5 ms·

Rumble rejects MP's 'disturbing' letter over income

48 points by cs02rm0 3y ago

cs02rm0 3y ago
Dame Caroline Dinenage, UK Minister of State for Digital and Culture has petitioned social media companies including Rumble, TikTok, Facebook, X, the BBC and Channel 4 to suspend Russell Brand from the platforms after a Channel 4 programme made accusations of sexual assault against him. He denies these accusations and they have not been tested in a court of law. Rumble have declined.
- tibbydudeza 3y ago
  And Harvey Weinstein claimed the same thing - innocent !!!! - come on - with so many accusers unrelated to each other - it is kind of obvious to any person that he crossed the line with woman he slept with. Whether it broke the law is a question that needs to be dealt with by a court.
  - tibbydudeza 3y ago
    A lot of people are going to end facepalming themselves when the truth comes out.
    - etherael 3y ago
      "DAMN! I didn't trip over myself fast enough to make sure this personality was immediately demonetised on every internet social media platform after they were accused of a crime on a TV channel!" said nobody, ever.
      - tibbydudeza 3y ago
        The plausibility factor is rather high (Occam's Razor) - he has millions in the bank and his little believing cult - he will survive this if he is innocent. Odd he did not sue for libel yet.
        etherael 3y ago
        It's not clear whether you're missing the point on purpose or not, so I'll just come right out and say it; his guilt for any crimes of which he is accused is entirely unrelated to how sensible the proposition is that entities ought to be able to completely shut down people on every social media platform by accusing them of something and then immediately demanding that they be demonetized by these platforms.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    > Whether it broke the law is a question that needs to be dealt with by a court. Absolutely. > it is kind of obvious to any person that he crossed the line What line are you talking about, if not the law?
  - polski-g 3y ago
    Even if Brand is convicted of something and sent to prison, a parliament member should never write such a request. I thought recidivism was a concern?
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    These accusations are 20 years old, why wasn't any of this brought up when Brand was a liberal darling? Why is it only as he gains popularity and opposes the war in the Ukraine do media organizations, governments and tech companies decide in lockstep to act this way?
    - tibbydudeza 3y ago
      Roger Ailles etc ... It was different times back then - woman complaining about sexual harassment or unwanted advances in the workplace was discounted and not taken seriously. Remember how Trump was defended - oh take it easy woke woman - it was just locker room talk.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      It's taken a long time to assemble a libel-proof case, and several people have reportedly already been sent libel threats. Brand has already won a libel case back in 2014 about allegations that he cheated on his girlfriend. Perhaps that needs revisiting.
- Joeboy 3y ago
  The letter Rumble posted isn't asking them to suspend him from their platform, as far as I can see.
  - secondcoming 3y ago
    Not directly
- pjc50 3y ago
  The sexual assault allegations have not been put to law because every victim realizes that (a) it's a deeply miserable experience having to describe what happened to you over and over again, (b) a load of people will call you a slut on social media, (c) it may impair your chances of ever getting work again, and (d) if people don't believe you you may get countersued. Courts and police are terrible at dealing with this stuff. That's the lesson of Weinstein, Savile, Rotherham, etc. See e.g. David Carrick, Met police officer, who after 17 years was finally prosecuted and admitted guilty to 85 offences, after the Met had a brief outbreak of taking this stuff seriously after Wayne Couzens, another police officer was jailed for the murder of Sarah Everard.
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    Are you then suggesting that allegations suffice? That there is no need for "innocent until proven guilty" in the face of such allegations?
    - jwestbury 3y ago
      I think the point is that this is a particularly fraught area of discussion, and that the "best" approach may not be the one which is legally enshrined, because the legally enshrined approach is severely flawed in its ability to actually address sexual assault. Whether that means we should treat allegations as proof is a related but -- I think -- separate question.
      - jjgreen 3y ago
        Some kind of extralegal response then?
    - pjc50 3y ago
      That standard is required for criminal sanctions, but it is not required for private parties to change who they freely associate with, who are free to take a more balance-of-probabilities approach. I'm free to say that he's probably a rapist, because I'm not a court of law and I have free speech. (The irony is that Brand spends all the time on his youtube channel making unsubstantiated and probably false allegations about all sorts of public figures such as Bill Gates)
nathanaldensr 3y ago
Apparently, the urge to censor and deplatform by gross authoritarian government employees is so strong that innuendo, accusations, and guilt-by-association are now enough to deny people their voices. (I'm writing in a general sense, not just about Brand)
jjgreen 3y ago
Dinenage is, of course, one of the main proponents to the "online safety bill" and an opponent of gay marriage. I heard from a bloke down the pub that she kills squirrels with her bare hands, lovely squirrels, so I'm writing to parliament to demand that they stop her wages for such disgusting behaviour.
- Joeboy 3y ago
  I don't think the bloke down the pub / squirrel thing will fly, but it does seem to be a fairly regular event that MPs are forced to stand down after allegations of sexual misconduct.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
atlanta90210 3y ago
Mr Brand is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or he admits his crimes. Google taking down his YouTube income before a guilty verdict is horrible. For some reason Google/Youtube have not demonetized R. Kelly, and he was found guilty. Or Cardi B. She admitted to drugging men and stealing from them.
- braza 3y ago
  Specific for the residents of USA: What's the current status of the Section 230 debate? Due to that, the platforms cannot have editorial decisions, right?
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Youtube serving videos about a UK national to residents of the UK is probably covered by UK law, regardless of your section 230. On the other hand, no UK law has been invoked here, it's just a letter.
  - krapp 3y ago
    > Due to that, the platforms cannot have editorial decisions, right? Incorrect[0]. Section 230 allows platforms to exercise editorial discretion, even political bias, when moderating content. [0]https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
- pjc50 3y ago
  It is unusual that they've done it to him and not a whole bunch of other far worse behaving people.
- Joeboy 3y ago
  Cursory googling tells me Youtube removed two of R. Kelly's channels.
- renegat0x0 3y ago
  I heard quite often that "a company can do whatever it want with their content". I was working through this topic a very long time. Can YouTube host whichever content it likes, and not others? If I was a small shop owner I would like to be able to serve whoever I like, but I recognize the power of big corporations who can make you disappear from the Internet. In my opinion it all boils down whether the company is a gatekeeper, or not. I would like the small owner to have some ability to decide, but Amazon should not be able to decide who can buy/sell based on their skin color, preferences, political biases.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
friend_and_foe 3y ago
For contrast: John Hinckley Jr has a YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCck3J5KR3INUP1K-hrBe8iA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCck3J5KR3INUP1K-hrBe8iA/vid... A task force that was set up after Jimmy Saville died in response to him luckily getting away with it for a lifetime no cover by the government whatsoever is investigating. Jimmy fucking Saville! Why is the task force not investigating the fucking king? These politicians are fucking shameless, and these corporations who cave to this shit are unscrupulous. Did the guy rape? Maybe. Probably even. So put the guy in prison if he did.
fmajid 3y ago
Bills of Attainder are alive and kicking in the British Parliament, it seems.

