5 ms·

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 f

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.
- gregjor 3y ago
  I have no right to enter a Walmart store, or any store. Private businesses can refuse service to anyone. They can make rules up, like I must wear shirt and shoes. Some restaurants refuse service if I don’t wear a jacket and tie. Aside from discriminating against protected minorities and ADA violations, businesses have considerable leeway when it comes to whom they choose to serve, or not. Look at how Elon Musk arbitrarily treats people he doesn’t like, or who criticize him, on Twitter. He’s probably not breaking any laws. He owns the platform, he gets to make the rules. No one has to use it, and no one has a right to use it. Reality may not match how you or I would like the world to work, or what we think of as fair.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Individually, sure, but try and see what happens if your restaurant puts up a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed".
    - gregjor 3y ago
      Protected minority, covered by civil rights law. You must know the difference. People accused of sexual assault and rape do not comprise a protected minority. Internet celebrities happy to make money from advertising and pushing boundaries until they get caught or go too far do not comprise a protected minority. YouTube did not ban all Brits, or all comedians, or all white men with long hair. They demonetized one person. There's no sign out front that says "No White British Comedians With Long Hair." Russell Brand is not a victim. He doesn't have any right to get money from advertisers on a platform he chooses to publish on. That is hardly comparable to a restaurant excluding people based on their skin color.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        Point is, Walmart, a private company, does have restrictions on what it can and can't do, like who they allow in their stores, so it's not as black and white as private business = absolute rule over interior of the building.
        gregjor 3y ago
        I didn't say Walmart can do whatever they want to their customers, for any reason they dream up. I said that I have no right to enter a Walmart store. No one does. As a company incorporated in the United States, Walmart has to abide by lots of laws, including laws that prohibit racial discrimination. That does not equate to anyone having a right to enter their stores. It means Walmart can't exclude people solely on the basis of race. They can refuse to let me in for any number of reasons, or no reason, but if they tell me it's because of my skin color or disability they have broken the law. Every night when Walmart closes they refuse entry to everyone, for an obvious reason, imposed fairly on everyone, and none of us has a right to enter the store. Suppose I roll up in a wheelchair as they're locking the doors at night, and they won't let me in because the store is closed. They made up that closing time, no law tells them when to close. If I sue Walmart claiming they denied me entry because I have a disability, they will rightfully say I was denied entry because the store was closed to everyone. I think you can see how that plays out. That's the difference between not having any right to enter the store and having the right not to suffer discrimination as a protected minority. And when the dust settles and I lose in court, Walmart can bar me from their stores if they want to because I sued them. But not because I have a disability.
hnburnsy 3y ago
YouTube did not delete R Kellys channels until one month after his conviction and his music continues to be available on YouTube Music.
- gregjor 3y ago
  YouTube has not deleted Russell Brand's channel. Go look, it's all still there. They did stop running advertisements on his videos, called demonetization. YouTube has contractual obligations to their advertisers, and those reputations, and their own, to consider, along with the opinions of millions of other users.
  - hnburnsy 3y ago
    Yes, just comparing how YT acted. AFAICT, R Kelly was not demonetized prior to the conviction.
    - gregjor 3y ago
      YouTube’s rules change over time. They apparently enforce the rules inconsistently and with poor transparency and support. https://kkoz.medium.com/youtube-frustration-reaching-a-boiling-point-again-91e012311c59 https://kkoz.medium.com/youtube-frustration-reaching-a-boili... That’s frustrating but not illegal or evidence of a conspiracy. Relying on YouTube or any social media platform for an income has some risks, just like most jobs that can lay you off or fire you for no reason. Russell Brand was supposedly making $1M/mo on YouTube until a few days ago. That’s pretty good risk/reward to me, especially considering he has other platforms to move to.
      - hnburnsy 3y ago
        thx good info!

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.

gregjor 3y ago
I have no right to enter a Walmart store, or any store. Private businesses can refuse service to anyone. They can make rules up, like I must wear shirt and shoes. Some restaurants refuse service if I don’t wear a jacket and tie. Aside from discriminating against protected minorities and ADA violations, businesses have considerable leeway when it comes to whom they choose to serve, or not. Look at how Elon Musk arbitrarily treats people he doesn’t like, or who criticize him, on Twitter. He’s probably not breaking any laws. He owns the platform, he gets to make the rules. No one has to use it, and no one has a right to use it. Reality may not match how you or I would like the world to work, or what we think of as fair.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Individually, sure, but try and see what happens if your restaurant puts up a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed".
  - gregjor 3y ago
    Protected minority, covered by civil rights law. You must know the difference. People accused of sexual assault and rape do not comprise a protected minority. Internet celebrities happy to make money from advertising and pushing boundaries until they get caught or go too far do not comprise a protected minority. YouTube did not ban all Brits, or all comedians, or all white men with long hair. They demonetized one person. There's no sign out front that says "No White British Comedians With Long Hair." Russell Brand is not a victim. He doesn't have any right to get money from advertisers on a platform he chooses to publish on. That is hardly comparable to a restaurant excluding people based on their skin color.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Point is, Walmart, a private company, does have restrictions on what it can and can't do, like who they allow in their stores, so it's not as black and white as private business = absolute rule over interior of the building.
      - gregjor 3y ago
        I didn't say Walmart can do whatever they want to their customers, for any reason they dream up. I said that I have no right to enter a Walmart store. No one does. As a company incorporated in the United States, Walmart has to abide by lots of laws, including laws that prohibit racial discrimination. That does not equate to anyone having a right to enter their stores. It means Walmart can't exclude people solely on the basis of race. They can refuse to let me in for any number of reasons, or no reason, but if they tell me it's because of my skin color or disability they have broken the law. Every night when Walmart closes they refuse entry to everyone, for an obvious reason, imposed fairly on everyone, and none of us has a right to enter the store. Suppose I roll up in a wheelchair as they're locking the doors at night, and they won't let me in because the store is closed. They made up that closing time, no law tells them when to close. If I sue Walmart claiming they denied me entry because I have a disability, they will rightfully say I was denied entry because the store was closed to everyone. I think you can see how that plays out. That's the difference between not having any right to enter the store and having the right not to suffer discrimination as a protected minority. And when the dust settles and I lose in court, Walmart can bar me from their stores if they want to because I sued them. But not because I have a disability.

hnburnsy 3y ago

YouTube did not delete R Kellys channels until one month after his conviction and his music continues to be available on YouTube Music.

gregjor 3y ago
YouTube has not deleted Russell Brand's channel. Go look, it's all still there. They did stop running advertisements on his videos, called demonetization. YouTube has contractual obligations to their advertisers, and those reputations, and their own, to consider, along with the opinions of millions of other users.
- hnburnsy 3y ago
  Yes, just comparing how YT acted. AFAICT, R Kelly was not demonetized prior to the conviction.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    YouTube’s rules change over time. They apparently enforce the rules inconsistently and with poor transparency and support. https://kkoz.medium.com/youtube-frustration-reaching-a-boiling-point-again-91e012311c59 https://kkoz.medium.com/youtube-frustration-reaching-a-boili... That’s frustrating but not illegal or evidence of a conspiracy. Relying on YouTube or any social media platform for an income has some risks, just like most jobs that can lay you off or fire you for no reason. Russell Brand was supposedly making $1M/mo on YouTube until a few days ago. That’s pretty good risk/reward to me, especially considering he has other platforms to move to.
    - hnburnsy 3y ago
      thx good info!