5 ms·

I'll make one point, which is that if you are a violent asshole who punches anyone in the face that looks at you wrong, you still can't actually harm anyone thr

I'll make one point, which is that if you are a violent asshole who punches anyone in the face that looks at you wrong, you still can't actually harm anyone through Youtube except by trying to convince someone to come get their ass kicked by you. Russel Brand is accused of grooming a 16 year old girl while he was 31, if true, that means there is the very real possibility that Brand could be using the YT platform as a means for finding other victims.

bcrosby95 3y ago
Or reddit. Or email. Maybe we should cut his power just to be sure he isn't maybe grooming some 16 year olds.
- gooseus 3y ago
  So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again?
  - housemusicfan 3y ago
    That's generally the premise behind "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", as opposed to "guilty whenever the histrionic internet mob and its tech enablers deem it so".
    - gooseus 3y ago
      Except, and I know you must have read this somewhere else by now, that Youtube is not the State. Your employer (should you have one) doesn't need to wait until a court of law proves you guilty of a stealing paperclips before they fire you, and a restaurant doesn't have to wait until a court proves that you are being a public disturbance before they kick you out. A private corporation has the right to do whatever they want with their product/service unless they are compelled otherwise by the State. Russell Brand is free to sue Youtube in court if he believes he has been inappropriately damaged, as you do. Unfortunately for him and all his fans, this isn't hearsay from randos coming out of Reddit/Tumblr, it's a direct accusation with evidence and witnesses in an investigation being conducted by his former employers and the UK police.
      - housemusicfan 3y ago
        Who made YouTube judge and jury? Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here. Nor do your examples hold water. This isn't a situation of "you were caught stealing paperclips on video". Rather, it's more a case of Sally the tart from accounting has accused you of fingering her in a pub toilet ten years ago when you were both drunk and now ten years later she decides she's upset so let's engage the digital lynch mob and proceed with ruining your life because we all know women never lie.
        voganmother42 3y ago
        If you think the examples you are replying to are bad...your example...wow And I am sure information wont matter to you...but just in case: The majority of sexual assaults are not reported. Somewhere between 2-10% of reports are false. You are contributing to making it worse for victims. You should be ashamed of yourself.
        housemusicfan 3y ago
        10%?! 10% is huge. So we should assume presumption of guilt with a 10% error rate? If 10% of all planes crashed, you would never set foot on one. For comparison, the chance of dying in a plane crash is 0%... to the 7th or 8th decimal place. The people that should be ashamed are those making false accusations, and those dumb enough to believe them.
        voganmother42 3y ago
        You can presume or do anything you want with statistics, but your example was gross and if you think 10% chance of it being correct means you should spout it…yikes But saying things like that, well..its bad for victims of false accusation as well, notice how I didn’t specify? Good news is, people who put the type of comments out there like yours - they are their own reward - enjoy the world you are making for yourself, il steer well clear
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - lmm 3y ago
    > So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Yes, in the same way as any other public utility. (They may not have intended to become one but at this point they are) > Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again? The state, that's what it's for.
    - gooseus 3y ago
      Youtube is a subsidiary of a publicly-traded company, it is non-essential, largely unregulated, and for-profit. This is very different from what is considered a "public utility". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility If you want to argue that Youtube *should* be considered a public utility company and subject to more stringent government controls then that's a debate that can be had, but as it stands they are not legally obligated to continue doing business with someone they believe to be harming their other customers and partners.
- browserman 3y ago
  With any luck we'll go even further than that and confine him to a small metal box for a period of several years.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    We call that a conviction and a system of law for this. We should use it. I don’t think private corporations that are monopolies should decide who can speak and who cannot. Obviously they can protect their business, but then they shouldn’t be allowed to be universally dominant in a technology category like video.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      The fact that Russel Brand hasn't been gifted a cable channel is a real shame isn't it. Or do you just mean YouTube when you say video?
      - happytiger 3y ago
        Oh I’m sorry I wasn’t even thinking about legacy media on that one. I meant video as in YouTube is UGC video as a content type as they as so market dominant. The evidence against him is compelling. I just worry that this kind of deplatforming is becoming so normalized I can’t imagine it not becoming a ready political weapon and having a great many unintended concequences. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66838794 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66838794

bcrosby95 3y ago

Or reddit. Or email. Maybe we should cut his power just to be sure he isn't maybe grooming some 16 year olds.

