7 ms·

Anonymous allegations from more than a decade ago, procured by a fishing reporter, should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselv

Anonymous allegations from more than a decade ago, procured by a fishing reporter, should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves. This is absurd, regardless of whether the accusations are ultimately true or not. Beyond the absurdity, this is tyrannical. Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. There's simply very little of substance here.

sneak 3y ago
His means of supporting himself has not been cancelled, just his ability to get paid from YouTube. Don't conflate them.
- newsclues 3y ago
  There are people whose main income is YouTube and if YouTube can do this to famous people, surely they can do it to smaller creators who are paying their bills with YouTube money. Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    The precedent has already been established well before YouTube made this decision. In most places in the US you can lose your livelihood for any reason or no reason at all, safe for protected classes. I’d rather see this energy be used to end fire at will and protect employees in general from losing their livelihood on a whim than to use this to pander to celebrities with questionable pasts under the guise of “it could happen to you!”
    - sneak 3y ago
      Losing one job is not remotely close to losing your livelihood. They didn't saw off his hands, they demonetized him. He can go do stage shows or wash dishes or something if he wants to eat. He's famous and popular, he has a million ways of making an income. People are acting like YouTube robbed him of something he was owed. They did no such thing.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes. There are times it is very difficult to not be inflammatory on hacker news. Statements like this saying some new precedent is being set are are wild. Like have we even been on the same planet up till this point levels of cognitive dissonance. Last week if the local paper would have written an article about one of one your co-workers being accused of sexual assault on a minor, and that the company "released them from duties the next day", you would have told me "Oh, that's the way it's always been, you don't want a rapist working for the company". In any right to work state accusations of impropriety are enough to terminate work contracts, end of story. But suddenly someones golden cow got tarnished and now we want something done?
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Do any of us know what percentage of his income is from YouTube currently? I think the point stands in the abstract. It doesn't even matter for him specifically, because there are people whose income is primarily/entirely from YouTube. And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income.
  - pvg 3y ago
    You can get fired from a job that is 100% of your income. In many places/occupations, for no reason at all.
    - throw310822 3y ago
      [in the US]
  - sneak 3y ago
    He is not dependent on YouTube to support himself even if 100% of his income today comes from YouTube. He could get banned from all social media and he would still be able to support himself. Any party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent to the transaction at any time with or without cause. If you are a programmer and you work for me and I fire you, I have not destroyed your ability to support yourself. I've only removed your ability to do business with me. Freedom of association is powerful and important.
  - georgespencer 3y ago
    The Guardian estimates that he makes a little over a million a year from his YouTube videos. If your sole source of income comes from YouTube, a private enterprise you freely chose to contract and enter into a binding agreement with which affords them the right to do this, then this is a risk you run. Brand, like everyone, is free to monetise his content on platforms with different perspectives on acceptable creator conduct, or to monetise his content directly. The specific transaction which he is entering into with YouTube is that he will benefit from their large audience viewing his videos, and if people watch those videos, YouTube and he will benefit from advertising running against the videos. Brand does not have any de facto right to broadcast to YouTube's audience, which I would imagine they consider to be proprietary and valuable -- exactly the sort of thing you wouldn't want, for example, associating your brand with individuals credibly accused of rape. > And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income. It's a serious course of action but that does not mean it's unfair on Brand. He was already warned when he -- a standup comedian with identical bona fides to a goldfish -- espoused discredited unscientific nonsense during COVID. It was fair then, and it's fair now.
Supply5411 3y ago
Maybe the real lesson here is nobody who wants to speak their mind should be supporting themselves on a platform of nervous advertisers.
- stainablesteel 3y ago
  why are they never nervous when they outright betray the demographics they should be pandering to? latest examples would be the bud light and target fiascos
  - Supply5411 3y ago
    You answered your own question: the advertising that they produce is what they're comfortable with.
    - stainablesteel 3y ago
      sounds like they should fire that marketing team, that's a money making role not a comfort zone
  - comrh 3y ago
    "betray" in this context meaning advertise to LGBT people?
    - realjhol 3y ago
      [dead]
poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
[flagged]
- georgespencer 3y ago
