Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. There's simply very little of substance here.
latest examples would be the bud light and target fiascos
I think the point stands in the abstract. It doesn't even matter for him specifically, because there are people whose income is primarily/entirely from YouTube.
And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income.
If your sole source of income comes from YouTube, a private enterprise you freely chose to contract and enter into a binding agreement with which affords them the right to do this, then this is a risk you run.
Brand, like everyone, is free to monetise his content on platforms with different perspectives on acceptable creator conduct, or to monetise his content directly. The specific transaction which he is entering into with YouTube is that he will benefit from their large audience viewing his videos, and if people watch those videos, YouTube and he will benefit from advertising running against the videos. Brand does not have any de facto right to broadcast to YouTube's audience, which I would imagine they consider to be proprietary and valuable -- exactly the sort of thing you wouldn't want, for example, associating your brand with individuals credibly accused of rape.
> And so we should appreciate what a serious action that is, to turn it off. It's not like it's just play money, that we can pretend it doesn't matter. It's real income.
It's a serious course of action but that does not mean it's unfair on Brand. He was already warned when he -- a standup comedian with identical bona fides to a goldfish -- espoused discredited unscientific nonsense during COVID. It was fair then, and it's fair now.
He could get banned from all social media and he would still be able to support himself.
Any party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent to the transaction at any time with or without cause.
If you are a programmer and you work for me and I fire you, I have not destroyed your ability to support yourself. I've only removed your ability to do business with me.
Freedom of association is powerful and important.
Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.
In most places in the US you can lose your livelihood for any reason or no reason at all, safe for protected classes.
I’d rather see this energy be used to end fire at will and protect employees in general from losing their livelihood on a whim than to use this to pander to celebrities with questionable pasts under the guise of “it could happen to you!”
They didn't saw off his hands, they demonetized him. He can go do stage shows or wash dishes or something if he wants to eat. He's famous and popular, he has a million ways of making an income.
People are acting like YouTube robbed him of something he was owed. They did no such thing.
There are times it is very difficult to not be inflammatory on hacker news. Statements like this saying some new precedent is being set are are wild. Like have we even been on the same planet up till this point levels of cognitive dissonance.
Last week if the local paper would have written an article about one of one your co-workers being accused of sexual assault on a minor, and that the company "released them from duties the next day", you would have told me "Oh, that's the way it's always been, you don't want a rapist working for the company". In any right to work state accusations of impropriety are enough to terminate work contracts, end of story. But suddenly someones golden cow got tarnished and now we want something done?
> Anonymous allegations
The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same thing as an anonymous allegation. The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand.
> from more than a decade ago
Utterly irrelevant.
> procured by a fishing reporter
It's unclear what you mean by this. I can't find anything in any of the stories which suggests that the journalists simply began investigating him hoping to find a story or promulgate the misapprehension that he is a rapist. In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation.
> should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves
Suspension without pay is extremely common whilst investigations of serious misconduct in or outside of the workplace are carried out, but even if that weren't the case: YouTube is not Brand's employer, he chooses to publish on their platform [presumably] knowing the terms of service, and is not beholden to YouTube as his only source of income. After he was "censored" by YouTube during COVID for espousing inane conspiratorial drivel, he began posting on a service called "Rumble", not to mention the royalties and residuals he still receives from his previous work and of course not forgetting his option to use one of his myriad other platforms (or indeed YouTube's, if it's within the ToS) to encourage his brainless fans to remunerate him directly or via other means.
> This is absurd
Even your straw man retelling of this situation is fairly benign-seeming.
> this is tyrannical
Lol.
> Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor.
You could be forgiven for not knowing this if you get all of your news from Elon and Russell Brand, but it is absolutely the de facto standard in journalism to protect the identity of individuals with a mixture of actors and altered voices. If you watch the Channel 4 documentary you will note that at times they use the real people, with altered voices, and at times they use actors.
None of this undermines the credibility of the reporting or the accusations, and -- again -- the identities of the individuals in the reporting are known to both the journalists and Brand, and the police know the identity of the _further_ individual who came forward in light of the allegations to make _another_ accusation.
It is only rational to wait for proper processes play out.
It’s sad that such a thing has become politicized where one has to feel the need to tar and feather someone at the first reporting of accusations and any dissent of immediate overreactions is dismissed as conspiratorial or itself motivated by a distasteful political agenda or merely getting their information from unclean sources.
Is the implication that majority of cases or a large enough minority have been flat out wrong? If yes, then please cite your source.
This is an illusory rebuttal. You seem to be insinuating that history shows there to be a significant chance that these accusations will be "far less" than the initial reporting "or flat out wrong", without providing any evidence in support of your claim.
> Your deference to the professionalism of journalism is about a decade or two out of touch with modern reality.
