I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn't be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
397 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
59568 readers
4146 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well I'm sure Google will be donating the money to sexual assault non profits rather than pocketing the profits right?
Right?
load more comments
(4 replies)
When you allow corporations to operate as lawless autocracies that are above the law they tend to do what ever they damn well please. Maybe we should have regulated the internet as the utility that it is rather than gift it to billionaires.
load more comments
(11 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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).
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?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
I think it’s important to point it out. The other rapist is exalted when he should be getting shut down too.
load more comments
(24 replies)
Just trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance for Trump supporters who maybe haven't thought about it in these terms.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Great, now demonitize the catholic church while you're at it.
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.
load more comments
(16 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
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!
load more comments
(6 replies)
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!
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?
load more comments
(14 replies)
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.
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
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
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
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Youtube cutting off their monetisation is not the same as putting the person in jail.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
It's kind of weird how so much of this thread seems to think a monetized YouTube channel is a human right or something
load more comments
(14 replies)
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
load more comments
(10 replies)
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›