "there's only one product." People love spouting monopoly to every mainstream product like iPhone and Windows.

YouTube has plenty of competition in video hosting. There's more professional high cost ones like Netflix. Less giving but just as easily accessible is TikTok. Hell there's even PornHub.

Just because YouTube has a unique combination of services that has allowed self employment for many people that can't get it easily on existing sites does not mean that competition does not exist. Many content creators on YouTube actually advertise a competing site on YouTube.

Before we can start offering solutions we need to have a good understanding on what the problem is and what it isn't.

•

Don’t want the risk of culpability ? Don’t want to consider others? Feel entitled? Then go Create your own distribution.

PopcornTin

•

It's simple, just don't do something that will get you banned fifteen years later when the winds change direction. Sure, red sweaters were cool back then, but now they mean something wildly different. We'll give you three strikes for three videos with one second of a red sweater. And you're deleted for so many strikes. Thanks, bu-bye.

•

You just compared clothing choice to rape. Seek therapy.

pineapplepizza

•

Alledged rape. Presumption of innocence.

•

I'm not a fucking jury or newscaster so I'm not sure why you're coming at me with that incel shit.

He fucking did it anyway.

ilikekeyboards

•

The allegations say it was ten years ago. Can we have women turn to the police before their rapist turn famous and rich?

Yeah I just found out this British guy is a cunt and some pseudo crazy Jesus christ right winger, but not everyone who's awful is really guilty

•

Oh joy, rape apologia, what a wonderful thing to wake up to in the morning. 🤦

ilikekeyboards

•

THIS GUY RAPED ME, BAN HIM

Stabbitha

•

But YouTube doesn't have a monopoly, you're more than welcome to start up a competing video hosting site and steal their customers. YouTube is providing a platform, for people to upload and store their videos for free -- they have every right to decide who they do and don't want on their platform.

yetAnotherUser

•

Due to network effects, YouTube has a monopoly in video hosting. A monopoly is any company which has significantly more marketshare in its respective niche than all other companies in the same niche.

Now, does YouTube fit this definition?

Btw, there have been successful lawsuits against channel suspensions already from people making a living off of YouTube due to worker protection laws.

•

YT is a private company supplying a server. They can set their own policy (TOS which is neither enforceable by law for either side) and they don’t actually owe anyone their livelihood. It’s like getting kicked off of any platform,even Etsy. Etsy doesn’t then owe you money that you could have made. You don’t own potential money. It’s not promised to you. They are a platform. Not your distributor. And even at that you can be kicked from a distributor anytime as they can also have policies on content they will associate with. If they decide it’s disagreeable, that in itself is a breach of contract.

•

I don't think the debate is whether YouTube is allowed to choose who is or isn't on their site, but whether it is OK to subject someone to the result of a trial by social media.

If someone made an accusation against you, would you think it'd be right of your employer to sack you, or would you like the chance to defend yourself legally first?

•

he’s not EMPLOYED by YouTube. That is not what this is.

prole

•

YouTube doesn't need to presume shit. You're confusing YouTube with the US government.

nucleative

•

Yeah, I don't know anything about this guy but this is an alarming decision if the headline is accurate.

pineapplepizza

•

It's more alarming if he is innocent

Mdotaut801

•

Permanently Deleted

•

I really hope no one falsely accuses you of a sex crime, because you've just made your bed.

erranto

•

if it were Keanu Reeves, He would get the Pretty privilege

•

My god... some of the commenters would make you think he was being sent to the lethal injection chamber.

The guy had his account demonetized. He's not even banned from YouTube. He can post as many videos as he wants. He just doesn't get paid for them. Which makes him... like most of us who post YouTube videos. The horror!

Angry_Maple

•

It's scary seeing how many people also don't understand that these laws protect you from government entities.

