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

Comments

• sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn’t be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.

  source

  • treefrog@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Well I’m sure Google will be donating the money to sexual assault non profits rather than pocketing the profits right?

    Right?

    source

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Do you know any corporation that would?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Get out of here with your critical thinking!!!

      Shakes fist

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • phillaholic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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!

      source
    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source
    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
    • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source
    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source
  • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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?

    source

    • Slotos@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • NuPNuA@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
  • OscarRobin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • Clbull@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.)

    EDP445

    source
• Blizzard@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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).

  source

  • Fantomas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • admin@lemmy.my-box.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The future is now.

      source
    • Blizzard@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That future is now…

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • JoeClu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They aren’t showing ads on his videos.

    source
  • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And here you are, pretending to be unbiased

    source
• flossdaily@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • topinambour_rex@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • exohuman@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • flossdaily@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
  • xc2215x@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Trump supporters are more dangerous.

    source
  • PostalDude@links.hackliberty.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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!

    source

    • mikeboltonshair@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • w2tpmf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Does he have a monetized YouTube channel?

    source
• erranto@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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

  source

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • sugartits@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • 13esq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • prole@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
  • nucleative@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • pineapplepizza@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s more alarming if he is innocent

      source
  • Mdotaut801@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Mm…I don’t think that’s usually the case with all allegations of this nature. You may be partially right but I think people are all over this one because of how “sketchy” he is in the first place. If someone like let’s say…Keanu Reeves is accused of something like this, everyone would probably side with Keanu because of who he is and who he always has been.

    source

    • 13esq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
    • erranto@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
• TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Cyberflunk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And pragerU

    source

    • derin@lemmy.beru.co ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
• Petter1@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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!

  source

  • Squizzy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • jagoan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
  • Copernican@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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. 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?

    source
  • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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

    source
  • Seudo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It is their job to make profits. Literally. Theyre legally bound by stake holder agreement to maximise profits, absolutely nothing to do with the justice system or moral codes.

    source
  • cooopsspace@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      He isn’t banned though.

      source
  • NuPNuA@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Petter1@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Lmaydev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    Keeping them happy is in fact literally their job.

    source
  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • Petter1@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Not giving money is punishment

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• kokesh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • garretble@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • pokemaster787@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • mx_smith@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This only works because Youtube has the loosest form of contracts with it’s creators. Your regular employers can’t fire you because of allegations or hearsay.

      source
  • funkajunk@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source
• Fluid@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  My god… some of the commenters would 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!

  source
• HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source
• Jackthelad@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• cricket97@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• RobbieGM@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Judge, jury, and executioner.

  source
• sndrtj@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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?

  source
• SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source
• JustZ@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• z00s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Didn’t he practically brag about treating women like shit until he had a daughter? That’s what his rebirth special was cringefully about.

  source
• autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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!

  source