YouTube demonetizes Russell Brand citing his harmful ‘off-platform behavior'

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: AlienBorg

I am sure this will be a fair process where you investigate yourself...

Transparent and accurate!

same due process for the beeb that you are demanding for Brand if he is innocent as you seem to be insinuating and its a massive character assasination then the Beeb have done nothing wrong either.

So lets not assume anyone is not being transparent, we dont want to prejudge do we?

Innocent until proven guilty. That what I am saying and against the media trials and characters assassinations. They haven't even charged him yet but he had been found guilty in the court of public opinion. That's just terrible.

I know the radical left wing members are ok with what YouTube is doing but it has backfired quite a lot.

I am not insinuating he is innocent. I am saying he is innocent until proven guilty and find it very difficult they someone can be found guilty for a historical event that happened 20 years ago for which there is no physical evidence.

Btw the documentary forgot to include all the accounts by women they approached. They only included the accounts they found appropriate for the documentary...

a reply to: GoShredAK

They've been doing it for decades.

So far, they are fine

a reply to: UpThenDown

Most of the documentary discusses consenting adults and the behaviour of Brand that it is regarded as being morally troubling on some instances. At the same time there are some serious allegations against him on some other instances such sexual assault and rape.

These allegations are the substance of the documentary and not whether Brand is a bad boy, a womaniser, or someone with no moral compass. Although the documentary is trying to present him as such but a few hours after here comes a woman on Piers Morgan who had a short relationship with him and saying everything happened between consenting adults and Brand was very lovely and caring. She goes to say how he was an activist at that time fighting for women's rights.

And a little after that other videos emerging with another woman who was approached by journalists the same way these women were approached but her account has not been included in the documentary... The reason being it wasn't what the producers wanted to hear.

His ex girlfriend also commented saying she doesn't know whether he committed these crimes but when they were together there wasn't any problems.

YouTube has made a gaffe in my view and they are likely defamed him by accepting he has harmed users and employees and the ecosystem. It's YouTube that needs to be investigated as many have argued. And cancelled!!

a reply to: AlienBorg

Oh, so now YOU want things cancelled?

Hypocrisy, right there.

Let's see if Brand ( not you) Sue's them.

Due process and all?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

Oh, so now YOU want things cancelled?

Hypocrisy, right there.

Let's see if Brand ( not you) Sue's them.

Due process and all?

This is a metaphor of course.
Cancelling their current management and tactics will be preferable. Not cancelling the whole platform although there are people who want them closed down...

They are fascistoids....

a reply to: AlienBorg

This is a "metaphor"?

"It's YouTube that needs to be investigated as many have argued. And cancelled!!"

I see a lot of nonsense in this thread. These are the two reasons why they went after Brand:


1.

twitter.com...

2.

twitter.com...

They did it to Tucker and James OKeefe and will go after anyone who challenges their agenda.

More recently the UK parliament sent a letter to Rumble to try to get Brand suspended from their platform as well. Here is the appropriate response for all parties:




/THREAD

originally posted by: AlienBorg


YouTube has made a gaffe in my view and they are likely defamed him by accepting he has harmed users and employees and the ecosystem. It's YouTube that needs to be investigated as many have argued. And cancelled!!

Brand has not been cancelled, he is still currently on youtube

Russell brand not cancelled on youtube

he has had his ability from yesterday to earn revenue stopped, youtube do not owe him a living, its there platform, you do understand how T+Cs work dont you

I know you love using "woke, cancelled,leftist" every other word but he has not been cancelled in the defintion of him having the ability to reach his 6.6million subscribers removed

but now you want to cancel youtube, if that were to happen then Brand would have been cancelled by the very action you are requesting.

I never understood why Russell Brand was 'a thing'.
He's not handsome.
He's not talented.
He's creepy and gross.
He treated his wife - Katy Perry - like crap.
Why did he 'make it' in the entertainment industry?
He's really got nothing going for him.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Because he built his career on being edgy, controversial, lewd and being overtly sexual and in their faces towards women?