IYoutube is considered a private company, as it isn't run by the government. So, protective laws against government rules don't really apply. Proper court proceeding would be good, yes, but youtube is not the Court. Youtube can and does control what is on their platform. They are contract bound to advertiser interests, and their advertisers don't want to risk encouraging him if he is guilty. That is also their right, as they are also private entities. There is nothing that obligates them to continue funding someone. They could also decide to stop funding because the guy like bagels.

As a private entity, google could theoretically stop every single youtube channel today, if they chose to do so. They can decide to not host your content just because you like potatoes over radishes. It's their private platform.

I don't get why that's complex. Private vs public.

•

Agreed, but what's really grinding my gears here is he hasn't been banned from YouTube. He just won't make money from his videos. People are complaining because a multimillionaire isn't getting paid by Google. Baffling.

pineapplepizza

•

Maybe because in principle someone had lost their income due to unproven allegations. Who they are our the financial status is irrelevant.

•

What's relevant is that Google has no obligation to pay anyone but their employees.

robo

•

Permanently Deleted

•

He already puts his videos on the dodgy other video sites for wronguns like Rumble doesn't he?

Petter1

•

It’s not the fucking job of YouTube to judge and punish. We have judges and the Criminal Code for that. We should not let us ruled by corporations!

Copernican

•

I'm guessing the challenge is advertisers. Advertisers buy ad space next to or in video content. No advertiser wants to buy ad space that is adjacent to or makes it look like they are supporting someone under public scrutiny for sexual assault allegations. So as Google, where you need to sell good ad space to paying advertisers, bother with running ads next to Russel Brand or just say no and make that clear to advertisers to build confidence?

Squizzy

•

Yeah but they clearly feel there is enough smoke to be worried about a fire and are entitled to cut ties. It may be the case if they don't that people take their impartial inaction to be supporting him. They have ethics and morality clauses in their TOS.

jagoan

•

It’s one thing if they actually stop running ads on his videos. I bet they crank more ads on them instead.

Seudo

•

It is their job to make profits. Literally. Google is legally bound by stake holder agreement to maximise profits, absolutely nothing to do with the justice system or any sort of ethical code.

•

Oh my God shut up. No one has the right to force a private company to pay them money. YouTube can do any fucking thing they want

•

No, but as a private firm it is there decision what they host, promote and show adverts against. He has no contract with YT guaranteeing an income, thats not how it works. If he wants a guaranteed income he should get back on TV with a contact, but he Burt those bridges when he become a conspiracy grifter.

Petter1

•

Yea I understand that, but so many content creators get thrown under the bus by YouTube, twitch, etc. that I think there should be a law protecting individuals from big cooperations that they are dependent on. I know, it’s different in America compared to where I live, here, if you have someone Working for you and you fire that person, depending how long this person works for you already, you have to pay salary for up to 3 months. (There are few reasons that allow cancellation of contract immediately) After you got fired, you can go to a place called "Arbeitslosenkasse" where you get 80% of salary going forward as long as you try to get a new job.

So maybe thats why I find it odd when YouTube just flick a switch upon obligations…

Btw. I don’t know that guy the post is about and highly doubt that he is innocent given the infos I have seen yet.

•

We have the same laws in the UK, but he's self-employed. Can you not be self-employed where you live?

•

I mean its the same in the UK with employment protections, but YouTubers wouldn't be covered by that as they're not employees and don't have contracts. Google don't really have to share any revenue with uploaders as they're already providing the infrastructure and storage for free.

No one should rely on that as income and just see it as a bonus, to other income streams.

•

Advertisers won't want to be shown on his videos while this is ongoing.

Keeping them happy is in fact literally their job.

•

Didn't know Google was the one that sentenced him to jail.

Petter1

•

Not giving money is punishment

•

No, it is a consequence of having bad publicity.

cooopsspace

•

Agree, there's actual rapists and incels on YouTube that need banning before an alleged rapist or SA.

and they might have tainted any jurors ifa case did come about.

