7 ms·

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

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
      People have always been tried in the media. We just have more media now, compressing time from days (newspapers) to hours (TV) to seconds (internet). Harvey Weinstein got tried in the press because the police and Weinstein's enablers failed to do anything about him. I don't see that as a bad thing. The media have a role to play in society, and that sometimes includes penalizing or ostracizing people for their behavior before the slow legal system slogs around. In some countries the government and police are too inefficient or corrupt and the media is all people have. Why do we celebrate social media for things like the Arab Spring, but not for warning us about a possible rapist? Those are flip sides of the same bargain we've all made to some degree. It's easy enough to ignore social media and not participate in it. Lots of people do it. Russell Brand made a different choice, turning himself into a social media (and TV) fixture, for fame and fortune, and sometimes that bull throws you off.
      - phendrenad2 3y ago
        Don't confuse "trial by media" with "trial by private platform". Yes, there are some similarities, but social media platforms are a fundamentally NEW thing that didn't have an analogue before. And anyway, you're just doing an appeal to history here. Something can be bad even if it has existed for a long time.
        gregjor 3y ago
        When did "media" not have private owners? What we have now are public platforms with corporate owners. Newspapers and TV are private platforms with corporate owners. Google/YouTube aren't putting Russell Brand on trial through social media -- the portion of the public that pays attention to social media does that. The corporations that own social media platforms respond to profit and threats to profit. If they keep Brand on YouTube he might make $X dollars for YouTube but cost them $5x dollars in advertising revenue, lost reputation and publicity black eye, and so on. Part of the media corporation standing (except for Twitter) comes from their apparent -- possibly insincere -- commitment to social issues, which includes #MeToo. So they err on the side of caution and try to keep the largest possible audience and pool of advertisers that they can. Social media may represent "fundamentally new things," but not to Russell Brand. He adapted to social media, signed the contract, lives on the platforms, and makes lots of money. He knew the rules, or should have -- there's no way he's not aware of #MeToo and the consequences, fair or not, of reputational damage. He must know that Andrew Tate got the same treatment just a few months ago. We can debate the right or wrong of how YouTube demonetizes people, though I don't think "right" and "wrong" come into it with corporations that only respond to profit and their carefully groomed reputation. The social media celebrity game has rules, one of which is that you can't get credibly accused of rape or sexual assault all over British television. Brand signed up for that game and those rules. He's not a victim any more than I can call myself a victim when I lose at a Vegas casino.
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> 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. Right, Google is much bigger, more impactful and more monopolistic than many governments. We should apply way stricter standards to it than we do to most governments. It is easier to change your citizenship than to cut Google off your life.
- d_e_solomon 3y ago
  So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
  - bt4u 3y ago
    [dead]
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    > So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? “Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes. > Is that really a standard you want to set? Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman? > Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog? No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
    - d_e_solomon 3y ago
      So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand? In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
avindroth 3y ago
Note that social media can also act as public forums, which aren’t protected in the way entirely private institutions are. For instance, newspaper organizations are in a similar territory.
- d_e_solomon 3y ago
  In what ways are newspapers a public forum? I can start printing a newspaper today and I don't have to publish your articles or your letters to the editors. They are absolutely private institutions.
  - avindroth 3y ago
    I think I used the wrong word here. But they fall under a different legal category iirc.
fauigerzigerk 3y ago
>No one has a right to a social media platform. No, but the question is on what basis dominant platforms _should_ be allowed to terminate someone's account. >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. If the only rule he has broken and the only line he has crossed is to be accused of a crime by others then hypocrisy is entirely irrelevant. Terminating an account on this basis should be illegal because it undermines the rule of law.
- gregjor 3y ago
  Most of us can lose our jobs and livelihood for a lot less. Brand will do alright unless he gets convicted. Rule of law means the laws apply to everyone the same. It doesn’t mean private companies have to follow legal rules of evidence and procedure. Companies terminate accounts on the “basis” they can — in this case for violating terms of service. Celebrity or not, YouTube can kick people off when they have credible allegations of serious misconduct.
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    We're talking past each other. I don't dispute that Google can terminate Brand's account under current law. My point is that the law should be changed so that they can not do that purely on the basis of accusations. The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective. If the consequences of accusations are no longer primarily decided in court, then the law becomes ineffective and even more unequal than it already is. https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-law https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-...
    - gregjor 3y ago
      What consequences? He has to move to a different streaming platform? What law would you change to force private companies to keep social pariahs and dangerous (but maybe not criminal) people on their platforms? Can I sell porn in your driveway? Brand signed his rights to privacy away when he made himself a celebrity. This is what happens when celebrities screw up. Maybe not fair, but I don’t think it’s fair that Russell Brand makes $1M/mo on YouTube and I don’t.
tamimio 3y ago
> Brand does have a right to fair treatment under the law. I’m not sure if that’s accurate, but maybe some lawyers here can enlighten me. As far as I know, if you run a business in a country’s jurisdiction, you need to follow their laws. It’s not anarchy/wild west. I can’t make a ToS for my bakery that only serves people of a certain race, for example. The same applies to online businesses. And don’t tell me this is an obvious discrimination but this case is different, so on and so forth. It’s because the law forbids it. And of course, big tech can’t ignore the law. They shouldn’t deprive anyone of their right to use their service to the fullest, especially if they are public companies.
- gregjor 3y ago
  Brand violated YouTube’s terms of service. Can you show that YT singles Brand out and allows other celebrity accused rapists to continue posting? He’s not the first. No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights.
  - tamimio 3y ago
    > singles Brand out and allows other celebrity accused rapists to continue posting? He’s not the first. Accusing is something, guilty is another. And even if found guilty, how’s that a violation? Do you kick out an ex-convict from the grocery store? As long as no promotion for violence, you don’t get to deny them the service. > No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights. No, everyone has the right, just like you have the right to go to walmart. If they close, fair, it’s like bankruptcy for a company and no longer required to pay debt, your company legal entity doesn’t exist anymore, but as long as you are operating, whatever applies to grocery stores applies to big tech, I don’t know why some people think big tech are above the law, in fact, given how influential they are, a special restrictions should be applied to them, this is not some random IRC chat with nicknames back in the 90s and if you gat banned, you go to another room, social media is now people digital identities, imagine LinkedIn suddenly started banning people, and people are no longer able to look for jobs and the likes? Or a dating site mogul that owns most dating apps suddenly decided to ban your account and they use AI to recognize your face, you are basically out of the dating pool! Yeah, laws should be adjusted per how dependent we are on the digital world, this is not the 90s anymore.

