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

If all this goes to court and he's found not guilty of anything.......

woah, think of the defamation of character law suits he'll be able to action!!!!

but. it's not about the law, its ultimately about censorship

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

In terms of the comments of having had relationship with a 16 years old.

It's not the best option and it would be best if adults or at least adults who have significant age difference to avoid relationships with minors. But 16 is the age of consent. So there is nothing illegal and nobody has accused Brand of being a pedophile. Although he shouldn't have had anything to do with a 16 year old when he was 30.

When you're 16 or 17 as a girl you may want to have sexual relationships with older men and that's something which is happening but there are much younger men closer to their age.

This case is not normal. A 30 year old man picks up a young girl in a shopping mall, takes her to dinner (without her parents knowledge), asks her age, finds out she's a virgin and gets very excited, then tells her to not tell her friends, not to let her parents know, sends a limo from BBC to pick her up from school to his house, uses her for three months then she finds him in bed with another woman so she breaks it off, whatever it was to begin with???...this is f##'d up behaviour and don't tell me this girl was not traumatized by it.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: SprocketUK

+

also known as a FACT. who do you think arranged his Knighthood? who was always on tely with the bloke shaking his hand for raising more money for charity?

All that matters is he hasn't even been charged with anything.

But go ahead string him up. Skin that smoke wagon

another americanism we've adopted f*ck trials or justice and go straight to the lynching, it feels many hope to leave m,any more Caroline Flacks in their wake.

From all his past history I'd say where there's a smoke wagon there's fire.

smoke wagon what a quaint expression.

so guilty because i don't like his views is like saying that as many sex offenders are trans that trans are sex offenders.. its incredibly dodgy as those arguments can be spun around, 16 is legal age to vote in scotland and if labour win potentially the legal age to vote across the uk, my own town thinks 16 year olds should be legally allowed to learn to drink properly in bars. and its as left wing as you can get.. culturally as country groupings go the uk and north america are incredibly different..

originally posted by: MCurns
If all this goes to court and he's found not guilty of anything.......

woah, think of the defamation of character law suits he'll be able to action!!!!

but. it's not about the law, its ultimately about censorship

If he does win, which hey it's UK justice, so that is a distinct possibility, how do you think his career will fare if he goes after them?

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: SprocketUK

+

also known as a FACT. who do you think arranged his Knighthood? who was always on tely with the bloke shaking his hand for raising more money for charity?

All that matters is he hasn't even been charged with anything.

But go ahead string him up. Skin that smoke wagon

another americanism we've adopted f*ck trials or justice and go straight to the lynching, it feels many hope to leave m,any more Caroline Flacks in their wake.

From all his past history I'd say where there's a smoke wagon there's fire.

smoke wagon what a quaint expression.

so guilty because i don't like his views is like saying that as many sex offenders are trans that trans are sex offenders.. its incredibly dodgy as those arguments can be spun around, 16 is legal age to vote in scotland and if labour win potentially the legal age to vote across the uk, my own town thinks 16 year olds should be legally allowed to learn to drink properly in bars. and its as left wing as you can get.. culturally as country groupings go the uk and north america are incredibly different..

It's still predatory behaviour and grooming no matter how you want to spin it.

a reply to: SprocketUK

I am way comfortable not trying to stick up for a rapist and potenhtial child abuser.

What rapist? You can't rape the willing pardner!

a reply to: quintessentone

It won't get to court.....the accusers on the tv show haven’t been to the police as far as I know.

a reply to: nickyw

I'm not from the USA and private companies can make their own rules mainly to protect themselves so long they don't violate other rules. If you break their rules they are in the right to refuse you any service. At least that's how it works around here.
Being on trial no matter the verdict can very well disrupt the ecosystem and imply harm.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: SprocketUK

I am way comfortable not trying to stick up for a rapist and potenhtial child abuser.

What rapist? You can't rape the willing pardner!

Does it not make you feel a little bit....eeew sticking up tfor the guy like you do?

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

YouTube is a privat company they can pretty much do whatever they like.

Not true when they make statements like this

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Doesn't look to be anything actionable in that clip you posted.

You may want to take a look at this again.

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

He hasn’t been convicted or arrested for anything, just accused, and the ropes are already swinging.

Everyone is stuck on the legal 16 year old that consented under a law the entire UK resides under.

If it’s wrong YouTube should demonetize everyone from the UK. How do you ostracize one person when it’s the entire nations law of consent?

YouTube suspended his monetization but he’s still on the platform.

Suspended also means it could be turned back on.

Seems like YouTube is giving the appearance of doing something while keeping clicks for what I assume will be an influx of people watching his content. They are having their cake and eating it too, which seems money grabbish, par for course with google.

But I don’t remember all the users here being outraged when CNN execs and anchors were getting clipped for accusations. I remember celebration. (For the record I’m not sad they’re gone and have never been a consumer of that network)

Public facing businesses can distance themselves from a hot potato. This doesn’t seem new, people are just upset because “their guy”.

a reply to: quintessentone

If i had faith in a justice system, i'd favour the British rather than the US....

asides that.....as a character he's screwed. Which ultimately suits 'them upstairs'.

Mind though, He can still 'Rumble'. He can still broadcast whats really going on in the world, which 'constitutes' conspiracy.

I've seen him on US tv and he runs rings around the presenters. explaing how the world works and what the US public isn;t seeing because of the sheeple aspect. This is why it's being done.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

YouTube is a privat company they can pretty much do whatever they like.

Not true when they make statements like this

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Doesn't look to be anything actionable in that clip you posted.