•

He isn't banned though.

kokesh

•

I have no idea if he did or didn't any of the alleged. But what happened to innocent u til proven guilty? Anyone accused of anything these days gets cancelled.

dudewitbow

•

I mean there are definately people who havent been canceled. Reminder that Chris Brown is probably bigger than he once was and everyone knows hes actually beaten up people

Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever

•

I would say that ACTUALLY being "cancelled" is the exception.

The vast majority of shitheads just pivot their grift fully to the chud base and then present themselves as a persecuted victim. And then "mainstream" media tries to rehabilitate them in a few years.

ram

•

Worst case scenario Ben Shepiro offers them a spot on the Daily Wire.

RobotToaster

•

I would say that ACTUALLY being “cancelled” is the exception.

I'd argue it's the opposite.

Most working class people can suffer real consequences as a result of it. Those who are rich, famous, and/or influential can afford to just pivot.

garretble

•

Google is not the law, and they can do whatever they want with their company.

They don’t have to continue to pay him if they don’t want to — innocent, guilty, whichever. Just like they don’t have to continue to host nazi garbage or MAGA garbage if they don’t want to.

pokemaster787

•

Google is not the law, and they can do whatever they want with their company.

Sure, but imagine your employer just fired you because of accusations before it ever reached trial. Illegal? No. Ruining someone's livelihood even though they're innocent legally speaking? Yes.

Not defending this person, I genuinely do not even know who they are. But "private company can do whatever they want, your rights are only something the government has to care about" is a pretty concerning position to take. Not to mention they didn't seem to take down or stop running ads on the channel, just stopped giving him the money. They're profiting off of his content without paying him and using an unverified (but very possibly accurate) accusation as an excuse. That should be illegal.

GeneralVincent

•

I would hope my job would fire me if there were a dozen complaints about me ranging from mental abuse to rape over the span of over a decade.

I agree with you about Google just pocketing any money made off him though, that's messed up

•

The influx of libertarian dead minded commenters here is exhausting. Too concerned with zero tolerance rules to even consider the details or understand the difference. I thought Reddit was bad.

Blizzard

•

I genuinely do not even know who they are

Don't kkow too much about him but I liked him in this video.

GiantRobotTRex

•

When YouTube disables monetization they stop running any ads on the channel. Other articles like this one are clearer on that matter.

•

This only works because Youtube has the loosest form of contracts with its creators. Your regular employers can't fire you because of allegations or hearsay (modulo local labor laws).

mx_smith

•

This puts Russel Brand in a position to sue for libel and slander as the court of public opinion has already declared him guilty. What happens if he is found innocent at his court case. What if they did this to Johnny Depp?

•

Nothing. These people aren’t entitled to companies wanting to work with them. This isn’t the same thing as being a W-2 worker somewhere.

Pagliacci

•

"Not guilty" is distinct from "innocent", and such a verdict, if a trial ever comes of this, would not impact libel or slander. Being unable to prove your accusations in court to the standard required is not a determination that the accusations were false, only that doubt remained.

funkajunk

•

Not sure why you're being downvoted, nobody here knows if he did it or not.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much a wrap for him. Nobody has come back from rape allegations, even if they win in court.

I don't even like the guy, but I really dislike how we've regressed to the point where feelings are more important than facts.

z3rOR0ne

•

Cancelled people don't come back!? What fucking planet are you living on?

Bret The Rapist Kavanaugh got everything he wanted after getting cancelled.

Floyd Wife Beater Mayweather will still be remembered for his boxing career than the shit he should be remembered for.

Louie Indecent Exposure CK came back to the Comedy Scene years after getting cancelled only to make disingenuous jokes about his behavior.

These pieces of garbage should hang their heads in shame and suffer social ostracism until all their victims vocally and emphatically forgive them publicly.

The fact we make excuses for and defend these "people" because of their social status and a myriad of legal loopholes that allow for them to walk free with their heads held high while their victims are questioned and vilified is fucking pathetic.

