I agree that corporations shouldn't punish people for alleged deeds that are not proven in a court of law — that is, unless it affects them directly. Imagine a

I agree that corporations shouldn't punish people for alleged deeds that are not proven in a court of law — that is, unless it affects them directly. Imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them. That misbehaviour hasn't been proven in a court of law, it might even be the case that the barkeeper read the situation wrongly and threw that person out despite their innocence. Yet they should have the right to decide that, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enfore any kind of house rules unless they have two sworn witnesses for anything that happens. Now the pressing question is whether youtube is in a comparable situation here. Russel Brand, whether he is innocent or not, could now — with all the spotlights pointed at him — use that situation to produce more outrage — outrage that would make him a shitton of money that would be coming from YouTube. Seen from that perspective that move from youtube might be more of a strategic preventive measure to avoid dragging their platform into it without having to censor the guy than any form of punishment (although it will be read as such). Btw. I am not defending that position, I still think it is problematic and I still think social media platforms that resemble some sort of public square should have higher free speech standards than they do, but pick one freedom for corporations or free speech for it's customers, you cannot have both.