12 ms·

I really hate this modern trial by social media. There's a reason we have a legal system, courts, and process. If he's found guilty by the court, then hang him

by mirzap 3y ago

I really hate this modern trial by social media. There's a reason we have a legal system, courts, and process. If he's found guilty by the court, then hang him by his balls and cancel everything, I don't care. But don't nuke anyone before the court says "guilty."

rebolek 3y ago
Well, within today's legal system, social media are responsible what's posted on their site.
- akolbe 3y ago
  It's not about the content though in this case (God knows there is worse crap on YouTube), but about the person who uploaded it.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    The ads I get in Youtube are full of obvious lies, AI generated garbage, clear copyright violations, and worse. What makes matters worse is that comments get disabled aa does sharing. I can't even link to the problem. If I report the ad, it is there again tomorrow. It's almost as if that counts as interaction worthy of trying the ad again. I personally don't like RB. I find the whole act to be off-putting. Though that is most often a sign of others liking the content. I don't think letting the "reason" go unchallenged is responsible given the above.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    He's not getting a massive boost to his views this week because of the content though, but because he's an alleged sex offender. Of all the people demonetised by YouTube, already rich man can't profit from allegations of sex offences unless he can find brands willing to pay him directly has to be one of the least sympathetic.
- NolF 3y ago
  What's the case law that social meedia sites are responsible for the content on their site? Youtube just recently won the ISIS recruitment case as a counter example [0]. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf
gregjor 3y ago
What happened to Brand has nothing to do with the legal system, yet. He may or may not face legal proceedings. But as a celebrity who makes his living on social media, he both explicitly (terms of service) and implicitly bought into all that entails. That includes accusations made against him as a celebrity, whether or not those amount to a prosecutable crime. Google/YouTube are not the government or legal system, they have their own standards that Brand agreed to so he could profit from posting his content. No one has a right to a social media platform. Brand does have a right to fair treatment under the law. It won't surprise me if he finds a way to monetize the accusations against him. If you don't see the hypocrisy of celebrities leveraging social media to their advantage and profit, then whining and complaining about "free speech" when they cross the line or break the terms of service or otherwise run afoul of the rules, I don't know what to say.
- akolbe 3y ago
  It's not about what he said on YouTube though. He stands accused of having been a bad person. Maybe he was, but if all it takes for a YouTuber to be deprived of their income is to be accused of being a bad person (or of having committed a crime ten or twenty years ago), then that is obviously problematic ...
  - gregjor 3y ago
    He didn’t get booted from YouTube because of his content. The YT terms of service say they can take action based on the person’s actions. Whether we agree with the rules or not YT has those rules and they own the platform, they can accept or kick off whomever they like.
    - phendrenad2 3y ago
      OP was complaining about a "modern trial by social media", nothing you said has anything to do with that.
      - gregjor 3y ago
notahacker 3y ago
The Brand allegations came after a thoroughly researched traditional media investigation. The only part of this which is "trial by social media" is Brand's choice of venue to deny them. I'm not sure any principle of jurisprusdence involves social media being obliged to subsidise his denials by wrapping unwilling advertisers around them and sending him a cut.
- hnburnsy 3y ago
  Ever read a well researched article on an industry you are intimately familiar with?
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Plenty. They were certainly more accurate than social media rumour on it. I'm also not convinced that consent is quite as complex as commercial aviation...
chimprich 3y ago
> But don't nuke anyone before the court says "guilty." Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law. However, there is quite reasonable circumstantial evidence that he's guilty - five or six serious allegations from independent women, which multiple news organisations have assessed and found credible. There's also been a fresh look at his behaviour with activities which I don't believe have been contested - like having an affair with a 16-year old when he was 30. He doesn't need to be found guilty for advertisers to decide that kind of odious behaviour is something that they don't want to be associated with. What's the alternative? Legally force YouTube to give him a platform and lose revenue?
- tamimio 3y ago
  > Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law. I don’t get this part, so assuming he found guilty, and now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work because he found guilty on something, you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there, or not accessing YT if it was used as a platform for those allegations, remember, law is flawed too and full loopholes and not perfect, and there are so many cases of false court outcomes.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    > now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! I don't believe any country guarantees a right to be given work. > He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work Yes, he's a public figure, but so what? No one is denying him a right to seek work, but equally organisations are free to decline to work with him. Why should Brand have a right to millions of pounds of revenue from a Youtube channel? I don't. > you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there You think if multiple credible witnesses accused a doctor of sexual abuse he should be free to carry on medical practice as long as he does it at a different hospital?
drewcoo 3y ago
> I really hate this modern trial by social media. #MeToo
saberience 3y ago
We don't have a legal right to perform stand-up in a club, nor is there a legal right to be able to upload videos to Youtube. If I own a pub and want to ban Russell Brand based on no evidence at all, I'm allowed to do so. Russell Brand DOES have a legal right to bodily autonomy and freedom to walk around the world etc. So to take that away DOES take a legal trial and a jury etc. Private entities get to make the call based on whatever they like whether someone gets to perform on their website or in their venue. If I think someone is "dodgy" or whatever, I can bar them from performing in my club and the same applies to Youtube. In life sometimes there are consequences for behaving badly and Russell is finally facing some of them.
phendrenad2 3y ago
I also really hate this modern trial by social media, but YouTube is entirely within their rights here. However, they are not free to do this without criticism, and we should continue to criticize them over this kind of thing until they stop it.