•

Trump lost in civil court for what the judge called rape, and still has a rabid fan base.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321

•

Why'd they try rape in civil court? Rape is a crime.

Pagliacci

•

It was a defamation case in which the courts determined that Trump made false statements by denying the allegations because he most likely did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll.

No criminal case was brought because it's beyond the statute of limitations, and since the legal bar in a criminal case is higher I don't think any prosecutor would bring those charges even if statute of limitations wasn't an issue.

At the time when Carroll alleges Trump raped her, the statute of limitations for rape in the state of New York was five years.

•

There was no real evidence though. Just he said she said. Let's not pretend like there aren't huge incentives to make false allegations and that there are entities out there capable executing on that plan. I say this as someone who is not a fan of Trump.

dudewitbow

•

I mean Deshaun Watson came back with 230 million dollars guaranteed after several sexual harrasment allegations. Public image wise hes gone, but that doesnt mean he still doesnt make a shit ton of money (and all of it guaranteed)

sucricdrawkcab

•

Several? Man was at 26 allegations and he is still currently being sued. The Browns were stupid enough to pay him thinking he was going to save them and to a vast majority of football fans joy he isn't playing well. I wouldn't be shocked if he goes broke.

LeatherRebel

•

this such a stupid fucking take holy shit.

mx_smith

•

What about Johnny Depp? Don’t forget Al Franken too.

ram

•

Presumption of innocence is in law. IANAL.

•

He isn't jailed is he?

And not even cancelled either. He is still even allowed to post content to Youtube.

Anyone who can still say they are cancelled aren't actually cancelled.

Fluid

•

Since when did innocent until proven guilty stop being a thing? Not defending anyone here, just seems that principle is all but forgotten in modern society.

robo

•

Permanently Deleted

Vqhm

•

What happened to Al Franken three weeks after Leeann Tweeden, a conservative talk-radio host, accused him?

We absolutely need to investigate claims and make sure due process is not an up hill battle. At least 63% of rapes are not reported. Yet there needs to be due process. Due process is different from a private company deciding not to do business with you or pay you while due process is under way, so I'm not surprised by YouTube taking this action.

PopcornTin

•

It's simple, any pictures of politicians we love like that are wild, goofy, alt-right conspiracy theories. We have 95% of news organizations already repeating the same stories as each other. When 95% all say it's a conspiracy, it is. Don't believe those other fringe rags.

enthusiasticamoeba

•

That's only a legal principle - he's not in jail, is he? Individuals and organizations can do whatever they want. It has nothing to do with modern society.

Fluid

•

Punishing people based on accusations isn’t just.

•

Since when are corporations actions based on justice?

•

Fuck it, I'll bite. Let's fight in the bailey:

It is when it's rape and you're a right wing creep who has been known for decades to be a creep.

We don't live in your nightmare world anymore where rapists can exploit the principles of the old empire to get away with subjugating everyone else.

Innocent until proven guilty is an anachronistic idea that is way past its time. We accept credible accusations from rape victims as evidence now because we are no longer primitive sexists who assume women are lying about everything. We have video now. A lot of rape cases don't actually need trials because the dumb fuck rapists record themselves doing it and put the videos on Facebook. Rapists are rarely ever arrested or charged despite overwhelming evidence because of sexism. The founding principles of the Constitition themselves are outdated, increasingly irrelevant, and do not reflect the reality of today's world with today's values.

The statistical nature of rape means the fact this guy's being cancelled and more importantly charged over it means he's guilty. The odds are too low for him not to be.

So we trust the accusations, and unless evidence comes out proving them false, you don't have shit to say.

Now go ahead and waste everyone's time debating the value of innocent until proven guilty, I'll play along, fuck it.

legion02

•

Is this him being punished or YouTube protecting it's brand?

JustZ

•

No, punishment by the state based on accusations isn't just.

