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
3 years ago by L4sBot to c/technology
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::YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.
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.
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.
Get out of here with your critical thinking!!!
Shakes fist
Reddit-ass post
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.
Add communist to the list. Happened before, and history tends to repeat itself.
Actually YouTube should be exclusively rapist-produced.
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.
Yep. I understand that it's hard to prosecute rape, but without rule of law we're fucked.
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.
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?
YouTube is big business. Of course content makers should be able to rely on it for livelihood.
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.
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.)
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).
The year is 2023
They aren't showing ads on his videos.
And here you are, pretending to be unbiased
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.
Even if I find this appealing, I wonder why you need to do this whataboutism.
Yeah. Here:
https://amp.theguardian.com/...
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.
Just trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance for Trump supporters who maybe haven't thought about it in these terms.
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!
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
Just glad there ain't a karma system lol
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
Great, now demonitize the catholic church while you're at it.
I guarantee you they spend wayyy more money on production than they make in views.
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.
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.
Right. "just build your own YouTube" is the solution. 👍
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yeah, I don't know anything about this guy but this is an alarming decision if the headline is accurate.
It's more alarming if he is innocent
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I genuinely do not even know who they are
Don't kkow too much about him but I liked him in this video.
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).
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Why'd they try rape in civil court? Rape is a crime.
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.
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)
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.
If you ever get accused of a crime, your whole life should be cancelled as a precautionary measure /s
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
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
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 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.
There's nothing stopping him getting his own advertising on his channel, he hasn't been banned from YouTube.
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.
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.
"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.
He helped save Sarah Marshall, that has to count for something
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then he'll sue
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
Yes you did
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
YouTube is not court.
Am I misreading your comment or are you supporting the idea of guilty until proven innocent?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah! More overtones of sexual violence!
Didn’t he practically brag about treating women like shit until he had a daughter? That’s what his rebirth special was cringefully about. He was literally making money about talking about treating women like shit.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.
Brand has developed a major following on his YouTube channel in recent years, amassing more than 6.6 million subscribers while cultivating a persona as a “wellness” and conspiracy influencer.
The BBC also reported it had removed "some programmes" featuring the former actor that were "deemed to 'fall below public expectations'" from its streaming services, iPlayer and Sounds.
"There is limited content featuring Russell Brand on iPlayer and Sounds," the BBC said in a statement published by the U.K. public broadcaster on Tuesday.
Other platforms hosting material from Brand, including Spotify and Luminary, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from NBC News.
The police department told NBC News it received a report of sexual assault against Brand on Sunday, a day after the publication of the investigation and the airing of a documentary on the subject on Saturday.
The original article contains 542 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Does YouTube have a precedent of blocking people who have allegations? I know little about Russel and his actions, but the way this whole thing has blown up, has me raising an eyebrow. I know his content is exposing of the establishment so I am wondering if we are seeing something here to take him down? Ultimately, justice needs to take place and until then, he should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
French YouTuber Léo Grasset lost ALL revenue on ALL his videos following (up until now unproven) rape allegations.
Here's a random source in English for you: https://www.tellerreport.com/...
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't exist for celebrities and YouTube/other platforms become de-facto public juror.
Why is Trump on so many social media platforms then?
He was President of the United States of America?
So the President above the law? Is this ok?
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't exist for Youtube, because they aren't a legal entity.
To them it is "bad publicity means we demonetise your channel" because their customers are the advertisers and they don't want to be next to someone with even accusations of rape.
Look, it wouldn't surprise me if these allegations were true given the kind of person he is and his past behaviour.
But I'll just bring up the example of Kevin Spacey. A man whose career was thrown in the bin over allegations that were untrue. Obviously, we don't learn anything at all.
Kevin accuser status:
"She was hit by a car in March and died in the hospital shortly after. No driver was charged for the incident. "
"In September, another accuser died, although his name is unknown. The man, who was a massage therapist, was suing Spacey under the name of "John Doe" for sexual assault. Shortly before the trial began, he died. A source informed Variety that he passed away from cancer. Because of the massage therapist's death, his case against Spacey was dismissed."
"On Christmas Day of 2019, Ari died of an apparent suicide. No further details have been disclosed as of yet."
So I don't think Kevin Spacey is a good example of "innocent man"
Also some people need to read more about the "rumors" that "support" these allegations as they are "open secrets" in Hollywood. For any accusations, a little bit of research can provide very amazingly details about these cases from early 2000 in blogs and gossip Hollywood magazine.
Yeah Spacey 100% fucked kids.
Don't forget how the government weaponised similar accusations against Julian Assange.
@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
go to feed...
I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn't be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.
save