4 ms·

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

by 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.
        phendrenad2 3y ago
        Trial by social media only works if the world takes seriously the judgement in the court of public opinion. Of course, in prior eras someone could say "she's a witch!" in the town square and the authorities might join in with the burning. Because your fate was decided by public opinion, everyone cheered, you must be guilty, right? At some point we grew beyond that as a society, but we're regressing again. You don't exactly get burned, you just get kicked off of private business property, but maybe we're not far from that happening too.

by akolbe 3y ago

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.
      - phendrenad2 3y ago
        Trial by social media only works if the world takes seriously the judgement in the court of public opinion. Of course, in prior eras someone could say "she's a witch!" in the town square and the authorities might join in with the burning. Because your fate was decided by public opinion, everyone cheered, you must be guilty, right? At some point we grew beyond that as a society, but we're regressing again. You don't exactly get burned, you just get kicked off of private business property, but maybe we're not far from that happening too.