Eximius

•

He should be able to sue youtube for a nice settlement (if he is in the right), maybe? Idealistically, that should keep such bullshit in check.

But then again, youtube probably has "Youtube reserves the right to do fucking anything to you" in its TOS that everybody just skips.

Eximius

•

He should be able to sue youtube for a nice settlement (if he is in the right), maybe? Idealistically, that should keep such bullshit in check.

But then again, youtube probably has "Youtube reserves the right to do fucking anything to you" in its TOS that everybody just skips.

OrteilGenou

•

Then he'll sue

robo

•

That's only a legal principle

No, not "only".

People can choose to adhere to this principle outside the courtroom too, and some do.

Just because you can legally punish someone doesn't make it right.

•

Youtube cutting off their monetisation is not the same as putting the person in jail.

Fluid

•

I didn’t say it was?

Stabbitha

•

You did though. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a business concept. Businesses are allowed to choose who to do business with.

•

Because cutting off monetisation has nothing to do with being proven guilty or not.

KillAllPoorPeople

•

Then why are you framing your post like it was? If you get accused of raping a woman and you're going on live TV wearing your employee uniform defending yourself, your employer is firing you 10 out of 10 times.

•

That's the only context innocent until proven guilty ever existed, so yeah, you actually kind of did

Powerpoint

•

Yes you did

•

You’re literally quoting a law that is used in court about penalties and it’s still up there. You forgot to delete before saying you didn’t say it. You’re both lazy and stupid.

Slagathor

•

It's not the legal system, it's a heartless corporation trying to maximize their revenue. Capitalizing on the situation.

JustZ

•

That's for criminal liability to attach. Not public opinion.

newthrowaway20

•

You do realize that innocent until proven guilty only applies with the government, right? Normal people and companies do not have to extend the same luxury. Hell our military doesn't even give that luxury.

5BC2E7

•

It applies to morally sound people as well as in law.

ilikekeyboards

•

I've been accused and then shunned after some valuables went missing at a house party.

I was the only minority. Nobody dared to stand up for me and everybody just pointed fingers to the weakest individual.

Branded as a thief despite my life long upstanding morality, career, ethics.

ryannathans

•

If you ever get accused of a crime, your whole life should be cancelled as a precautionary measure /s

DrZoidbergYes

•

Another way this could be phrased is - Following serious allegations of rape and sexual assaults advertiser's do not wish to be associated with Russell Brand so YouTube stops showing their adverts on his channel

Aghast

•

But why can't those advertisers just block him as an individual?

We are now in a world where accusations now result in a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

No need for YouTube to blanketly make the decisions for all advertisers

eestileib

•

This is how advertising works. Advertisers do not want to be responsible for vetting every placement, part of what the publisher is being paid for in "run-of-site" / "run-of-network" advertising is curation of ad-adjacent content.

•

There's nothing stopping him getting his own advertising on his channel, he hasn't been banned from YouTube.

Aghast

•

Why does Google have to restrict which form of advertising he needs to use?

By confining him to certain types of advertising, it makes him less appealing to advertisers.

What if these accusations end up being false? I'm not losing sleep over Russell Brand losing money but if we hold the same logic it could damage smaller entities that can't afford it.

We see this with channels like the Armchair historian. Google demonitized that channel just because they had Nazi flags in a historical context when talking about WWII.

Another case could be made for anyone who wants to defame another individual. If someone doesn't like management for a local restaurant that advertises on YouTube, someone can just say "I heard from several people you had rats in your restaurant" or "I heard you had racist employees in your restaurant". We now live in a world where just the allegation is enough to damage an entity, regardless of if it is based in fact.

•

In this instance it isn't just an allegation though - one of the women has evidence she went to a rape crisis centre on the same day, which Channel 4 was able to confirm with the centre, and text messages from Brand on the same day where he apologised for his rape.

Why would Google continue to profit from his actions? That would be mental.

