Dispatches/Sunday Times investigation: Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

[SebastianBlue]

Agree they are entitled to do what they want, however the reason given

YouTube has said it has "suspended monetisation" on Russell Brand's channel for "violating" its "creator responsibility policy".

assumes guilt, which is wrong.

There is a different standard for private communication platforms.

And their terms and conditions are written such that almost anyone can be demonetised or suspended for whatever reason they come up with. We all sign the T&S at least once a year agreeing to them and recent court decisions both in the UK and US has made them effectively binding contracts.

 

[M18CTID]

Has Katy Perry been asked to comment yet?

Not a new quote - this is from a decade ago:

“I felt a lot of responsibility for it ending, but then I found out the real truth, which I can’t necessarily disclose because I keep it locked in my safe for a rainy day,” Perry said in 2013. “I let go and I was like: This isn’t because of me; this is beyond me. So I have moved on from that.”

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

How old were her daughters at the time?

They are 36 and 33 now so they would have been 19 and 16.

 

[flook]

They are as it affects their brand (no pun intended). What is unfortunate and debateable is how many others as well as Youtube and his former agents are now pulling back and trying to wash their hands off him, despite the fact that nobody else seems surprised at what's coming out. I guess it didn't seem particularly important as long as he was bringing in the money.

nail on head there

These platforms need to moderate more.

Anyone spouting the sort of conspiracy loon shit that he does should just have their channels deleted.

Social media is responsible for the state of the world we find ourselves in today.

I haven't watched any of his shit but my personal belief is that free speech is sacrosanct up to the point it is damaging to others, or incites actions against others. I don't know if his channel crosses that line or not, but if it doesn't then he (should) have the right to speak him mind

I don't know what the wording is on their policy but getting reported for sexual assault to the Met police probably crosses the line.

If thats true it's a dubious line, so anyone with a grudge can basically shut down someones income with a baseless accusation

I'm guessing that he doesn't have to be guilty of the more serious offences for them to take that action. Some of the historical clips are arguably enough for them to do it. Nowhere have YouTube said they think he's guilty of rape or sexual assault.

Historical being the key word there, if those historical posts violated their T&C's, why was he not booted previously? Why wait for these accusations to come out?

There is a different standard for private communication platforms.

And their terms and conditions are written such that almost anyone can be demonetised or suspended for whatever reason they come up with. We all sign the T&S at least once a year agreeing to them and recent court decisions both in the UK and US has made them effectively binding contracts.

That may be true, and what they have done may be legal, still wrong though.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

 

[BlueHammer85]

These platforms need to moderate more.

Anyone spouting the sort of conspiracy loon shit that he does should just have their channels deleted.

Are you asking the Mods to get rid of the VAR thread ?

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Now I'm not a fan of Brand at all, in fact I think he's a talentless twat, but this is wrong

YouTube suspends Russell Brand from advert income

The BBC has also removed some shows featuring the comedian and actor from its streaming services.

www.bbc.co.uk

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer a thing unfortunately

Meh, a lot of these fucks need to be weeded out of modern discourse. So that we can actually get back to having proper conversations about how we progress toward as a society.

Not going round and round in circles as to whether Bill Gates has a hidden lab where he wants to trap and kill the population.

 

[SebastianBlue]

nail on head there



I haven't watched any of his shit but my personal belief is that free speech is sacrosanct up to the point it is damaging to others, or incites actions against others. I don't know if his channel crosses that line or not, but if it doesn't then he (should) have the right to speak him mind



If thats true it's a dubious line, so anyone with a grudge can basically shut down someones income with a baseless accusation



Historical being the key word there, if those historical posts violated their T&C's, why was he not booted previously? Why wait for these accusations to come out?



That may be true, and what they have done may be legal, still wrong though.

They demonetised him. He can still spout whatever nonsense he wants on the platform, he just can’t make money off it.

But I suppose to grifters that is the same as being deplatformed.

 

[Centurions]

...

If thats true it's a dubious line, so anyone with a grudge can basically shut down someones income with a baseless accusation

...

Reminds me of a manager we used to have. A higher up came in one shift and had a quite word with him and they both trotted off somewhere. The next thing we knew was the same higher up coming back, lifting all of his personal stuff and disappearing. Apparently he'd been found guilty of domestic abuse (absolutely no idea of circumstances) and someone had informed the management. They promptly sacked him. Admittedly that wasn't baseless but I couldn't understand the relevance to his job. T & C's of employment I guess.

 

[threespires]

Any crimes it transpires he got away with, he got away with because he was earning big money for organisations who were busy looking at the bottom line rather than any other values. Economic value has always been relevant in how people are judged but it now seems in many ways the only way society thinks, unless and until something really bad happens. Then we have a bit of token handwringing and then we simply rinse and repeat.

There are still sections of society, like the education sector, where people still value more than just money, but those people are often decried and mocked and often placed under the control of leaders who have drunk the mammon koolaid. We fetishise wealth and fame at the expense of happiness to the point where tech companies can become huge entities simply by feeding that fetish.

Whilst money remains too many people's god, those people who make a lot of it for themselves or others will continue to be allowed to act with impunity.