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
    People have always been tried in the media. We just have more media now, compressing time from days (newspapers) to hours (TV) to seconds (internet). Harvey Weinstein got tried in the press because the police and Weinstein's enablers failed to do anything about him. I don't see that as a bad thing. The media have a role to play in society, and that sometimes includes penalizing or ostracizing people for their behavior before the slow legal system slogs around. In some countries the government and police are too inefficient or corrupt and the media is all people have. Why do we celebrate social media for things like the Arab Spring, but not for warning us about a possible rapist? Those are flip sides of the same bargain we've all made to some degree. It's easy enough to ignore social media and not participate in it. Lots of people do it. Russell Brand made a different choice, turning himself into a social media (and TV) fixture, for fame and fortune, and sometimes that bull throws you off.
    - phendrenad2 3y ago
      Don't confuse "trial by media" with "trial by private platform". Yes, there are some similarities, but social media platforms are a fundamentally NEW thing that didn't have an analogue before. And anyway, you're just doing an appeal to history here. Something can be bad even if it has existed for a long time.
      - gregjor 3y ago
        When did "media" not have private owners? What we have now are public platforms with corporate owners. Newspapers and TV are private platforms with corporate owners. Google/YouTube aren't putting Russell Brand on trial through social media -- the portion of the public that pays attention to social media does that. The corporations that own social media platforms respond to profit and threats to profit. If they keep Brand on YouTube he might make $X dollars for YouTube but cost them $5x dollars in advertising revenue, lost reputation and publicity black eye, and so on. Part of the media corporation standing (except for Twitter) comes from their apparent -- possibly insincere -- commitment to social issues, which includes #MeToo. So they err on the side of caution and try to keep the largest possible audience and pool of advertisers that they can. Social media may represent "fundamentally new things," but not to Russell Brand. He adapted to social media, signed the contract, lives on the platforms, and makes lots of money. He knew the rules, or should have -- there's no way he's not aware of #MeToo and the consequences, fair or not, of reputational damage. He must know that Andrew Tate got the same treatment just a few months ago. We can debate the right or wrong of how YouTube demonetizes people, though I don't think "right" and "wrong" come into it with corporations that only respond to profit and their carefully groomed reputation. The social media celebrity game has rules, one of which is that you can't get credibly accused of rape or sexual assault all over British television. Brand signed up for that game and those rules. He's not a victim any more than I can call myself a victim when I lose at a Vegas casino.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