•

There's a difference between accusations and a four year media investigation. Especially UK media that has to adhere to pretty strict libel laws. They've had to make sure they have the receipts and proof for the papers legal team to sign off on the story. This isn't like Zoe Quinn chucking out some accusations on Twitter and ending up with a bloke topping himself. Also if you remember, Depp lost his lible case in the UK.

ZzyzxRoad

•

a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

We only saw this with Amber Heard. Speaking of simping, Depp had an army of incels and "men's rights" douchers behind him from the get go. Anyone who had any objective comments about that whole case would get chewed out and brigaded by a bunch of insecure woman beaters standing up for poor little Johnny Depp. The worst was how everyone acted like they knew both of their lives inside and out, and they really believed that they were experts on their situation because they watched livestreamed court proceedings. It is a great example, just in the opposite direction.

•

Just watched a documentary about it which made Depp look pretty bad. I still believe he was more of a victim than her.

Why in the fuck do you people think you can ignore the recording of her taunting him about how no one would believe him and then what a FUCKING PUSSY she kept calling him? The evidence she's a huge piece of shit is there. Him too to a degree, but she's at another level. He lost part of his finger. Can't fake that shit.

•

The thing is, he isn't cancelled.

Nobody who can say they are cancelled actually are cancelled, because if they were actually cancelled you wouldn't hear anything from then.

Anyway, he still is allowed to post Youtube videos, just doesn't get money from Google for them.

CaptnNMorgan

•

"nobody who can say they were cancelled actually are cancelled" don't you think that means you should redefine what "cancelled" means in your head?

•

Russell Brand is a wealthy, famous Hollywood star who does not know who you are and will never give you the love you needed from your father.

•

You have allowed yourself to become so cynical that the only reason you can conceive of for speaking up in another person's defense is that it might be part of some psychological complex from childhood.

•

Give me another reason to stand up for a famous hollywood star you know nothing real about, just a carefully and expensively crafted media persona.

I'm all for a good discussion around the social implications of false accusations, but there's an exceptional amounting of simping going on for one specific special boy.

•

Aside from false accusations - how about tech monopolies (only beholden to profits/shareholders) being judge, jury and executioner?

I think Brand is a narcissistic prick, but that doesn't mean I don't care how he's treated by even bigger evils.

•

I agree that capitalism is bad.

But since we live in a capitalist country, I do my part as an informed consumer and I don't use Google products.

But this particular brand of whining about "big tech" is so stupid. Google risks losing advertisers. Google acts to not lose it's advertisers. Cry a river that in a capitalist economy a business takes action to protect its income source.

•

Yes, Brand has been executed by having his YouTube account demonetized. There's no difference between not being paid by YouTube, but still being allowed to post videos, and being convicted of a crime. No difference whatsoever.

•

Yes, Brand has been executed by having his YouTube account demonetized. There's no difference between not being paid by YouTube, but still being allowed to post videos, and being convicted of a crime. No difference whatsoever.

~~That's a funny impression of an idiot you made just now.~~ Because obviously you know as well as everyone else that executioner in that context means executioner of the sentence. But enough jesting, let's get back on topic.

•

I stopped reading at the insult. This is not Reddit. If you can't talk to me without insulting me, I'm not interested. I'll just block you if it happens again. If you want to talk to me without the insults, fine.

OrteilGenou

•

He helped save Sarah Marshall, that has to count for something

•

It's a bit more than an accusation, it's a four year investigation by several media outlets signed off by their legal department. Not someone on twitter.

•

It's kind of weird how so much of this thread seems to think a monetized YouTube channel is a human right or something

•

That's not the point.

If someone made an allegation against you, would you expect your employer to sack you first and ask questions later or would you like the chance to defend yourself legally first?

Trae

•

Dude, people get fired all the time after being arrested or accused of a heinous act. All of this well before ever going to trial. Businesses don't have to and often won't keep someone on that is a risk to their company, culture, or brand identity.