Here is a list of all the times I mentioned "journalism" or "journalists" in my post which you replied to. I would be grateful if you would enumerate which makes you think I am affording undue deference to the profession, bearing in mind that OP is suggesting that the media concocted this story and that the use of "actors" in its retelling is somehow evidence of its incredibility:
1. "[These are not anonymous allegations.] The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand."
2. "I can't find anything in any of the stories which suggests that the journalists simply began investigating him hoping to find a story or promulgate the misapprehension that he is a rapist."
3. "In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation."
4. "it is absolutely the de facto standard in journalism to protect the identity of [the victims of serious crimes] with a mixture of actors and altered voices."
> It is only rational to wait for proper processes play out.
I'm sorry if you thought I was suggesting that "proper processes" were not playing out. In fact, I believe that private businesses which entered into contractual relationships with Brand are free to use the rights those contracts afford them to distance themselves from him, given the seriousness of the allegations against him.
> It’s sad that such a thing has become politicized
It isn't political except to say that the people defending Brand appear to be, overwhelmingly, fringe and far right figures who espouse similarly discredited views and are now joining dots which most of us don't see: this is not an endorsement of Brand's guilt, but Occam's Razor suggests that a man who bragged for decades about his relentless and at times violent sexual appetites, and who is accused of rape by multiple independent accusers with – again – reams of evidence _including a series of messages from Brand in which he appears to apologise for raping one of them_ is, simply, a rapist who happens to have the same nonsense views as a lot of those supporting him.
> one has to feel the need to tar and feather someone at the first reporting of accusations and any dissent of immediate overreactions is dismissed as conspiratorial
If you believe that the credibility of investigative journalism is in some way undermined by the use of actors to protect the identities of victims, or that a decade passing between the alleged crimes and the victims coming forward is suggestive of anything other than it being very, very scary and humiliating to come to terms with and be open about being raped, then you deserve to be dismissed in the harshest possible terms. It's simply another conspiracy theory masquerading in a not-very-compelling disguise.
> or itself motivated by a distasteful political agenda or merely getting their information from unclean sources.
That's what it boils down to, though. Assuming, for example, that you do not believe the earth to be flat, you have to rationalise and account for the fact that there are people who do sincerely believe it to be. My armchair assessment of such individuals is that they are probably somewhat predisposed to such beliefs (in my experience it's a rare thing to find a conspiracy theorist who believes just _one_… for example OP seems to be supporting Brand's discredited fringe theories about big pharma, and now believes the equally inane and vanishingly unlikely theory that Brand is being falsely accused in order to silence him), but also that their faith in the public institutions which overwhelmingly do more good than harm (serious news organisations, public bodies such as NIH and the WHO, colleges, etc.) has been eroded to the point where they seek out laughably ill-informed "news" sources like Brand and Rogan.
> In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation.
When I Google ‘why is Russell Brand being investigated now’ I get this in one of the first results[0]:
> The women said that they only felt ready to tell their stories after being approached by reporters, with some citing Brand's newfound prominence as an online wellness influencer as a factor in their decision to speak.
This directly contradicts what you said, and I can see why others think you’re giving deference to the media. If you have a source for your claim I’d be glad to revise my stance.
I don’t know what the truth of the matter is, but after hearing Russell Brand admit openly to a lot of gross stuff, it seems like he’s not trying to hide anything here. I’ve also seen accounts from other women who have completely different stories about how he did not mistreat them (and they spoke openly without having actresses speak for them).
All that to say, it’s still way too early to say anything one way or the other. But blindly trusting that the media has no agenda seems unwise.
[0]: https://time.com/6315326/u-k-police-urged-to-investigate-sex...
Inane beyond belief.
> and are making a lot of claims
Just for fun, here's an unabridged list of the "claims" I made in the post you replied to:
1. That the parent did not provide any evidence in support of their claims.
2. That I believe YouTube is correct in its treatment of Brand.
3. That the people supporting Brand appear to be overwhelmingly fringe and far right figures who espouse similar views.
4. That the credibility of investigative journalism is in no way undermined by the protection of sources.
5. That OP seems to be supporting Brand's discredited conspiracy theories about big pharma.
Which of these do you think requires substantiation?
> one of your claims was […]
You then go on to quote something which specifically begins with "[the journalists report] seems to insinuate…".
This is obviously entirely subjective, but if you've read the report you'll recall the following:
1. This was a 2-3 year long investigation,
2. The then-16 year old Brand is accused of having groomed approached his publishers _independently_ of the journalists in 2020 seeking an apology for his behaviour, and was rebuffed,
3. The journalists then approached the publishers in 2023 and after investigation they severed ties with him and apologised.