by mirzap 3y ago

rebolek 3y ago

Well, within today's legal system, social media are responsible what's posted on their site.

akolbe 3y ago
It's not about the content though in this case (God knows there is worse crap on YouTube), but about the person who uploaded it.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  The ads I get in Youtube are full of obvious lies, AI generated garbage, clear copyright violations, and worse. What makes matters worse is that comments get disabled aa does sharing. I can't even link to the problem. If I report the ad, it is there again tomorrow. It's almost as if that counts as interaction worthy of trying the ad again. I personally don't like RB. I find the whole act to be off-putting. Though that is most often a sign of others liking the content. I don't think letting the "reason" go unchallenged is responsible given the above.
- notahacker 3y ago
  He's not getting a massive boost to his views this week because of the content though, but because he's an alleged sex offender. Of all the people demonetised by YouTube, already rich man can't profit from allegations of sex offences unless he can find brands willing to pay him directly has to be one of the least sympathetic.
NolF 3y ago
What's the case law that social meedia sites are responsible for the content on their site? Youtube just recently won the ISIS recruitment case as a counter example [0]. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf

gregjor 3y ago

What happened to Brand has nothing to do with the legal system, yet. He may or may not face legal proceedings. But as a celebrity who makes his living on social media, he both explicitly (terms of service) and implicitly bought into all that entails. That includes accusations made against him as a celebrity, whether or not those amount to a prosecutable crime. Google/YouTube are not the government or legal system, they have their own standards that Brand agreed to so he could profit from posting his content. No one has a right to a social media platform. Brand does have a right to fair treatment under the law. It won't surprise me if he finds a way to monetize the accusations against him. If you don't see the hypocrisy of celebrities leveraging social media to their advantage and profit, then whining and complaining about "free speech" when they cross the line or break the terms of service or otherwise run afoul of the rules, I don't know what to say.

akolbe 3y ago
It's not about what he said on YouTube though. He stands accused of having been a bad person. Maybe he was, but if all it takes for a YouTuber to be deprived of their income is to be accused of being a bad person (or of having committed a crime ten or twenty years ago), then that is obviously problematic ...
- gregjor 3y ago
  He didn’t get booted from YouTube because of his content. The YT terms of service say they can take action based on the person’s actions. Whether we agree with the rules or not YT has those rules and they own the platform, they can accept or kick off whomever they like.
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    OP was complaining about a "modern trial by social media", nothing you said has anything to do with that.
    - gregjor 3y ago

notahacker 3y ago

The Brand allegations came after a thoroughly researched traditional media investigation. The only part of this which is "trial by social media" is Brand's choice of venue to deny them. I'm not sure any principle of jurisprusdence involves social media being obliged to subsidise his denials by wrapping unwilling advertisers around them and sending him a cut.

hnburnsy 3y ago
Ever read a well researched article on an industry you are intimately familiar with?
- notahacker 3y ago
  Plenty. They were certainly more accurate than social media rumour on it. I'm also not convinced that consent is quite as complex as commercial aviation...

chimprich 3y ago

> But don't nuke anyone before the court says "guilty." Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law. However, there is quite reasonable circumstantial evidence that he's guilty - five or six serious allegations from independent women, which multiple news organisations have assessed and found credible. There's also been a fresh look at his behaviour with activities which I don't believe have been contested - like having an affair with a 16-year old when he was 30. He doesn't need to be found guilty for advertisers to decide that kind of odious behaviour is something that they don't want to be associated with. What's the alternative? Legally force YouTube to give him a platform and lose revenue?

tamimio 3y ago
> Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law. I don’t get this part, so assuming he found guilty, and now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work because he found guilty on something, you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there, or not accessing YT if it was used as a platform for those allegations, remember, law is flawed too and full loopholes and not perfect, and there are so many cases of false court outcomes.
- chimprich 3y ago
  > now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! I don't believe any country guarantees a right to be given work. > He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work Yes, he's a public figure, but so what? No one is denying him a right to seek work, but equally organisations are free to decline to work with him. Why should Brand have a right to millions of pounds of revenue from a Youtube channel? I don't. > you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there You think if multiple credible witnesses accused a doctor of sexual abuse he should be free to carry on medical practice as long as he does it at a different hospital?

drewcoo 3y ago

> I really hate this modern trial by social media. #MeToo

saberience 3y ago

We don't have a legal right to perform stand-up in a club, nor is there a legal right to be able to upload videos to Youtube. If I own a pub and want to ban Russell Brand based on no evidence at all, I'm allowed to do so. Russell Brand DOES have a legal right to bodily autonomy and freedom to walk around the world etc. So to take that away DOES take a legal trial and a jury etc. Private entities get to make the call based on whatever they like whether someone gets to perform on their website or in their venue. If I think someone is "dodgy" or whatever, I can bar them from performing in my club and the same applies to Youtube. In life sometimes there are consequences for behaving badly and Russell is finally facing some of them.

phendrenad2 3y ago

I also really hate this modern trial by social media, but YouTube is entirely within their rights here. However, they are not free to do this without criticism, and we should continue to criticize them over this kind of thing until they stop it.