It absolutely sucks that people can lose their livelihood over "he said / she said", but the fact is that it happens all the time.

pedz

•

Youtube is an employer now?

•

Semantics

•

If I was was accused of something awful yes I'd be fired. That how life works, doesn't make it fair. The reason? Because 9 times out of 10 it's true.

Why do you want a potential rapist to get special privileges?

jet

•

Literally every human on the planet is a "potential rapist".

So by your rhetoric nobody should be able to be employed or have a YouTube channel.

•

By your incel logic only proven rapists would ever suffer a single consequence of any type. You'd probably support a law that bans even making the accusation publicly until after a conviction. And this is one of many reasons women should avoid you.

jet

•

Your now assuming my political position and not addressing my words. We can disagree, I just ask you not insult me.

•

Yeah pretend not to understand the point I'm making, intentionally read words literally and ignore context, but it's indeed me who is insulting here

jet

•

We cannot have a functional discussion if personal attacks and insults are involved. At that point how can we establish good faith discord?

•

I don't think that the democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty is special treatment, nor do I think that the right to a fair trial is special treatment.

God forbid, you ever get falsely accused of anything nefarious, you'll deserve the treatment that you condone.

•

And by extension, you obviously expect to be accused of something like this, because you are bending over backwards to defend a probable rapist.

Innocent until proven guilty was NEVER applied anywhere but a legal context and your willful attempts at ignoring that fact when presented it, indicate you're exactly as suspect as you originally came off. Great job.

HawlSera

•

Guilty until proven Innocent, and even then still kinda guilty.

That's just how people operate today, and it's disgusting

Edit: Second sentence added for clarity

•

YouTube is not court.

•

He hasn't been thrown in jail without trial.

This is a private company protecting itself.

ArmokGoB

•

You can just send me all your money. It's not like you need income to get food and shelter, or anything like that.

•

Yeah they've taken all his money.

Stabbitha

•

Hahaha get the fuck out of here, stupid shit like this isn't even worth responding to. You're an idiot.

Justchilling

•

Am I misreading your comment or are you supporting the idea of guilty until proven innocent?

HawlSera

•

Definitely misreading it

Madrigal

•

I think you might be misreading.

Justchilling

•

Damm guys 15 dislikes? I get that I misunderstood but i didn't expect to be ratio'd.

•

Innocent until proven guilty is part of the legal system. Not part of an advertisers choice to place ads.

He has not been found guilty of a crime without evidence. He's lost ad revenue from a private platform.

sndrtj

•

My dad got sucked into the Russell Brand woo during the pandemic. Maybe he'll finally come to his senses now this guy is an obvious fraud?

•

Low chance, more likely he'll think Brand is some kind of martyr. Brand immediately dove into the Andrew Tate angle.

It's simple: if you're a media personality that uses your influence and money to groom and/or sexually harass or assault women, simply tell your audience that the government is trying to silence you, because "you're a dangerous revolutionary too close to the truth" or anything like that really.

TwoGems

•

Block your dad's router and blame the deep state

•

He's the fakest piece of shit around. Not surprising at all.

I've always hated his fake cockney bullshit. You can hear when his accent slips and then suddenly he's all "Knees up muvva brown!" for the next 30 seconds.

Fucking piece of shit is from Essex, the most trash place in the entire UK.

•

He is a working class person from Essex. He's not pretending to be anything he isn't, except arguably an intellectual. No need to be so vitriolic.

•

Being a drug addict does not make you working class.

He glamourises drugs and other grubby behaviour and makes a living out of being obnoxious, until people call him out on it, at which point he turns on the waterworks and does the "oh poor little street kid me" act.

•

He left his single parent home at 16 before turning to drugs. How was he not working class. He's an ex-drug addict and doesn't glamourise them at all. I don't even like him, but the facts are out there.

•

What do you think "working class" means?