A carefully contrived media personality who loved being a media whore.

Now, it's all gone a bit wrong?

Boo hoo.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: GoShredAK

They've been doing it for decades.

So far, they are fine

Yeah because those you mentioned can't compare to the level of actual freedom fighting that brand does....He has repented from his past and what he does now is basically break news without bias and points out corruption and lies.

Nothing about satire or any of his past work or comedy.

a reply to: GoShredAK

"Without bias"?!!!!!

Private Eye for instance has exposed many, many Govt and other scandals.

A very impressive record, and been famously sued, a lot.

a reply to: GoShredAK

Go compare against Private Eye's record:


www.bbc.co.uk...

"Since its early days, it has built a reputation for breaking stories that other papers will not print - taking on the rich and powerful and risking expensive libel actions that have threatened to close the magazine down. "

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: AlienBorg


YouTube has made a gaffe in my view and they are likely defamed him by accepting he has harmed users and employees and the ecosystem. It's YouTube that needs to be investigated as many have argued. And cancelled!!

Brand has not been cancelled, he is still currently on youtube

Russell brand not cancelled on youtube

he has had his ability from yesterday to earn revenue stopped, youtube do not owe him a living, its there platform, you do understand how T+Cs work dont you

I know you love using "woke, cancelled,leftist" every other word but he has not been cancelled in the defintion of him having the ability to reach his 6.6million subscribers removed

but now you want to cancel youtube, if that were to happen then Brand would have been cancelled by the very action you are requesting.

His way of making money has been cancelled and he is on the way to complete cancellation.

The cancellation of Youtube was a metaphor of course for a platform engaging in blatant censorship and misinformation. Their managers and tactics need to be removed. The platform consists of fascistoids and they have already engaged in blatant censorship and misinformation over a number of issues as well as cancelling accounts.

I am seriously concerned you believe they're justified for what they ve done or their attempts doesn't amount to cancellation. I know that all those on the radical left see no issue but that doesn't change the facts.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

What are the elements of inducing a breach of contract?
This tort has four elements:

Knowledge of the contract. The defendant must be aware of the contract you are claiming is being breached. Consequently, there need not be knowledge of the precise terms of the contract, but an appreciation of the broad nature of the contractual relationship is required. It’s important to point out that you will not be able to defend the claim if you have deliberately turned a blind eye by making a conscious decision not to enquire into whether the relevant act would amount to a breach.

Intention to breach the contract. The defendant must intend to breach the contract, or cause its breach and to cause economic harm. It is not enough for the breach to occur from the natural consequences of the defendant’s conduct or because the defendant acted carelessly; nor will the defendant be liable if unintentionally or unknowingly procuring a breach of contract.

Actual breach of contract. Fundamentally speaking, a contract must exist for the breach to occur. The contract must be valid and enforceable. For this reason, it’s vital to get expert advice and carefully analyse if, technically speaking in the eyes of the law, there has been a breach of contract before pursuing a claim.

Interference with another’s contract. It must be established that the other contractual party was persuaded to breach the contract. The most effective way to prove this point is by determining that there have been inconsistent dealings between the first contract and the second contract.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

This is a "metaphor"?

"It's YouTube that needs to be investigated as many have argued. And cancelled!!"

Yep!

People on the platform who engage in propaganda and censorship or misinformation should be removed as they don't serve the public interest.

a reply to: Daughter2

Objection!

Overuled.

And so on.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Daughter2

Objection!

Overuled.

And so on.

You tell 'em.

Im simply hoping that he swings by the gonads for his crimes (cough alleged).

vile little weasel

It's going to be an uphill battle that this wasn't contract interference.

They didn't ask to ban but for them to stop paying.

How does not paying someone protect society?

Making false allegations is a crime too (though one that's never prosecuted - it's still a crime).

Should alleged accusers have their income taken away if someone accuses them of the crime of making false police reports?
Right now, like it or not, a large portion of people believe they are criminals. Would you support them having their income taken away?