4 ms·

>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. >

>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.
    - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
      >What consequences? He has to move to a different streaming platform? Are you asking me what the consequences are for an entertainer to get removed from globally dominant distribution channels? >Can I sell porn in your driveway? This is getting silly. I'm not saying that every company has to publish everything. Google had a mutually profitable business relationship with Brand. They were more than happy to publish his content before these allegations were made.
      - gregjor 3y ago
        > Google had a mutually profitable business relationship with Brand. They were more than happy to publish his content before these allegations were made. Sure. I would be more than happy to hang out with Russell Brand too until I found out he might have raped three women. Then I'd think twice. Credible accusations of rape and sexual assault have a way of changing things. Russell Brand will find a platform. He's been kicked off media platforms before -- he seems to invite controversy as part of his schtick. The people who want to pay to listen to Russell Brand can continue to do so, plenty of channels available not as sensitive to public opinion as Google. Russell Brand is a smart guy. I assume he's heard of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, or Andrew Tate. He probably knows what happens in these situations. Getting knocked off of YouTube is the least of it. I'm willing to give Russell Brand the benefit of innocent until proven guilty, but YouTube has no obligation to risk their reputation or alienate a large number of their users, especially when everything we know about Russell Brand, from his own mouth, gives the impression that he probably did some things he was hoping wouldn't get made public. Celebrities always walk that line, their fame and income based on perception and reputation.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > 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. Why? > The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective. Sure. > 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. If the scope of the law is expanded so that every change in relations between two persons not resulting from a mutual agreement to change requires going to court, the resulting social friction will make the law more ineffective where it is. If Brand wants to only enter into business agreeements that are framed so that the only behavioral reason for termination by the other side is a ruling by a court that he violated some law, he can insist on those terms, but that's a expensive proposition for the other party and society, and I see it as absolutely undesirable that such conditions be a legal default or, worse, effectively obligatory as a matter of law.
    - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
      >If the scope of the law is expanded so that every change in relations between two persons not resulting from a mutual agreement to change requires going to court, the resulting social friction will make the law more ineffective where it is. Not every relation between two persons is between a globally dominant platform or infrastructure provider and a user of such a platform. The threshold for global gatekeepers must be higher. Public figures are of course subject to the court of public opinion. That's what they signed up for. But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > The threshold for global gatekeepers must be higher. Maybe there are some aspects of Google’s operations that ought to be public utilities, but I have a lot of trouble seeing YouTube as one of them. It may be dominant in its particular structure (or some aspects of it, since YouTube does lots of different things in one platform, many of which have many strong competitors), but I don’t really see the case that it is essential. There’s lots of channels for video distribution with slightly different models. > But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true. There is, in that there are kinds of sanctions that private entities can not impose.
gregjor 3y ago
What perhaps should happen depends on points of view and interpretations — subjective and changeable. Let’s talk about what did happen because arguing about should just wastes time unless you have an actionable plan and the means to make actually change something. Russell Brand got accused, credibly, of sexual assault by multiple women. That makes him a pariah. Google/YouTube don’t want the reputation damage so they close him down on their platform. Russell Brand chose to live his life in public, as a celebrity. This is what happens to celebrities when their sponsors and fans and enablers lose confidence in them. That’s the game he signed up for. Part of the celebrity bargain is that public perception means more than truth, and that works both ways. Brand can continue saying and posting whatever he wants. No one silenced him. He just can’t do it on YouTube anymore for money. I don’t get to keep a rental car because Hertz let me drive it for a weekend, because we had a contract. So did Russell Brand.
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  As I said, in my view globally dominant platforms and infrastructure providers (such as payment networks, etc) should not be allowed to terminate accounts based on public sentiment alone. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I want to bring up something else though. We don't actually know the reasons why Google has terminated his account (at least I don't). Perhaps the accusations and the reputational risk were not the only reasons. Google could legitimately want to block Brand from using Youtube as a stage to attack his accusers and run his own media campaign related to the case. That would be an entirely different matter, but in my view this should be handled by more selective restrictions.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    Google/YouTube gave a reason, it was quoted in an article in The Guardian, I think. Violated terms of service, which apparently includes offline behavior, subject to YouTube's discretion. We may or may not disagree, but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again). I only commented on what did happen, and why I don't think Google/YouTube did anything legally wrong, or even ethically objectionable, given that their interests differ from Russell Brand's interests and no longer intersect since Brand became a social pariah. Google has to cater to a lot more customers than Russell Brand and his audience, and has to consider public opinion about alleged celebrity rapists. We all have our interpretations and ideas about how YouTube and the world at large should work. I try not to spend a lot of time and energy trying to reconcile reality with how I think things should work.