The wording The Times used was very careful and I believe, based on my subjective experience of knowing a handful of investigative journalists very well, that in a situation where the then-16 year old girl approached the journalists and instigated the investigation they carried out, she would be protected in exactly this manner.
Investigative journalism, like police work, does not begin with the aim of taking someone down. Sources, tips, rumours, and allegations are investigated.
But let's say for a second that I grant you these women were approached by the journalists, rather than coming forward. You still have all your work ahead of you to explain how the journalists managed to find the handful of people willing to fake reams of evidence (again: text messages from Brand, or someone using his telephone number, apologising for raping someone; the 16 year old girl's family on the record as having witnessed his predation; the woman he allegedly raped having both worked with him and having sought emergency medical care and months of therapy as a rape victim) about this specific man whilst not receiving anything in return: they are not selling their story to a tabloid for 5 minutes of fame, their identities have been protected both because it affords them a degree of privacy in the face of humiliating allegations (and the vitriol of conspiracy theorists online), and because it lends them credibility as people not seeking payment.
Let's say that the journalists began investigating Brand after they overheard someone in a pub saying "I heard Russell Brand dated a 16 year old at one point". This does not undermine the credibility of the reporting, or the alleged victims' testimony, or in any way justify the comment I was replying to, which suggested that specifically because the anonymity of the alleged victims was protected, the reporting is not credible.
So for the purposes of this discussion let's say that yes, the journalists approached the girls. What difference does it make? How in any way does that give undue deference to the journalists?
> This directly contradicts what you said
It does not. I read this, and it is incorporated into my perspective that it is likely the then-sixteen year old approached the journalists.
> I don’t know what the truth of the matter is, but after hearing Russell Brand admit openly to a lot of gross stuff, it seems like he’s not trying to hide anything here.
I don't purport to be a master logician or anything, but if you sincerely believe that the alleged perpetrator's perceived transparency about "a lot of gross stuff" goes any way towards impugn multiple independently corroborated accusations with documentary evidence, then I think we're probably done here. Do you know of many rapists who have publicly confessed to their crimes unbidden?
What a completely fatuous line of thought.
> I’ve also seen accounts from other women who have completely different stories about how he did not mistreat them (and they spoke openly without having actresses speak for them).
Just so I have this straight: there are women Brand did not mistreat who are willing to speak without having their identities protected, and you think that this diminishes the credibility of the several women claiming that Brand _did_ sexually assault them?
Simple question: do you understand why it is de rigueur for the privacy of the victims of sexual assault to be protected during broadcasts? I don't mean to be rude but saying "women he didn't mistreat don't hide their names!" to refute the testimony of alleged rape victims too upset or afraid to have their identities made public is perhaps the stupidest thing anyone, anywhere, has ever said.
I agree, but that isn't enough. The presumption of innocence is important. In the unlikelihood of a trial even more so.
> seemingly overwhelming evidence
Things aren't always what they seem, and sometimes they are.
>Utterly irrelevant.
I disagree. It's relevant to me. It's not absolution, but it's relevant.
Here's why in general terms: NSVRC estimates that 63% of all sexual assaults are not reported to the police. You likely know the reasons for this, but just in case: fear of not being believed, low prosecution/conviction rates, frequently insurmountable burden of proof given the specific nature of most rapes, the fear of an extended criminal trial, victims blaming themselves or in some cases (including one of Brand's accusers) not wanting to admit that they were raped (easier when many violent sexual assaults are not the cartoon example of a man in a balaclava in the park, but someone you know and had previously trusted).
I presume that you accept that there are, in general, many women who are raped and simply do not come forward, and that the passing of time in such cases does not in any way diminish their claim?
More specifically, in California, the law reflects this uneasy reality for victims: from 2017 onwards, there is no statute of limitations on rape accusations. It's not possible for the criminal standard of proof to be changed to account for the fact that, axiomatically, rapes are difficult to prove, therefore the state grants an unlimited amount of time to come forward, which gives prosecutors the benefit of being able to build the most robust case possible.
Proving criminal actions beyond reasonable doubt literally means that the court/jurors find the evidence so compelling that no reasonable person could conclude anything other than guilt. And in a similar fashion, California's penal code seems designed to say that no reasonable person could find a decade passing between a rape and the victim coming forward as relevant to the credibility of the claims.
It's simply settled at this point: coming forward about a rape is a brutally unfair, hard, and thankless task. That's why the vast majority of victims do not come forward. That's why it's important that we understand what it means to "believe women": it doesn't mean that we abandon legal principles and convict men at the whim of their accusers, it means that we collectively create an environment in which the victims of serious, life-deranging, deeply personal, embarrassing, hard-to-prosecute crimes are not given yet another reason to do nothing by people who don't seem to understand that there are vastly fewer false accusations of rape than there are unreported ones. It needs to work the other way around.