3 ms·

> a government 'asking' media to stop paying/employing someone they don't like, without a legal mandate, is a very obvious contravention of a free society. The

> a government 'asking' media to stop paying/employing someone they don't like, without a legal mandate, is a very obvious contravention of a free society. The way you've expressed this makes me think that you haven't actually read the detail. Here's what the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee wrote in her letter to Rumble: > However, we are also looking at [Brand's] use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches. While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform. It is absolutely central to the interests of the select committee that Brand is talking about an ongoing police investigation which may turn into a prosecution, and making money from that pursuit, and that specific allegations relate to his time as an employee of the BBC, which is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. But, either way, they did not ask that he be de-monetised, as you explicitly claimed: > We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform. We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour. Finally, as a parliamentary select committee, DCMS specifically has a legal mandate to oversee and develop policy in areas such as broadcasting, press freedom/regulation, film, the arts, etc. -- which are all, to some extent, related to the context of the specific allegations against Brand and the committee's stated interest in those allegations. FWIW "Reclaim The Net" cropped up in my Apple News+ feed today and after reading this very headline, I blocked the channel -- it's about as self-serving and myopic as it gets. The headline of this post is self-evidently misleading: aside from falsely describing "MPs" (which ones?) as "pro-censorship" (to reasonably describe someone as such would, to my mind, require an individual having a specific track record of promoting "censorship" - whatever that is), it seems to simultaneously hold the position that X/Twitter is a bastion of free speech for refusing to answer the committee's questions, whilst YouTube – exercising the very same freedoms as X/Twitter to regulate its own platform and terms of use – is evil for de-monetising Brand.

Levitz 3y ago
So it's simply them wanting to find out if he is monetizing that specific content? I find the implication to such line of questioning to be rather obvious, unless there is something I'm missing? If this monetization in itself was a crime, for example (say it's a crime to profit from making public statements of this sort, for example) then I could understand that, but it seems far-fetched to me. Maybe arguing in court that it's all performative?
- georgespencer 3y ago
  > So it's simply them wanting to find out if he is monetizing that specific content? Below are the relevant excerpts from their letter to Rumble. I see a z in 'monetising' which makes me think you're not from the UK? If so, spend two minutes Googling around terms like "UK parliament request for testimony" and "UK select committee writes to " and you will see that select committees are constantly* writing to individuals and companies requesting their input on things like this. The tinfoil bozos on here try to make it seem sinister by describing MPs as "pro-censorship", and a large subset (like the most upvoted comment on this page!) appear to misrepresent facts (I won't link it but the top comment claims that government asked for Brand to be demonetized, which is empirically false), but this is the best idea we have on how government should work. Civil servants and politicians cannot be experts in deeply specialised / technical topics whilst also running departments which oversee 200 disparate areas of public life. They therefore necessarily solicit a wide range of opinions and perspectives from outside experts to help them develop their thinking, influence policy, and generally to make better choices for the population. > The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today. This is important. This Committee oversees the department which has responsibility for the arts, the BBC, broadcast, film, etc. It is their job to ensure that the BBC in particular is operating in a way which puts the best interests of taxpayers first, and the corporation has been uniquely terrible at safeguarding both employees and vulnerable people coming into close contact with those employees, so it's absolutely unremarkable that they are following up on Brand's conduct whilst he was at the BBC. This paragraph explains why the Committee is concerning itself with Brand and the companies he worked with, one of which is essentially funded by the department. > However, we are also looking at his use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches. While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform. Brand's preemptive refutation of the accusations is a trigger meaning they want to understand the dynamics of his relationship with Rumble: he could be making money from content which impedes a police investigation, or an internal investigation at the BBC, or which intimidates others he may have abused. Rumble should be able to tell the Committee wht happens if he's convicted, or confesses, or if he doxxes a victim. The letter is not as direct as it might be, but a concern the author seems to me to hold is similar to one I encountered recently when flicking through Netflix here in the US. One of the "trending" picks was a Russell Brand standup set. It makes sense that Brand being in the news might translate to an uptick in the popularity of his content, but if I were at DCMS I'd be very curious to understand what role, if any, Netflix plays in promulgating the content (does Netflix consider it 'trending' because lots of people are watching it, or are lots of people watching it because Netflix designates it as 'trending'?). These are the kinds of things they seek to understand and influence. > We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform. If there is pressure here, it seems to simply be to encourage companies to consider whether it's moral to allow someone facing multiple credible accusations of a crime to profit from discussing that crime. (I put it in the same category as people finding it repulsive that OJ Simpson made that $29.99 mail order VHS discussing Nicole.) > We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour. Translation: could you maybe update your terms so that content in which related parties discuss ongoing investigations into their conduct is not monetised? (Not preventing people from talking about it, but removing some incentives for weaponising the scrutiny.) Or could you let us know what safeguarding policies are in place if Brand's audience decides to dox the alleged victims? Could you let us know what constitutes 'libel' on your platform? Far from trying to compel Rumble or Twitter to do anything, I see these letters as MPs understanding where their remit ends and private enterprise begins, and trying to influence rather than compel. > If this monetization in itself was a crime, for example (say it's a crime to profit from making public statements of this sort, for example) then I could understand that, but it seems far-fetched to me. They just want to understand. Rumble doesn't have a publicly available policy governing the way it treats users as they go from "credibly accused by serious journalists from two independent media organisations after an exhaustive years-long investigation with multiple pieces of corroborative documentary evidence and testimony" to "convicted of sexual assault", so it makes sense to ask. And part of the purpose here is that such companies have an internal discussion if they haven't formalised their thinking.

