3 ms·

I don’t know this person or this incident, but it seems nowadays if you want to end someone’s career and/or public image, you just need to invite some women the

I don’t know this person or this incident, but it seems nowadays if you want to end someone’s career and/or public image, you just need to invite some women they have been with and call it sexual assault. That goes without saying, is there a court order to stop monetizing his channel? He seems to be a public figure, so his main income is .. being public. What did he actually say to have him cancelled, or whom did he annoy?

Simulacra 3y ago
I don't know if there was ever a time in the world, where an accusation did not automatically mean guilt. However, it seems in modern times, because of the ease at which information can be disseminated, that you are guilty by accusation first. I don't really know anything about this guy, and YouTube is a private company like Twitter, they can do whatever they want now, but something just seems inherently unfair to punish based on accusation alone. Even if its multiple people. Prove it, then punish, is the only way to at least strive for a fair system.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  [flagged]
err4nt 3y ago
I don't know this incident, but the person is a famous actor who has kind of turned into a political commentator and spiritual coach (if that makes sense). The cynic in me says that (just like Joe Rogan) because he's a very popular, widely listened to, _independent_ media production, traditional media wants them gone and would do almost anything in their influence to discredit or remove these people. I'd encourage you to look at the viewership numbers for people like Joe Rogan, Russel Brand, and their peers in independent media, and then look at viewership numbers for CNN, etc and 'traditional'-style media companies and you can see why they may have targets on their backs. Because they're such big targets, it really makes me scrutinize and extra skeptical about things brought against them, not because I believe they haven't done crimes or are good people, but because there's so much incentive by so many others to simply knock them out of the game by any means.

Simulacra 3y ago

I don't know if there was ever a time in the world, where an accusation did not automatically mean guilt. However, it seems in modern times, because of the ease at which information can be disseminated, that you are guilty by accusation first. I don't really know anything about this guy, and YouTube is a private company like Twitter, they can do whatever they want now, but something just seems inherently unfair to punish based on accusation alone. Even if its multiple people. Prove it, then punish, is the only way to at least strive for a fair system.

goodbyesf 3y ago
[flagged]

err4nt 3y ago

I don't know this incident, but the person is a famous actor who has kind of turned into a political commentator and spiritual coach (if that makes sense). The cynic in me says that (just like Joe Rogan) because he's a very popular, widely listened to, _independent_ media production, traditional media wants them gone and would do almost anything in their influence to discredit or remove these people. I'd encourage you to look at the viewership numbers for people like Joe Rogan, Russel Brand, and their peers in independent media, and then look at viewership numbers for CNN, etc and 'traditional'-style media companies and you can see why they may have targets on their backs. Because they're such big targets, it really makes me scrutinize and extra skeptical about things brought against them, not because I believe they haven't done crimes or are good people, but because there's so much incentive by so many others to simply knock them out of the game by any means.