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

a reply to: AlienBorg

Let's not assume it's man against women.

Though most rape allegations are made against men, women deal with child abuse allegations.

Something like 50% of child abuse investigations are found to be "unfounded" (not true). There's horror story after horror story of women getting their children taken away based on false allegations.

Look at what they are doing to Laura Brand - the media is basically calling her a monster because she has not left him yet. Is that "pro" woman.

You can't have a society where allegations are automatically considered true. This doesn't mean they are automatically considered false. Judgment and punishment need to be withheld until people had a chance to present evidence.

a reply to: AlienBorg

They actually accept he is guilty as charged in the media. That surely must be dealt legally.

That's not what their statement says, that's just your assumption.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: AlienBorg

What you moaning about ?

YouTube could have removed his channel if they wished. They haven't. He is still free to spout his nonsense.

Let's think about that:

1. They kept the channel up - so people seeing his videos do not hurt their eco system.
2. What they are saying is him receiving money hurts the eco system. How does Brand receiving money hurt people?

If they based their decision on four people coming forward they would stop all Trump and Biden ads too.

How can you say seeing his videos do not hurt people just him receiving money? BTW, money they get to keep!

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

They actually accept he is guilty as charged in the media. That surely must be dealt legally.

That's not what their statement says, that's just your assumption.

Not an assumption but a reality.
They have reacted almost immediately after these allegations were made and they acted upon these allegations.

Either someone isn't able to see this or they're trying to defend YouTube.

They have been hammered by other media for this course of action.

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: AlienBorg

What you moaning about ?

YouTube could have removed his channel if they wished. They haven't. He is still free to spout his nonsense.

Let's think about that:

1. They kept the channel up - so people seeing his videos do not hurt their eco system.
2. What they are saying is him receiving money hurts the eco system. How does Brand receiving money hurt people?

If they based their decision on four people coming forward they would stop all Trump and Biden ads too.

How can you say seeing his videos do not hurt people just him receiving money? BTW, money they get to keep!

Their action is indefensible.
First of all they're saying he is guilty and punish him for it.

Everyone can see what's going on unless someone is a denialist.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: alldaylong
It's really worrying you find the actions by YouTube legitimate and justified and you think Brand is guilty because of the recent media trials.

It is unsurprising that marxists and their ilk enjoy reading about and supporting this kind of censorship.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: quintessentone

she does everything he tells her to do (can't think for herself?)

Ah, I'd really love to see you discuss that with a bunch of 16 year old teens.
That's pretty much the epitome of the issue adults keeping kids naive and naive teens wanting to be adults....

he buys her presents (buying her?)

Like I said, women set the price, not men! And behave like a slut get treated like one.

Those dynamics are consensual and the sickness of it only become apparent after the remorse sets in.

Blaming the other is simple, but it takes two to tango.

Generalizing all 16 year olds, they are not all the same.

Naive teens wanting to be adults, keep with their friends, in a sort of learning together scenario...not hiding their life from their friends and family because a guy told them to.

The dynamics are called 'grooming' and it's the same thing Epstein did with those young girls...it's how it's done to manipulate young naive girls to do what you want. Predatory dynamics at play.

Yes, grooming, it's what the trans community is doing to little kids. My God, you keep tripping over the truth, eventually, you might smash your face into it and have some of it sink in.

Based ^

And yes grooming can happen on some occasions and how absurd is to go after Brand when they turn a blind eye to the trans community...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: alldaylong
It's really worrying you find the actions by YouTube legitimate and justified and you think Brand is guilty because of the recent media trials.

It is unsurprising that marxists and their ilk enjoy reading about and supporting this kind of censorship.

That's for sure!

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

If it's true off course I support it, but without evidence they can make up any allegations that they want in order to be 'justified' to silence someone who's speech they don't agree with.

originally posted by: ancientlight

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

If it's true off course I support it, but without evidence they can make up any allegations that they want in order to be 'justified' to silence someone who's speech they don't agree with.

This guy did all the predatory behavior moves, to a tee:

www.icmec.org...

a reply to: nickyw

Do they say why the results appear so abysmal?

Cases are not taken to court if they do not have enough information to prosecute.

He said, she said, among those of the age of consent without any evidence, is likely not to go to court.

Spousal reports of rape without evidence or a restraining order, is likely not go to court. Damning evidence such as video, text, or emails, may interfere with a case going to court.

Many of the cases are not cut and dry. The older the report the more likely it will not make it to court. Memories can be faulty and the longer it takes to report, and the level of trauma experienced, may also be a problem getting a case to court.

It is not that the cases are being ignored, it is because to get a case to court, they have to have something to work with.

a reply to: quintessentone''

Again, you are assuming because someone said it, it has to be true.

Factually you are wrong.

False allegations are made and while the majority are true, there are still enough false allegations that you can't assume truth!

Do you know who makes false allegations? Abusers! False allegations are a form of abuse - they are extreme economic and psychological abuse.

I'm going to say it-

False allegations are as harmful as sexual abuse. Not that sexual abuse isn't horrific but I would say false allegations do as much harm to a person.

At it's core, sexual abuse is about power and dehumanizing your victim.

This is EXACTLY what false allegations due to a person - it's about using power to dehumanize and degrade someone.

originally posted by: Daughter2
I'm going to say it-

False allegations are as harmful as sexual abuse. Not that sexual abuse isn't horrific but I would say false allegations do as much harm to a person.

At it's core, sexual abuse is about power and dehumanizing your victim.

This is EXACTLY what false allegations due to a person - it's about using power to dehumanize and degrade someone.

Well the allegations are coming in from many people not just these four women.

a reply to: quintessentone

How many have gone to the police with their allegations?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: quintessentone

How many have gone to the police with their allegations?

It only takes one and the proper police investigation of all allegations.

a reply to: quintessentone

You said allegations are coming in from 'many people' not just the four women.

Do you have a link that shows more than the one in your last link?

This guy did all the predatory behavior moves, to a tee:

a reply to: quintessentone


Being a predator isn't a crime......

a reply to: AlienBorg



Because this thread is almost exclusively about the current allegations surriounding the guy.

If you wanted to use that document agaionst Youtube in court you would have to provide proof that it is about the sex assault stuff, feelz don't cut it in court.

I remember way back in 2021 when people would say that since there was no court case that proved election fraud, then it didn't happen.

My, how times have changed over the many, many months.