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

a reply to: Terpene


You always draw the wrong parallels. Now you made comparisons between Brand's relationship with a 16 year old and the trans ideology that seeks to indoctrinate children.

Before you made comparisons between circumcisions and gender affirming butchery.

The radical left has always surprised me with their claims and arguments but you have take it to a very different level.

This is what the CEO of Rumble said after it was approached by the UK Government pressuring the platform to demonetize Brand based on the recent allegations against him. It's more than obvious this has become a political matter and a witchhunt regardless of whether Brand is innocent or guilty. It's on my other thread but see the difference in the response between the two platforms. YouTube almost certainly has been approached by the UK Government but they don't need to be told to do what they do best.

Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament

While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble’s platform.

Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was baring Mr Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet - meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.

We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don’t agree with the behaviour of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.

Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values ​​and mission. We emphatically reject the U.K. Parliament’s demands

And as I said in my other thread the CEO of Rumble Chris Pavlovski is an absolute legend!!!

YouTube is a very different platform indeed and users should think twice before they make content using this platform after the latest events.

Whether Brand is innocent or guilty is a very different issue to what YouTube has done and it's not the only thing they ve done in the last 3-4 years.


www.forbes.com...

voz.us...

rumble.com...

dailysceptic.org...

a reply to: AlienBorg

Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament

You need to source your quote.
What did the letter actually say? Why didn't Rumble post the actual "demands" from the committee chair person in Parliament?

a reply to: Sookiechacha


Rumble did post the entire letter - it's all over the place.

Oh btw, the author's husband was the head of Britian's equivalent of the Ministery of Truth.

"Wired described the brigade as a "psychological operations unit responsible for 'non-lethal' warfare that reportedly uses social media to "control the narrative", as well as disseminating UK government-friendly podcasts and videos".[9]"

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament

You need to source your quote.
What did the letter actually say? Why didn't Rumble post the actual "demands" from the committee chair person in Parliament?

Already done in the other thread.
You're too late in these conversations I am afraid.
If you don't have anything else to say just read what I have posted and stop supporting YouTube censorship.

Amazing! Supplying the tactics of YouTube on one hand and on the other hand the trans lobby...

a reply to: AlienBorg

the interesting thing is that brand was a left wing darling embedded into mainstream left wing culture.. back in the days of blair, 3rd way and britpop.. in this instance the channel involved is currently also running a show on "breaking the law" ito discuss the climate fight including how its right to damage things like pipelines..

the move by the cons to deplatform brand on every media platform is going to cost them.. it certainly kills any notion there is a single conservative bone in the conservative party..

they were sailing close to electoral oblivion at the hands of their own voters with a small sliver they could poll the 100 seats needed to remain an opposition party at this rate there'll liable to match the best the liberal democrats could do and sail into electoral oblivion.. ..

the cons really do look like the liberal party around its key demise in 24 as it had become a hodge podge of left to right conflicting ideologies..

a reply to: nickyw


No, this goes deeper than liberal/conservatives.

Did you see my post on who Caroline (the author of the letter) is married - he was the head of the military unit that tries to control social media.

This has to do with the "elites" who are on both sides power base.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Did the censor him or demonetize him?

If we demand YouTube can’t suspend monetization, should we also be consistent with other instances like networks letting anchors go for allegations that have teeth?

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Rumble did post the entire letter - it's all over the place.

Oh btw, the author's husband was the head of Britian's equivalent of the Ministery of Truth.

"Wired described the brigade as a "psychological operations unit responsible for 'non-lethal' warfare that reportedly uses social media to "control the narrative", as well as disseminating UK government-friendly podcasts and videos".[9]"

it easier to frame the 77th army brigade as the political warfare unit of the british army.. the idea thats its non lethal is amusing given the clandestine nature of such military units..

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: nickyw


No, this goes deeper than liberal/conservatives.

Did you see my post on who Caroline (the author of the letter) is married - he was the head of the military unit that tries to control social media.

This has to do with the "elites" who are on both sides power base.

I know they're both under surveillance.

a reply to: Daughter2

Rumble did post the entire letter - it's all over the place.

I'm not on Rumble, I'm on ATS. I'm not a RUMBLE member.

A link would be nice. Even a link to the article AlienBorg cited would have been helpful.

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: nickyw


No, this goes deeper than liberal/conservatives.