> 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. Right, Google is much bigger, more impactful and more monopolistic than many governments. We should apply way stricter standards to it than we do to most governments. It is easier to change your citizenship than to cut Google off your life.

d_e_solomon 3y ago
So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?
- bt4u 3y ago
  [dead]
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  > So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? “Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes. > Is that really a standard you want to set? Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman? > Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog? No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
  - d_e_solomon 3y ago
    So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand? In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.

avindroth 3y ago

Note that social media can also act as public forums, which aren’t protected in the way entirely private institutions are. For instance, newspaper organizations are in a similar territory.

d_e_solomon 3y ago
In what ways are newspapers a public forum? I can start printing a newspaper today and I don't have to publish your articles or your letters to the editors. They are absolutely private institutions.
- avindroth 3y ago
  I think I used the wrong word here. But they fall under a different legal category iirc.

fauigerzigerk 3y ago

>No one has a right to a social media platform. No, but the question is on what basis dominant platforms _should_ be allowed to terminate someone's account. >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. If the only rule he has broken and the only line he has crossed is to be accused of a crime by others then hypocrisy is entirely irrelevant. Terminating an account on this basis should be illegal because it undermines the rule of law.

gregjor 3y ago
Most of us can lose our jobs and livelihood for a lot less. Brand will do alright unless he gets convicted. Rule of law means the laws apply to everyone the same. It doesn’t mean private companies have to follow legal rules of evidence and procedure. Companies terminate accounts on the “basis” they can — in this case for violating terms of service. Celebrity or not, YouTube can kick people off when they have credible allegations of serious misconduct.
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  We're talking past each other. I don't dispute that Google can terminate Brand's account under current law. My point is that the law should be changed so that they can not do that purely on the basis of accusations. The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective. If the consequences of accusations are no longer primarily decided in court, then the law becomes ineffective and even more unequal than it already is. https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-law https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-...
  - gregjor 3y ago
    What consequences? He has to move to a different streaming platform? What law would you change to force private companies to keep social pariahs and dangerous (but maybe not criminal) people on their platforms? Can I sell porn in your driveway? Brand signed his rights to privacy away when he made himself a celebrity. This is what happens when celebrities screw up. Maybe not fair, but I don’t think it’s fair that Russell Brand makes $1M/mo on YouTube and I don’t.

tamimio 3y ago

> Brand does have a right to fair treatment under the law. I’m not sure if that’s accurate, but maybe some lawyers here can enlighten me. As far as I know, if you run a business in a country’s jurisdiction, you need to follow their laws. It’s not anarchy/wild west. I can’t make a ToS for my bakery that only serves people of a certain race, for example. The same applies to online businesses. And don’t tell me this is an obvious discrimination but this case is different, so on and so forth. It’s because the law forbids it. And of course, big tech can’t ignore the law. They shouldn’t deprive anyone of their right to use their service to the fullest, especially if they are public companies.

gregjor 3y ago
Brand violated YouTube’s terms of service. Can you show that YT singles Brand out and allows other celebrity accused rapists to continue posting? He’s not the first. No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights.
- tamimio 3y ago
  > singles Brand out and allows other celebrity accused rapists to continue posting? He’s not the first. Accusing is something, guilty is another. And even if found guilty, how’s that a violation? Do you kick out an ex-convict from the grocery store? As long as no promotion for violence, you don’t get to deny them the service. > No one has a right to use a private service like YouTube. They could close down tomorrow and block all of us and we’d have no case that they had violated our rights. No, everyone has the right, just like you have the right to go to walmart. If they close, fair, it’s like bankruptcy for a company and no longer required to pay debt, your company legal entity doesn’t exist anymore, but as long as you are operating, whatever applies to grocery stores applies to big tech, I don’t know why some people think big tech are above the law, in fact, given how influential they are, a special restrictions should be applied to them, this is not some random IRC chat with nicknames back in the 90s and if you gat banned, you go to another room, social media is now people digital identities, imagine LinkedIn suddenly started banning people, and people are no longer able to look for jobs and the likes? Or a dating site mogul that owns most dating apps suddenly decided to ban your account and they use AI to recognize your face, you are basically out of the dating pool! Yeah, laws should be adjusted per how dependent we are on the digital world, this is not the 90s anymore.