5 ms·

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 t

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 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.