48 points by cs02rm0 3y ago

Dame Caroline Dinenage, UK Minister of State for Digital and Culture has petitioned social media companies including Rumble, TikTok, Facebook, X, the BBC and Channel 4 to suspend Russell Brand from the platforms after a Channel 4 programme made accusations of sexual assault against him. He denies these accusations and they have not been tested in a court of law. Rumble have declined.

tibbydudeza 3y ago
And Harvey Weinstein claimed the same thing - innocent !!!! - come on - with so many accusers unrelated to each other - it is kind of obvious to any person that he crossed the line with woman he slept with. Whether it broke the law is a question that needs to be dealt with by a court.
- tibbydudeza 3y ago
  A lot of people are going to end facepalming themselves when the truth comes out.
  - etherael 3y ago
    "DAMN! I didn't trip over myself fast enough to make sure this personality was immediately demonetised on every internet social media platform after they were accused of a crime on a TV channel!" said nobody, ever.
    - tibbydudeza 3y ago
      The plausibility factor is rather high (Occam's Razor) - he has millions in the bank and his little believing cult - he will survive this if he is innocent. Odd he did not sue for libel yet.
      - etherael 3y ago
        It's not clear whether you're missing the point on purpose or not, so I'll just come right out and say it; his guilt for any crimes of which he is accused is entirely unrelated to how sensible the proposition is that entities ought to be able to completely shut down people on every social media platform by accusing them of something and then immediately demanding that they be demonetized by these platforms.
- leereeves 3y ago
  > Whether it broke the law is a question that needs to be dealt with by a court. Absolutely. > it is kind of obvious to any person that he crossed the line What line are you talking about, if not the law?
- polski-g 3y ago
  Even if Brand is convicted of something and sent to prison, a parliament member should never write such a request. I thought recidivism was a concern?
- willcipriano 3y ago
  These accusations are 20 years old, why wasn't any of this brought up when Brand was a liberal darling? Why is it only as he gains popularity and opposes the war in the Ukraine do media organizations, governments and tech companies decide in lockstep to act this way?
  - tibbydudeza 3y ago
    Roger Ailles etc ... It was different times back then - woman complaining about sexual harassment or unwanted advances in the workplace was discounted and not taken seriously. Remember how Trump was defended - oh take it easy woke woman - it was just locker room talk.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    It's taken a long time to assemble a libel-proof case, and several people have reportedly already been sent libel threats. Brand has already won a libel case back in 2014 about allegations that he cheated on his girlfriend. Perhaps that needs revisiting.
Joeboy 3y ago
The letter Rumble posted isn't asking them to suspend him from their platform, as far as I can see.
- secondcoming 3y ago
  Not directly
pjc50 3y ago
The sexual assault allegations have not been put to law because every victim realizes that (a) it's a deeply miserable experience having to describe what happened to you over and over again, (b) a load of people will call you a slut on social media, (c) it may impair your chances of ever getting work again, and (d) if people don't believe you you may get countersued. Courts and police are terrible at dealing with this stuff. That's the lesson of Weinstein, Savile, Rotherham, etc. See e.g. David Carrick, Met police officer, who after 17 years was finally prosecuted and admitted guilty to 85 offences, after the Met had a brief outbreak of taking this stuff seriously after Wayne Couzens, another police officer was jailed for the murder of Sarah Everard.
- jjgreen 3y ago
  Are you then suggesting that allegations suffice? That there is no need for "innocent until proven guilty" in the face of such allegations?
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    I think the point is that this is a particularly fraught area of discussion, and that the "best" approach may not be the one which is legally enshrined, because the legally enshrined approach is severely flawed in its ability to actually address sexual assault. Whether that means we should treat allegations as proof is a related but -- I think -- separate question.
    - jjgreen 3y ago
      Some kind of extralegal response then?
  - pjc50 3y ago
    That standard is required for criminal sanctions, but it is not required for private parties to change who they freely associate with, who are free to take a more balance-of-probabilities approach. I'm free to say that he's probably a rapist, because I'm not a court of law and I have free speech. (The irony is that Brand spends all the time on his youtube channel making unsubstantiated and probably false allegations about all sorts of public figures such as Bill Gates)

