If that were happening you'd be right! But the good news is, since apparently you haven't read or understood the link you're commenting on, neither X, nor the politicians in question, is doing that.
Or put another way: the premise you lead with is false. Try again.
> Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian.
In addition to the article linked within the article that details the letter Dame Dinenage sent to other platforms asking whether they would demonetize him, with the implication it was the governments strong preference. Consider whether your comments improve the discourse or undermine it.
> Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system itself. It's a thumb on the scale. These people believe in nothing.
Is supported by this citation:
> Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian.
You said:
> cutting them off from their ability to make money
What happened:
> expressing apprehensions
Consider whether your comments reflect reality or undermine it ;)
is not how the uk courts work(ed) thats what legal aid is for. granted in practice now its not the case, but for any crown court there is still legal aid for most cases.
An alternative: let's send the defendant to public housing before they head to court. They'll still have a roof over their head!
If you read the letter and believe that the government is requesting, or that X and Rumble are agreeing to, the de-monetisation of Brand's content, then we should address a reading comprehension challenge. If you can see that this -- "preemptively cutting someone's livelihood" -- is definitely not happening, then I would encourage you to more precisely convey what you mean, because this attempt almost perfectly expresses the opposite of reality.