You obviously haven't seen any of his material. He's built his whole career on drugs. Find a clip where he's not talking about them.

•

You want me to find a clip of Russell Brand not talking about drugs? Wow.. impossible.

Working class is anyone from the social group of unskilled or manual/industrial work. The people who work these jobs and their families/children. Like Russell Brand. He's not working class anymore, but he just factually was as a child. Weird hill to die on.

•

Lol so your logic is that every child is born working class out of the womb? Okay budsky, you've proven your ignorance, you can go home now

•

...which proves my point.

You don't seem to understand what the argument is about.

•

There isn't an argument, you called him the fakest piece of shit around and then suggested he was some kind of privileged upper class toff pretending to be an Essex urchin. But the obvious reality is he presents himself as he is. You chose the dumbest attack you could have. Attack his politics or something.

JustZ

•

All of the top comments in this thread seem very astroturfed. All saying the same thing, all wrong about the doctrinal implications of legal presumptions.

•

It is very concerning how prominent the "innocent until proven guilty" phrase is getting thrown around. Nothing weird has happened here and this idea never applied anywhere but a courtroom, and yet all these commenters seem convinced of the opposite of both points.

gastationsushi

•

These fucking red pilled incels. Yeah, they can overrun any comment section, but get them in the real world and they scurry back to the shadows roaches.

•

It's a bit hard to accurately gauge these sorts of things when there is such a large incentive to lie about this stuff to get someone out of the political arena. This is inclusive of all sides. I don't know how we should properly go about these things but the truth is that there are entities with LOTS of money and connections who can ruin anyones life without any hard evidence in an instant. None of us know what happened, it's up to the court of law to properly determine things. But you'd be ignorant to think that the powers that be wouldn't throw rape accusations at anyone who is inconvenient to those in power.

Specal

•

If you watched the piece, there is video evidence of him being a disgusting piece of shit regardless. There was footage of him forcefully kissing a presenter and undoing her bra. The police failed to investigate. These women were failed by lazy, misogynistic police, just like they always are.

To top it off, slander laws in the UK are very strict, no one is going to post accusations like this without serious evidence to back themselves up.

•

You talking about this clip? https://toofab.com/2023/09/19/katharine-mcphee-calls-russell-brand-resurfaced-clip-harmless/

•

When the evidence presents itself I will make my judgement.

no one is going to post accusations like this without serious evidence to back themselves up.

This is quite the statement to make. I argue that accusations like this get posted all the time without serious evidence to back it up. I will wait for the evidence to come out of him raping someone before I make a judgement in either direction.

Specal

•

So you're saying channel 4 makes allegations of rape against celebrities all the time?

•

Where did I say that?

SatansMaggotyCumFart

•

This is a two day old account with many hot takes that are stone cold.

Kirkkh

•

Permanently Deleted

•

There have been documented cases of rich people being informed they will have accusations thrown at them in the public eye if they do not pay out. Every time a public figure criticizes a politician to the point of possibly swaying some public opinion, I promise you that their team is working overtime to find any dirt possible to shut that person up. There's a whole industry around it where firms are paid big money to dig up (and less scrupulously, fabricate) shit on people who go against their interests. It's not that far fetched.

•

Christ you have a conspiracy for everything don’t you? Lemmy’s a small place. But this is very informative about your other comments.

RobbieGM

•

Judge, jury, and executioner.

•

HE WAS EXECUTED BY GOOGLE EMPLOYEES???!

ntzm

•

Lots of pro-rapists in this thread. Fuck Russel Brand and fuck Google (obviously)

serratur

•

Becase people support innocent until proven guilty? I find it reasonable to support that, even though I feel like this case might end with the proven guilty part.

•

Since when is losing the monetisation on your videos the same as being proven guilty?

I thought that happened in court.

•

You're absolutely stupid or full of shit if you think that has ever applied outside of the legal system

postmateDumbass

•

Yeah! More overtones of sexual violence!