nathanaldensr 3y ago

Apparently, the urge to censor and deplatform by gross authoritarian government employees is so strong that innuendo, accusations, and guilt-by-association are now enough to deny people their voices. (I'm writing in a general sense, not just about Brand)

jjgreen 3y ago

Dinenage is, of course, one of the main proponents to the "online safety bill" and an opponent of gay marriage. I heard from a bloke down the pub that she kills squirrels with her bare hands, lovely squirrels, so I'm writing to parliament to demand that they stop her wages for such disgusting behaviour.

Joeboy 3y ago
I don't think the bloke down the pub / squirrel thing will fly, but it does seem to be a fairly regular event that MPs are forced to stand down after allegations of sexual misconduct.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

atlanta90210 3y ago

Mr Brand is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or he admits his crimes. Google taking down his YouTube income before a guilty verdict is horrible. For some reason Google/Youtube have not demonetized R. Kelly, and he was found guilty. Or Cardi B. She admitted to drugging men and stealing from them.

braza 3y ago
Specific for the residents of USA: What's the current status of the Section 230 debate? Due to that, the platforms cannot have editorial decisions, right?
- pjc50 3y ago
  Youtube serving videos about a UK national to residents of the UK is probably covered by UK law, regardless of your section 230. On the other hand, no UK law has been invoked here, it's just a letter.
- krapp 3y ago
  > Due to that, the platforms cannot have editorial decisions, right? Incorrect[0]. Section 230 allows platforms to exercise editorial discretion, even political bias, when moderating content. [0]https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
pjc50 3y ago
It is unusual that they've done it to him and not a whole bunch of other far worse behaving people.
Joeboy 3y ago
Cursory googling tells me Youtube removed two of R. Kelly's channels.
renegat0x0 3y ago
I heard quite often that "a company can do whatever it want with their content". I was working through this topic a very long time. Can YouTube host whichever content it likes, and not others? If I was a small shop owner I would like to be able to serve whoever I like, but I recognize the power of big corporations who can make you disappear from the Internet. In my opinion it all boils down whether the company is a gatekeeper, or not. I would like the small owner to have some ability to decide, but Amazon should not be able to decide who can buy/sell based on their skin color, preferences, political biases.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

friend_and_foe 3y ago

For contrast: John Hinckley Jr has a YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCck3J5KR3INUP1K-hrBe8iA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCck3J5KR3INUP1K-hrBe8iA/vid... A task force that was set up after Jimmy Saville died in response to him luckily getting away with it for a lifetime no cover by the government whatsoever is investigating. Jimmy fucking Saville! Why is the task force not investigating the fucking king? These politicians are fucking shameless, and these corporations who cave to this shit are unscrupulous. Did the guy rape? Maybe. Probably even. So put the guy in prison if he did.

fmajid 3y ago

Bills of Attainder are alive and kicking in the British Parliament, it seems.