  Andrew Tate has been indicted on charges of rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. He is by his own admission a violent misogynist and, in his own words, "probably 40% of the reason" he moved to Romania was the perceived ease of evading rape charges there: "I'm not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free." That's the same Romania which is known as one of the sex trafficking capitals of the world. Given that there are many many more individuals with similar credentials (i.e. - none) doing the "just asking questions" schtick about vaccines, Ukraine, big pharma, etc. who have not been accused of rape or criminally indicted, why do you think that two people -- who constantly and openly discuss their predatory behaviour -- and have multiple accusers with independent witnesses, and documentary evidence, are being "silenced" for not conforming to the status quo? It's self-evidently more likely that these are two predators who happen to truck in conspiracy theories, and they've been caught. Plenty of morons abound on Rumble and elsewhere, and frankly Tate and Brand's audience is nowhere near large enough (or, honestly, intelligent enough) that any government or organisation would orchestrate a fabricated "take down" to silence them. I can tell that you're a conspiracy theorist, so let me state it plainly: very few people care about what you think as much as you do, and nobody holds your idols in the sort of esteem which would necessitate them being deliberately silenced for their opinions about "war/ukraine" or "pfizer/moderna".
  - andrei_says_ 3y ago
    This is one of the best viewpoints criticizing the “I’m being silenced” victim position of conspiracy theorists. Also, consider that the ones that are silenced we are not hearing about and from.
    - georgespencer 3y ago
      > Also, consider that the ones that are silenced we are not hearing about and from. I agree, and find this heartbreaking. I remember reading the accusations against Bill Clinton which, like those against Brand, were independent of one another, made by credible victims who did not know each other, supported by witnesses, and -- like Brand -- included similar patterns of behaviour from attack to attack (Clinton, if I recall, had a predilection for biting the faces and lips of the women he assaulted). And then those women watch as Hillary Clinton uses her platform to discredit them in the cruellest possible terms.[^1] I wish those weeping and tearing their clothes for Brand as he is "silenced" would consider what it must be like to truly be silenced. Not just "my $1m a year YouTube income stream is gone"-silenced, but silenced by the fear of people like OP reflexively treating them with disdain and pretending they're part of some establishment plot. It's on the same continuum as going into a pizza restaurant with a gun because it's a Democrat pedophile hub. Lunatics. [^1] Although on Clinton it's worth noting that when his VP Al Gore was asked at a press conference whether he (Gore) thought the accusations were credible, he gave a wishy-washy answer. The journalist replied "You could just have said you don't believe them," to which Gore – astonishingly – replied: "I didn't say that," before going on to enumerate how any crimes Clinton may have committed were balanced out by his record of public service?!
georgespencer 3y ago
Your comment seems either mistaken or disingenuous to me: > Anonymous allegations The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same thing as an anonymous allegation. The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand. > from more than a decade ago Utterly irrelevant. > procured by a fishing reporter It's unclear what you mean by this. I can't find anything in any of the stories which suggests that the journalists simply began investigating him hoping to find a story or promulgate the misapprehension that he is a rapist. In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation. > should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves Suspension without pay is extremely common whilst investigations of serious misconduct in or outside of the workplace are carried out, but even if that weren't the case: YouTube is not Brand's employer, he chooses to publish on their platform [presumably] knowing the terms of service, and is not beholden to YouTube as his only source of income. After he was "censored" by YouTube during COVID for espousing inane conspiratorial drivel, he began posting on a service called "Rumble", not to mention the royalties and residuals he still receives from his previous work and of course not forgetting his option to use one of his myriad other platforms (or indeed YouTube's, if it's within the ToS) to encourage his brainless fans to remunerate him directly or via other means. > This is absurd Even your straw man retelling of this situation is fairly benign-seeming. > this is tyrannical Lol. > Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. You could be forgiven for not knowing this if you get all of your news from Elon and Russell Brand, but it is absolutely the de facto standard in journalism to protect the identity of individuals with a mixture of actors and altered voices. If you watch the Channel 4 documentary you will note that at times they use the real people, with altered voices, and at times they use actors. None of this undermines the credibility of the reporting or the accusations, and -- again -- the identities of the individuals in the reporting are known to both the journalists and Brand, and the police know the identity of the _further_ individual who came forward in light of the allegations to make _another_ accusation.
- TryIntegrity972 3y ago
  [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sneak 3y ago