Levitz 3y ago

So it's simply them wanting to find out if he is monetizing that specific content? I find the implication to such line of questioning to be rather obvious, unless there is something I'm missing? If this monetization in itself was a crime, for example (say it's a crime to profit from making public statements of this sort, for example) then I could understand that, but it seems far-fetched to me. Maybe arguing in court that it's all performative?

georgespencer 3y ago
> So it's simply them wanting to find out if he is monetizing that specific content? Below are the relevant excerpts from their letter to Rumble. I see a z in 'monetising' which makes me think you're not from the UK? If so, spend two minutes Googling around terms like "UK parliament request for testimony" and "UK select committee writes to " and you will see that select committees are constantly* writing to individuals and companies requesting their input on things like this. The tinfoil bozos on here try to make it seem sinister by describing MPs as "pro-censorship", and a large subset (like the most upvoted comment on this page!) appear to misrepresent facts (I won't link it but the top comment claims that government asked for Brand to be demonetized, which is empirically false), but this is the best idea we have on how government should work. Civil servants and politicians cannot be experts in deeply specialised / technical topics whilst also running departments which oversee 200 disparate areas of public life. They therefore necessarily solicit a wide range of opinions and perspectives from outside experts to help them develop their thinking, influence policy, and generally to make better choices for the population. > The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today. This is important. This Committee oversees the department which has responsibility for the arts, the BBC, broadcast, film, etc. It is their job to ensure that the BBC in particular is operating in a way which puts the best interests of taxpayers first, and the corporation has been uniquely terrible at safeguarding both employees and vulnerable people coming into close contact with those employees, so it's absolutely unremarkable that they are following up on Brand's conduct whilst he was at the BBC. This paragraph explains why the Committee is concerning itself with Brand and the companies he worked with, one of which is essentially funded by the department. > However, we are also looking at his use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches. While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform. Brand's preemptive refutation of the accusations is a trigger meaning they want to understand the dynamics of his relationship with Rumble: he could be making money from content which impedes a police investigation, or an internal investigation at the BBC, or which intimidates others he may have abused. Rumble should be able to tell the Committee wht happens if he's convicted, or confesses, or if he doxxes a victim. The letter is not as direct as it might be, but a concern the author seems to me to hold is similar to one I encountered recently when flicking through Netflix here in the US. One of the "trending" picks was a Russell Brand standup set. It makes sense that Brand being in the news might translate to an uptick in the popularity of his content, but if I were at DCMS I'd be very curious to understand what role, if any, Netflix plays in promulgating the content (does Netflix consider it 'trending' because lots of people are watching it, or are lots of people watching it because Netflix designates it as 'trending'?). These are the kinds of things they seek to understand and influence. > We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform. If there is pressure here, it seems to simply be to encourage companies to consider whether it's moral to allow someone facing multiple credible accusations of a crime to profit from discussing that crime. (I put it in the same category as people finding it repulsive that OJ Simpson made that $29.99 mail order VHS discussing Nicole.) > We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour. Translation: could you maybe update your terms so that content in which related parties discuss ongoing investigations into their conduct is not monetised? (Not preventing people from talking about it, but removing some incentives for weaponising the scrutiny.) Or could you let us know what safeguarding policies are in place if Brand's audience decides to dox the alleged victims? Could you let us know what constitutes 'libel' on your platform? Far from trying to compel Rumble or Twitter to do anything, I see these letters as MPs understanding where their remit ends and private enterprise begins, and trying to influence rather than compel. > If this monetization in itself was a crime, for example (say it's a crime to profit from making public statements of this sort, for example) then I could understand that, but it seems far-fetched to me. They just want to understand. Rumble doesn't have a publicly available policy governing the way it treats users as they go from "credibly accused by serious journalists from two independent media organisations after an exhaustive years-long investigation with multiple pieces of corroborative documentary evidence and testimony" to "convicted of sexual assault", so it makes sense to ask. And part of the purpose here is that such companies have an internal discussion if they haven't formalised their thinking.