gooseus 3y ago
So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again?
- housemusicfan 3y ago
  That's generally the premise behind "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", as opposed to "guilty whenever the histrionic internet mob and its tech enablers deem it so".
  - gooseus 3y ago
    Except, and I know you must have read this somewhere else by now, that Youtube is not the State. Your employer (should you have one) doesn't need to wait until a court of law proves you guilty of a stealing paperclips before they fire you, and a restaurant doesn't have to wait until a court proves that you are being a public disturbance before they kick you out. A private corporation has the right to do whatever they want with their product/service unless they are compelled otherwise by the State. Russell Brand is free to sue Youtube in court if he believes he has been inappropriately damaged, as you do. Unfortunately for him and all his fans, this isn't hearsay from randos coming out of Reddit/Tumblr, it's a direct accusation with evidence and witnesses in an investigation being conducted by his former employers and the UK police.
    - housemusicfan 3y ago
      Who made YouTube judge and jury? Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here. Nor do your examples hold water. This isn't a situation of "you were caught stealing paperclips on video". Rather, it's more a case of Sally the tart from accounting has accused you of fingering her in a pub toilet ten years ago when you were both drunk and now ten years later she decides she's upset so let's engage the digital lynch mob and proceed with ruining your life because we all know women never lie.
      - voganmother42 3y ago
        If you think the examples you are replying to are bad...your example...wow And I am sure information wont matter to you...but just in case: The majority of sexual assaults are not reported. Somewhere between 2-10% of reports are false. You are contributing to making it worse for victims. You should be ashamed of yourself.
        housemusicfan 3y ago
        10%?! 10% is huge. So we should assume presumption of guilt with a 10% error rate? If 10% of all planes crashed, you would never set foot on one. For comparison, the chance of dying in a plane crash is 0%... to the 7th or 8th decimal place. The people that should be ashamed are those making false accusations, and those dumb enough to believe them.
        voganmother42 3y ago
        You can presume or do anything you want with statistics, but your example was gross and if you think 10% chance of it being correct means you should spout it…yikes But saying things like that, well..its bad for victims of false accusation as well, notice how I didn’t specify? Good news is, people who put the type of comments out there like yours - they are their own reward - enjoy the world you are making for yourself, il steer well clear
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- lmm 3y ago
  > So I guess Youtube should instead by compelled to continue providing their monetization and hosting services to anyone who wants it until a court of law can prove they are guilty of an actual crime? Yes, in the same way as any other public utility. (They may not have intended to become one but at this point they are) > Who is going to compel Youtube to continue providing those services again? The state, that's what it's for.
  - gooseus 3y ago
    Youtube is a subsidiary of a publicly-traded company, it is non-essential, largely unregulated, and for-profit. This is very different from what is considered a "public utility". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility If you want to argue that Youtube *should* be considered a public utility company and subject to more stringent government controls then that's a debate that can be had, but as it stands they are not legally obligated to continue doing business with someone they believe to be harming their other customers and partners.
browserman 3y ago
With any luck we'll go even further than that and confine him to a small metal box for a period of several years.
- happytiger 3y ago
  We call that a conviction and a system of law for this. We should use it. I don’t think private corporations that are monopolies should decide who can speak and who cannot. Obviously they can protect their business, but then they shouldn’t be allowed to be universally dominant in a technology category like video.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    The fact that Russel Brand hasn't been gifted a cable channel is a real shame isn't it. Or do you just mean YouTube when you say video?
    - happytiger 3y ago
      Oh I’m sorry I wasn’t even thinking about legacy media on that one. I meant video as in YouTube is UGC video as a content type as they as so market dominant. The evidence against him is compelling. I just worry that this kind of deplatforming is becoming so normalized I can’t imagine it not becoming a ready political weapon and having a great many unintended concequences. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66838794 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66838794