His means of supporting himself has not been cancelled, just his ability to get paid from YouTube. Don't conflate them.

newsclues 3y ago
There are people whose main income is YouTube and if YouTube can do this to famous people, surely they can do it to smaller creators who are paying their bills with YouTube money. Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  The precedent has already been established well before YouTube made this decision. In most places in the US you can lose your livelihood for any reason or no reason at all, safe for protected classes. I’d rather see this energy be used to end fire at will and protect employees in general from losing their livelihood on a whim than to use this to pander to celebrities with questionable pasts under the guise of “it could happen to you!”
  - sneak 3y ago
    Losing one job is not remotely close to losing your livelihood. They didn't saw off his hands, they demonetized him. He can go do stage shows or wash dishes or something if he wants to eat. He's famous and popular, he has a million ways of making an income. People are acting like YouTube robbed him of something he was owed. They did no such thing.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes. There are times it is very difficult to not be inflammatory on hacker news. Statements like this saying some new precedent is being set are are wild. Like have we even been on the same planet up till this point levels of cognitive dissonance. Last week if the local paper would have written an article about one of one your co-workers being accused of sexual assault on a minor, and that the company "released them from duties the next day", you would have told me "Oh, that's the way it's always been, you don't want a rapist working for the company". In any right to work state accusations of impropriety are enough to terminate work contracts, end of story. But suddenly someones golden cow got tarnished and now we want something done?
crazygringo 3y ago
Do any of us know what percentage of his income is from YouTube currently? I think the point stands in the abstract. It doesn't even matter for him specifically, because there are people whose income is primarily/entirely from YouTube. And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income.
- pvg 3y ago
  You can get fired from a job that is 100% of your income. In many places/occupations, for no reason at all.
  - throw310822 3y ago
    [in the US]
- sneak 3y ago
  He is not dependent on YouTube to support himself even if 100% of his income today comes from YouTube. He could get banned from all social media and he would still be able to support himself. Any party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent to the transaction at any time with or without cause. If you are a programmer and you work for me and I fire you, I have not destroyed your ability to support yourself. I've only removed your ability to do business with me. Freedom of association is powerful and important.
- georgespencer 3y ago
  The Guardian estimates that he makes a little over a million a year from his YouTube videos. If your sole source of income comes from YouTube, a private enterprise you freely chose to contract and enter into a binding agreement with which affords them the right to do this, then this is a risk you run. Brand, like everyone, is free to monetise his content on platforms with different perspectives on acceptable creator conduct, or to monetise his content directly. The specific transaction which he is entering into with YouTube is that he will benefit from their large audience viewing his videos, and if people watch those videos, YouTube and he will benefit from advertising running against the videos. Brand does not have any de facto right to broadcast to YouTube's audience, which I would imagine they consider to be proprietary and valuable -- exactly the sort of thing you wouldn't want, for example, associating your brand with individuals credibly accused of rape. > And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income. It's a serious course of action but that does not mean it's unfair on Brand. He was already warned when he -- a standup comedian with identical bona fides to a goldfish -- espoused discredited unscientific nonsense during COVID. It was fair then, and it's fair now.

Supply5411 3y ago

Maybe the real lesson here is nobody who wants to speak their mind should be supporting themselves on a platform of nervous advertisers.

stainablesteel 3y ago
why are they never nervous when they outright betray the demographics they should be pandering to? latest examples would be the bud light and target fiascos
- Supply5411 3y ago
  You answered your own question: the advertising that they produce is what they're comfortable with.
  - stainablesteel 3y ago
    sounds like they should fire that marketing team, that's a money making role not a comfort zone
- comrh 3y ago
  "betray" in this context meaning advertise to LGBT people?
  - realjhol 3y ago
    [dead]

poorbutdebtfree 3y ago

[flagged]