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.
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    >What consequences? He has to move to a different streaming platform? Are you asking me what the consequences are for an entertainer to get removed from globally dominant distribution channels? >Can I sell porn in your driveway? This is getting silly. I'm not saying that every company has to publish everything. Google had a mutually profitable business relationship with Brand. They were more than happy to publish his content before these allegations were made.
    - gregjor 3y ago
      > Google had a mutually profitable business relationship with Brand. They were more than happy to publish his content before these allegations were made. Sure. I would be more than happy to hang out with Russell Brand too until I found out he might have raped three women. Then I'd think twice. Credible accusations of rape and sexual assault have a way of changing things. Russell Brand will find a platform. He's been kicked off media platforms before -- he seems to invite controversy as part of his schtick. The people who want to pay to listen to Russell Brand can continue to do so, plenty of channels available not as sensitive to public opinion as Google. Russell Brand is a smart guy. I assume he's heard of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, or Andrew Tate. He probably knows what happens in these situations. Getting knocked off of YouTube is the least of it. I'm willing to give Russell Brand the benefit of innocent until proven guilty, but YouTube has no obligation to risk their reputation or alienate a large number of their users, especially when everything we know about Russell Brand, from his own mouth, gives the impression that he probably did some things he was hoping wouldn't get made public. Celebrities always walk that line, their fame and income based on perception and reputation.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > 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. Why? > The rule of law requires that the law and the legal process is effective. Sure. > 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. If the scope of the law is expanded so that every change in relations between two persons not resulting from a mutual agreement to change requires going to court, the resulting social friction will make the law more ineffective where it is. If Brand wants to only enter into business agreeements that are framed so that the only behavioral reason for termination by the other side is a ruling by a court that he violated some law, he can insist on those terms, but that's a expensive proposition for the other party and society, and I see it as absolutely undesirable that such conditions be a legal default or, worse, effectively obligatory as a matter of law.
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    >If the scope of the law is expanded so that every change in relations between two persons not resulting from a mutual agreement to change requires going to court, the resulting social friction will make the law more ineffective where it is. Not every relation between two persons is between a globally dominant platform or infrastructure provider and a user of such a platform. The threshold for global gatekeepers must be higher. Public figures are of course subject to the court of public opinion. That's what they signed up for. But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The threshold for global gatekeepers must be higher. Maybe there are some aspects of Google’s operations that ought to be public utilities, but I have a lot of trouble seeing YouTube as one of them. It may be dominant in its particular structure (or some aspects of it, since YouTube does lots of different things in one platform, many of which have many strong competitors), but I don’t really see the case that it is essential. There’s lots of channels for video distribution with slightly different models. > But there has to be a limit to the _legal_ blast radius of accusations reflecting the uncertainty of any accusations being true. There is, in that there are kinds of sanctions that private entities can not impose.

gregjor 3y ago

What perhaps should happen depends on points of view and interpretations — subjective and changeable. Let’s talk about what did happen because arguing about should just wastes time unless you have an actionable plan and the means to make actually change something. Russell Brand got accused, credibly, of sexual assault by multiple women. That makes him a pariah. Google/YouTube don’t want the reputation damage so they close him down on their platform. Russell Brand chose to live his life in public, as a celebrity. This is what happens to celebrities when their sponsors and fans and enablers lose confidence in them. That’s the game he signed up for. Part of the celebrity bargain is that public perception means more than truth, and that works both ways. Brand can continue saying and posting whatever he wants. No one silenced him. He just can’t do it on YouTube anymore for money. I don’t get to keep a rental car because Hertz let me drive it for a weekend, because we had a contract. So did Russell Brand.

fauigerzigerk 3y ago
As I said, in my view globally dominant platforms and infrastructure providers (such as payment networks, etc) should not be allowed to terminate accounts based on public sentiment alone. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I want to bring up something else though. We don't actually know the reasons why Google has terminated his account (at least I don't). Perhaps the accusations and the reputational risk were not the only reasons. Google could legitimately want to block Brand from using Youtube as a stage to attack his accusers and run his own media campaign related to the case. That would be an entirely different matter, but in my view this should be handled by more selective restrictions.
- gregjor 3y ago
  Google/YouTube gave a reason, it was quoted in an article in The Guardian, I think. Violated terms of service, which apparently includes offline behavior, subject to YouTube's discretion. We may or may not disagree, but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again). I only commented on what did happen, and why I don't think Google/YouTube did anything legally wrong, or even ethically objectionable, given that their interests differ from Russell Brand's interests and no longer intersect since Brand became a social pariah. Google has to cater to a lot more customers than Russell Brand and his audience, and has to consider public opinion about alleged celebrity rapists. We all have our interpretations and ideas about how YouTube and the world at large should work. I try not to spend a lot of time and energy trying to reconcile reality with how I think things should work.