Did you see my post on who Caroline (the author of the letter) is married - he was the head of the military unit that tries to control social media.

This has to do with the "elites" who are on both sides power base.

Polling in the uk has 50%+ of voters as politically homeless which means the legacy parties are at risk of being swept away in 2024.. lets not forget from the elite pov that brexit/britain is to blame for trump..

so the context is everything this is a repeat of the collapse of liberalism in 24, if they weren't so insecure they'd just let things slide, its that they are opting to ramp up the attacks using corporates they owns and pressure other corporates into compliance is where we are.. and its backfiring badly.

we are seeing an ideological collapse in real time..

a reply to: AlienBorg

A link, source, even a link to the post in your other thread. It's not a big ask. As a matter of fact, it's kinda required.

Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website. The posting to these websites of any copyrighted material owned by others that is not found elsewhere online is prohibited.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

i have a feed of cats/dogs and a fair few left wing women mostly survivors of abuse and dv.. even that stream is filled with chats around this as you'd imagine with abuse and dv, the letters to all the different companies have gone down like a bag of sick even in that space.. and that's hard to do given how most view brands lad culture..

twitter.com...

rumble have picked up a lot of app new users..

a reply to: nickyw

i have a feed of cats/dogs and a fair few left wing women mostly survivors of abuse and dv.. even that stream is filled with chats around this

Good for you. That's because the AI knows what you're into and feeds you info from your search data and clicks. My feeds are filled with things other than accused misogynistic sexual assaulters trying to preempt bad press.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

you're right a lot of my searches are related so I just tend to view following, the cats/dogs are quite the timeline cleanser, but the brand case was always going to stir stuff up in my obit, the promiscuous Britpop period was a low point but its a known known like randy andy is a known known, yet the way the gov has approached this is leaving a sour taste for many.

I find a lot of survivors are obsessed with fairness, i know i am, as it feeds into the many myths especially those around rape/abuse/dv that taking short cuts risks letting abusers off and may even feed abusers words like no one would believe, its an incredibly long and painful process, but the thing is even with evidence conviction rates are poor, this is compounded in the uk with the way the police have been underfunded so the recent rush to push up numbers is not leaving it under resourced but lacking the depth of experience to investigate what are incredibly complex cases..

there are so many issues already and the gov has made it worse.. a fair trial and safe conviction is more important than rushing to shut down an annoying voice or signal some electoral virtue.

www.dailymail.co.uk... oint-judge-jury-premature-executioner.html

YouTube is slammed for demonetizing Russell Brand's channel over sexual assault allegations: 'It's perilous for any business to appoint itself judge, jury and premature executioner'.

Yesterday, YouTube announced that while he is allowed to stay on the platform, it will no longer allow him to make money from his channel.

'If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,' the streaming site said. The BBC has also removed Brand's shows from its iPlayer and BBC Sounds.

That decision is now being blasted - not only by Brand's own fans - but others who say it's premature given Brand's own denial and a lack of due process amid overwhelming public interest and opinion.

Among them is Piers Morgan, who said last night on his Talk TV show: 'As far as we all know at the moment, they are accusations, albeit very serious ones that were done in extremely well researched in investigative journalism.

'There is something slightly Orwellian about a business that says it will still host his videos, keeping millions of eyeballs on their platform, but won't share any of the spoils

a reply to: AlienBorg

Yes, he is being canceled. People (liberal influenced concensus) don't like the anti-vax stuff. Once you go there, in their eyes, you're advocating against medical advice, thus harming people, which makes their advertisers, paying YouTube to have their product seen, very squeamish. They don't want their product seen on a certain channel espousing said content.

Once Brand got the QAnon equivocation it was essentially over for him. Which really doesn't help quell the conspiracy, but I think that's a pick your poison thing.

It's just seen as so dangerous it becomes a 1st amendment view that can cost you, like antisemitism. It's protected, but people don't want that noise.

So they are collectively (yet independently) choosing to cancel everyone that won't drop the irrational narrative, in every incarnation they appear.

a reply to: Degradation33

So they are collectively (yet independently) choosing to cancel everyone that won't drop it, in every incarnation they appear.
edit on 21-9-2023 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)

In an attempt to silence the truth.
Any one can see it is truth that tyrants will for ever be trying to suppress.

a reply to: Degradation33

You don't think that little letter from a government agency that now has the power to shut your site down might have anything to do with it?