georgespencer 3y ago
Andrew Tate has been indicted on charges of rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. He is by his own admission a violent misogynist and, in his own words, "probably 40% of the reason" he moved to Romania was the perceived ease of evading rape charges there: "I'm not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free." That's the same Romania which is known as one of the sex trafficking capitals of the world. Given that there are many many more individuals with similar credentials (i.e. - none) doing the "just asking questions" schtick about vaccines, Ukraine, big pharma, etc. who have not been accused of rape or criminally indicted, why do you think that two people -- who constantly and openly discuss their predatory behaviour -- and have multiple accusers with independent witnesses, and documentary evidence, are being "silenced" for not conforming to the status quo? It's self-evidently more likely that these are two predators who happen to truck in conspiracy theories, and they've been caught. Plenty of morons abound on Rumble and elsewhere, and frankly Tate and Brand's audience is nowhere near large enough (or, honestly, intelligent enough) that any government or organisation would orchestrate a fabricated "take down" to silence them. I can tell that you're a conspiracy theorist, so let me state it plainly: very few people care about what you think as much as you do, and nobody holds your idols in the sort of esteem which would necessitate them being deliberately silenced for their opinions about "war/ukraine" or "pfizer/moderna".
- andrei_says_ 3y ago
  This is one of the best viewpoints criticizing the “I’m being silenced” victim position of conspiracy theorists. Also, consider that the ones that are silenced we are not hearing about and from.
  - georgespencer 3y ago
    > Also, consider that the ones that are silenced we are not hearing about and from. I agree, and find this heartbreaking. I remember reading the accusations against Bill Clinton which, like those against Brand, were independent of one another, made by credible victims who did not know each other, supported by witnesses, and -- like Brand -- included similar patterns of behaviour from attack to attack (Clinton, if I recall, had a predilection for biting the faces and lips of the women he assaulted). And then those women watch as Hillary Clinton uses her platform to discredit them in the cruellest possible terms.[^1] I wish those weeping and tearing their clothes for Brand as he is "silenced" would consider what it must be like to truly be silenced. Not just "my $1m a year YouTube income stream is gone"-silenced, but silenced by the fear of people like OP reflexively treating them with disdain and pretending they're part of some establishment plot. It's on the same continuum as going into a pizza restaurant with a gun because it's a Democrat pedophile hub. Lunatics. [^1] Although on Clinton it's worth noting that when his VP Al Gore was asked at a press conference whether he (Gore) thought the accusations were credible, he gave a wishy-washy answer. The journalist replied "You could just have said you don't believe them," to which Gore – astonishingly – replied: "I didn't say that," before going on to enumerate how any crimes Clinton may have committed were balanced out by his record of public service?!

georgespencer 3y ago

Your comment seems either mistaken or disingenuous to me: > Anonymous allegations The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same thing as an anonymous allegation. The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand. > from more than a decade ago Utterly irrelevant. > procured by a fishing reporter It's unclear what you mean by this. I can't find anything in any of the stories which suggests that the journalists simply began investigating him hoping to find a story or promulgate the misapprehension that he is a rapist. In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation. > should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves Suspension without pay is extremely common whilst investigations of serious misconduct in or outside of the workplace are carried out, but even if that weren't the case: YouTube is not Brand's employer, he chooses to publish on their platform [presumably] knowing the terms of service, and is not beholden to YouTube as his only source of income. After he was "censored" by YouTube during COVID for espousing inane conspiratorial drivel, he began posting on a service called "Rumble", not to mention the royalties and residuals he still receives from his previous work and of course not forgetting his option to use one of his myriad other platforms (or indeed YouTube's, if it's within the ToS) to encourage his brainless fans to remunerate him directly or via other means. > This is absurd Even your straw man retelling of this situation is fairly benign-seeming. > this is tyrannical Lol. > Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. You could be forgiven for not knowing this if you get all of your news from Elon and Russell Brand, but it is absolutely the de facto standard in journalism to protect the identity of individuals with a mixture of actors and altered voices. If you watch the Channel 4 documentary you will note that at times they use the real people, with altered voices, and at times they use actors. None of this undermines the credibility of the reporting or the accusations, and -- again -- the identities of the individuals in the reporting are known to both the journalists and Brand, and the police know the identity of the _further_ individual who came forward in light of the allegations to make _another_ accusation.

TryIntegrity972 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]