this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

59099 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] exohuman@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh wow. Just like that, Russell is rapist.

[–] exohuman@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah. Here:

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

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.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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...

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So you're willing to believe that "the powers that be" would fake a +10 year string of sexual misconduct allegations against some British B-Tier celeb, but are at the same time incapable of fixing the courts?

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes? It's orders of magnitude easier to get someone to make false accusations than to fix the court system. Not sure that's a controversial statement.

[–] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

So do you think these accusations were done in preparation, or someone has a serious grudge against Russell, or are we all being retconned?

[–] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Get out of here with your critical thinking!!!

Shakes fist

[–] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Reddit-ass post

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah Spacey 100% fucked kids.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] garretble@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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).

[–] erranto@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Stabbitha@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

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.