(And yes I am thinking of getting myself down the Etihad with a sandwich board :-) )

 

[Bill Walker]

Now I'm not a fan of Brand at all, in fact I think he's a talentless twat, but this is wrong

YouTube suspends Russell Brand from advert income

The BBC has also removed some shows featuring the comedian and actor from its streaming services.

www.bbc.co.uk

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer a thing unfortunately

Glad they've done it.
And I admire those brave women who have come forward, it's a huge thing for a woman to come up against a world famous star.
Remembering the Harvey Weinstein thing, it was brave women who outed him.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Any crimes it transpires he got away with, he got away with because he was earning big money for organisations who were busy looking at the bottom line rather than any other values. Economic value has always been relevant in how people are judged but it now seems in many ways the only way society thinks, unless and until something really bad happens. Then we have a bit of token handwringing and then we simply rinse and repeat.

There are still sections of society, like the education sector, where people still value more than just money, but those people are often decried and mocked and often placed under the control of leaders who have drunk the mammon koolaid. We fetishise wealth and fame at the expense of happiness to the point where tech companies can become huge entities simply by feeding that fetish.

Whilst money remains too many people's god, those people who make a lot of it for themselves or others will continue to be allowed to act with impunity.

(And yes I am thinking of getting myself down the Etihad with a sandwich board :-) )

 

[M18CTID]

Historical being the key word there, if those historical posts violated their T&C's, why was he not booted previously? Why wait for these accusations to come out?

Maybe they weren't previously aware of them until now? I highly doubt that they'd have spooled through hundreds of hours of his material across multiple TV channels before giving him a platform

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Russell brand is a twat. My wife convinced me he was good, along with a few other talentless tossers who have made the big time recently.

But what gets me is the way the industry did nothing.
I understand lesser known names couldn't bring it to the forefront, but he mixed with some people, some stars who were bigger than him, who's name carried a lot more weight, yet they said nothing, and even partied with him and joined in with his shiteness.

Those people should be ashamed.

 

[Crooked_rain]

YouTube are entitled to do that if they want. In any case, they should've done it ages ago before all this started to come out instead of giving him a platform to air his crackpot conspiracy theories.

Of course they're entitled to have what they want on their platform, it just seems you only get de-platformed or your ability to monetise your content is blocked if your theories are targeted towards a certain directions.

In this instance, he's had his youtube channel for a long time, but suddenly they won't let him make money from it, 2 days after these allegations come out, and yes at this point its still allegations. So its clearly not down to some breach of their rules is it? Let's be honest about that. I'm sure they'll say it is, but you're not that naive are you?

I mean channels like The Young Turks and others make all sorts of theories about what people would consider the right, no different to what Alex Jones, Brand etc do, but for some reason they don't run into any Terms Of Service problems when their target is in the opposite direction. Funny that isn't it?

Whether Brand is guilty or not, that's yet to be determined, he may well be. But if we're looking at this objectively, he's simply had his revenue stream cut off on the basis of allegations that come out a couple of days ago. I just don't think it sets a good precedent generally. Courts exist for reason.

 

[Mon Autre]

Now I'm not a fan of Brand at all, in fact I think he's a talentless twat, but this is wrong

YouTube suspends Russell Brand from advert income

The BBC has also removed some shows featuring the comedian and actor from its streaming services.

www.bbc.co.uk

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer a thing unfortunately

How is it not still a thing?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Agree they are entitled to do what they want, however the reason given

YouTube has said it has "suspended monetisation" on Russell Brand's channel for "violating" its "creator responsibility policy".

assumes guilt, which is wrong.

I thought the same, but it's a suspension whilst they investigate his potential crimes.

If he is guilty though, and youtube have allowed him to monetise his YT account whilst being a rapist for example that would be more wrong.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Russell brand is a twat. My wife convinced me he was good, along with a few other talentless tossers who have made the big time recently.

But what gets me is the way the industry did nothing.
I understand lesser known names couldn't bring it to the forefront, but he mixed with some people, some stars who were bigger than him, who's name carried a lot more weight, yet they said nothing, and even partied with him and joined in with his shiteness.

Those people should be ashamed.

Does anyone know how much anybody knew about Brand?

When does a Chinese whisper become factual?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Of course they're entitled to have what they want on their platform, it just seems you only get de-platformed or your ability to monetise your content is blocked if your theories are targeted towards a certain directions.

In this instance, he's had his youtube channel for a long time, but suddenly they won't let him make money from it, 2 days after these allegations come out, and yes at this point its still allegations. So its clearly not down to some breach of their rules is it? Let's be honest about that. I'm sure they'll say it is, but you're not that naive are you?

I mean channels like The Young Turks and others make all sorts of theories about what people would consider the right, no different to what Alex Jones, Brand etc do, but for some reason they don't run into any Terms Of Service problems when their target is in the opposite direction. Funny that isn't it?

Whether Brand is guilty or not, that's yet to be determined, he may well be. But if we're looking at this objectively, he's simply had his revenue stream cut off on the basis of allegations that come out a couple of days ago. I just don't think it sets a good precedent generally. Courts exist for reason.

He's been accused of rape. And you're talking politics?

 

[hammocity]

To be honest, I always found that to be highly problematic and that sort of thing has always made me uncomfortable.

But I have also always been well outside the “lads culture”, which made things a bit difficult when I was younger. Generally being a sensitive, empathetic young man that felt great unease with anything that degraded women was not looked upon with much reverence back then.

I agree, Lovejoy used to hold onto the young girls football shirt as they took off an outer layer to prevent their shirt riding up, the real reason this was done was to reveal if the girls were well built in the chest area as the football shirts were deliberately tight.

I’m no prude but Saturday morning with very young viewers watching? I remember Mrs H watching it once and calling Lovejoy a dirty old man.