4 ms·

Glennwald reporting a similar letter was sent to Rumble: https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1704576316983349484 https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/170457631698334948

Glennwald reporting a similar letter was sent to Rumble: https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1704576316983349484 https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1704576316983349484 Many comments on the YouTube story suggested it was just YouTube deciding they didn’t want to be associated with Brand anymore, and he could always find another platform. I think this substantially changes this argument.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Perhaps, but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? When did the media - dare I say, journalists - become the judge, jury and executioner? The Sunday Times and Channel 4 did how much follow up in the Jeffrey Epstein case? But instead we get allegations about a third rate actor?
- brokenmachine 3y ago
  The third rate actor said things about government that they didn't like.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Oh. I know that. But why him. Why now. Or is it his household name-ness and the yet another distraction it creates?
    - brokenmachine 3y ago
      I agree, it's very odd. I don't think they ever showed such special interest in the finances of other alleged criminals. Very worrying to have extra-judicial government involvement.
    - stareatgoats 3y ago
      It's the fact that he gives room to the likes of Tucker Carlson, Kennedy, Rogan, Russian perspectives and more anti-establishment narratives. Personally, I don't think one needs to see a sinister conspiracy behind this, directed by some shady agency or what not - even if the kind of politics that Brand criticizes (uh - I mean questions) is probably wholly supported within milieu of the 5, 9 , 13 ... (I lose track of how many) eyes. Essentially I think it is like this: for many (most?) people within mainstream politics Brand just fits right in with their preconceptions: there must be something morally, intrinsically wrong and evil about people who don't share their view of the world, especially in todays polarized climate. And now they have proof! (they think)

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Perhaps, but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? When did the media - dare I say, journalists - become the judge, jury and executioner? The Sunday Times and Channel 4 did how much follow up in the Jeffrey Epstein case? But instead we get allegations about a third rate actor?

brokenmachine 3y ago
The third rate actor said things about government that they didn't like.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Oh. I know that. But why him. Why now. Or is it his household name-ness and the yet another distraction it creates?
  - brokenmachine 3y ago
    I agree, it's very odd. I don't think they ever showed such special interest in the finances of other alleged criminals. Very worrying to have extra-judicial government involvement.
  - stareatgoats 3y ago
    It's the fact that he gives room to the likes of Tucker Carlson, Kennedy, Rogan, Russian perspectives and more anti-establishment narratives. Personally, I don't think one needs to see a sinister conspiracy behind this, directed by some shady agency or what not - even if the kind of politics that Brand criticizes (uh - I mean questions) is probably wholly supported within milieu of the 5, 9 , 13 ... (I lose track of how many) eyes. Essentially I think it is like this: for many (most?) people within mainstream politics Brand just fits right in with their preconceptions: there must be something morally, intrinsically wrong and evil about people who don't share their view of the world, especially in todays polarized climate. And now they have proof! (they think)