You may want to take a look at this again.

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Thats not what it says though. it says his off platform behaviour is at fault, that could be anything, from being anti vax to mooning out of his window at a passing bus.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

In terms of the comments of having had relationship with a 16 years old.

It's not the best option and it would be best if adults or at least adults who have significant age difference to avoid relationships with minors. But 16 is the age of consent. So there is nothing illegal and nobody has accused Brand of being a pedophile. Although he shouldn't have had anything to do with a 16 year old when he was 30.

When you're 16 or 17 as a girl you may want to have sexual relationships with older men and that's something which is happening but there are much younger men closer to their age.

This case is not normal. A 30 year old man picks up a young girl in a shopping mall, takes her to dinner (without her parents knowledge), asks her age, finds out she's a virgin and gets very excited, then tells her to not tell her friends, not to let her parents know, sends a limo from BBC to pick her up from school to his house, uses her for three months then she finds him in bed with another woman so she breaks it off, whatever it was to begin with???...this is f##'d up behaviour and don't tell me this girl was not traumatized by it.

You said about grooming and having relationships with a minor. But you forget this is a case where Brand hasn't been accused of being a pedophile and 16 is the age of consent. From the documentary it's clear her parents knew she was having relationship with him but probably they didn't approve.

And we really don't know all the details of what has happened si to speculate on what the BBC did it didn't isn't wise at this point.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: quintessentone

It won't get to court.....the accusers on the tv show haven’t been to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure about that.

“These are very serious and concerning allegations, and you will know the Met Police has asked anyone who believes they have been victim of a sexual assault to come forward and speak to officers,” a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters.

Conservative legislator Caroline Nokes, who chairs the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, urged police in both Britain and the United States to investigate the “incredibly shocking” allegations.

“This merits and needs a criminal investigation, because for too long we have seen men – and the perpetrators of these sorts of crimes are almost invariably men – not being held to account for their behaviours and their actions,” she told BBC Radio.

www.aljazeera.com...#:~:text=UK%20comedian%20Russell%20Br and%20accused%20of%20rape%2C%20sexual%20assault%3A%20Media&text=Brand%2C%2048%2C%20said%20on%20Saturday,rape%2C%20between%202006%20and%202013.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

YouTube is a privat company they can pretty much do whatever they like.

Not true when they make statements like this

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Doesn't look to be anything actionable in that clip you posted.

You may want to take a look at this again.

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Thats not what it says though. it says his off platform behaviour is at fault, that could be anything, from being anti vax to mooning out of his window at a passing bus.

No. That's not what it says.
They have reacted to the recent allegations. That's very clear. The fact they demonetized his channel in the last 24 hours proves it has to do with the allegations of sexual assault.

Nothing to do with the anti vax or the war in Ukraine.

a reply to: quintessentone

how do you feel about pop/rock bands given their behaviour and how they end up inundated with girls knickers..

the pretense for moral high horses here is this is not normal where we also know it bloody well is normal, its normal for teens to chase their idols and for many to end up deeply infatuated by them, willing to go to any extreme to get what they think they want and others to end up being used and thrown away..

its absolutely a culturaL issue.. and its far broader than one man or even the lad culture behind it..

the arguments here are the same as they are for all idols and even for trans issues as even at the age of consent teens have no idea what they are consenting to be it sex or sex change they have no idea what that is, means indeed or how it will impact them later in life..

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

YouTube is a privat company they can pretty much do whatever they like.

Not true when they make statements like this

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Doesn't look to be anything actionable in that clip you posted.

You may want to take a look at this again.

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Thats not what it says though. it says his off platform behaviour is at fault, that could be anything, from being anti vax to mooning out of his window at a passing bus.

No. That's not what it says.
They have reacted to the recent allegations. That's very clear. The fact they demonetized his channel in the last 24 hours proves it has to do with the allegations of sexual assault.

Nothing to do with the anti vax or the war in Ukraine.

It doesnt say that though, I am pretty sure if you want to drag a properly lawyered up outfit like Youtube to court, you need more than you have shown us.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

In terms of the comments of having had relationship with a 16 years old.

It's not the best option and it would be best if adults or at least adults who have significant age difference to avoid relationships with minors. But 16 is the age of consent. So there is nothing illegal and nobody has accused Brand of being a pedophile. Although he shouldn't have had anything to do with a 16 year old when he was 30.

When you're 16 or 17 as a girl you may want to have sexual relationships with older men and that's something which is happening but there are much younger men closer to their age.

This case is not normal. A 30 year old man picks up a young girl in a shopping mall, takes her to dinner (without her parents knowledge), asks her age, finds out she's a virgin and gets very excited, then tells her to not tell her friends, not to let her parents know, sends a limo from BBC to pick her up from school to his house, uses her for three months then she finds him in bed with another woman so she breaks it off, whatever it was to begin with???...this is f##'d up behaviour and don't tell me this girl was not traumatized by it.

You said about grooming and having relationships with a minor. But you forget this is a case where Brand hasn't been accused of being a pedophile and 16 is the age of consent. From the documentary it's clear her parents knew she was having relationship with him but probably they didn't approve.

And we really don't know all the details of what has happened si to speculate on what the BBC did it didn't isn't wise at this point.

He preyed/stalked her at a mall then took her to dinner without her parent's consent. He called her 'the child' 'baby' ... it's just sickening and just how could her parents get her away from him if they wanted since she is of legal age (yet a naive girl in the process of being groomed)? This is the girl's recounting of events.