General Russell Brand

[boogaloo]

Youtube have "demonetised" him................



Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore?

I must admit, this isn't a decision I'm overly happy with. Don't get me wrong, Russell Brand has never been funny, is a prize bell-end even even before these revelations came to light, and his conspiracy b*llocks that he continues to spout. And although the revelations do look pretty damning, the fact does remain that he hasn't been found guilty of any crime - yet. So why do YouTube feel the need to act as judge, jury and executioner? That plays right into the hand of the far-right.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I must admit, this isn't a decision I'm overly happy with. Don't get me wrong, Russell Brand has never been funny, is a prize bell-end even even before these revelations came to light, and his conspiracy b*llocks that he continues to spout. And although the revelations do look pretty damning, the fact does remain that he hasn't been found guilty of any crime - yet. So why do YouTube feel the need to act as judge, jury and executioner? That plays right into the hand of the far-right.

It also pushes the people who follow him into spending money to subscribe directly to his content on other platforms. It’s a massive flaw in the tendency that many people have to deplatform and demonetise people. Not only does it actually generate more revenue for the ‘creator’, it hardens the views of the people who support them because by funnelling them directly into a singular lane, they aren’t exposed to any opposing views or information sources.

Hard censorship almost never works. Debating and dismantling is far more effective - take some responsibility and invest some time and effort into promoting what you believe is right. Some people have made their minds up no matter what, but you lose those who you may have won over by shoving them into the echo chamber with your opponent.

 

[werthersoriginal]

It also pushes the people who follow him into spending money to subscribe directly to his content on other platforms. It’s a massive flaw in the tendency that many people have to deplatform and demonetise people. Not only does it actually generate more revenue for the ‘creator’, it hardens the views of the people who support them because by funnelling them directly into a singular lane, they aren’t exposed to any opposing views or information sources.

Hard censorship almost never works. Debating and dismantling is far more effective - take some responsibility and invest some time and effort into promoting what you believe is right. Some people have made their minds up no matter what, but you lose those who you may have won over by shoving them into the echo chamber with your opponent.

I’d have no problem if he was deplatformed for hate speech or offensive lies, but he’s being penalised for what are currently just allegations and unrelated to his work. It actually makes the platform Rumble, which is backed by pretty unsavoury individuals, look good as they are refusing to remove him.

 

[Scotchegg]

Surely any broadcaster has the right to choice who it broadcasts, and whether or not it pays them.

I know that it's on a hugely different scale, but let's say that Russell Brand was due to perform at the New Theatre, Oxford and they said that in light of the allegations they no longer felt able to give him a platform to perform. They'd be within their rights wouldn't they?

They would not be saying that the allegations are true, or prevent him from performing elsewhere.

And that's what YouTube have done.

 

[werthersoriginal]

Surely any broadcaster has the right to choice who it broadcasts, and whether or not it pays them.

I know that it's on a hugely different scale, but let's say that Russell Brand was due to perform at the New Theatre, Oxford and they said that in light of the allegations they no longer felt able to give him a platform to perform. They'd be within their rights wouldn't they?

They would not be saying that the allegations are true, or prevent him from performing elsewhere.

And that's what YouTube have done.

They’d be within their rights , of course, but I think holding a live show is different from retaining existing online content, or allowing income to come from it.

 

[chuckbert]

I’m sure people would be putting the boot into the BBC if he was a current BBC presenter and they didn’t take him off air. Why different for other broadcast channels?

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

I think it’s important to note that, as far as I’m aware, YouTube have only ‘demonetised’ him, rather than completely removing him from their platform.

However, it is worrying to see how many people are happy with someone being sanctioned for allegations. I wonder if they’d be the same if they were stopped earning income if accused of something. I suspect not…

 

[bashamwonderland]

He hasn't even been taken off YouTube. He's still allowed to create content and "broadcast" from their platform. They've literally just stopped his ad revenue (and cut his click payments for some reason) to protect against a backlash from risk averse advertisers.

YouTube is protecting its back. It doesn't care if he "broadcasts" from their platform

 

[Marston Road yellow]

Not a viewpoint, maybe more of a talking point.
Was jimmy saville ever convicted, is his body of television work available?

Should RB be cancelled, should he be allowed to keep his platform?

There is some evidence of him admitting on air that he had exposed himself 20 minutes earlier.

 

[SteMerritt]

He hasn't even been taken off YouTube. He's still allowed to create content and "broadcast" from their platform. They've literally just stopped his ad revenue (and cut his click payments for some reason) to protect against a backlash from risk averse advertisers.

YouTube is protecting its back. It doesn't care if he "broadcasts" from their platform

Which makes you wonder... Are YouTube still placing adverts on his output, and if so, considering the news coverage I'd expect his videos to be generating more views (and ad impressions) than usual, where is that money going? YouTube keeping it?

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I’d have no problem if he was deplatformed for hate speech or offensive lies, but he’s being penalised for what are currently just allegations and unrelated to his work. It actually makes the platform Rumble, which is backed by pretty unsavoury individuals, look good as they are refusing to remove him.

This is the problem, and it’s far wider than this muppet with the silly hair, who is really secondary to a much wider issue and conversation. Demonetisation pushes people away from the platform and towards some pretty undesirable alternatives, legitimatises and strengthens said alternatives while generating them significant revenue along the way, and hardens the position of the people who are now only ever going to hear one side because there is no rebuttal, no debate and no exchanging of ideas once they move there. If you force people who believe the same thing into a room and keep them locked away from everybody else, so that nobody can engage them while giving them licence to scream louder and louder into each other’s faces, you create extremism. Once there’s no money in it for somebody they’re going to find somewhere else to go, so demonetisation is as good as a ban in real terms. It’s the equivalent of stopping someone’s salary and then saying it was their decision to leave. What choice did they have?

Andrew Tate has become one of the most powerful and influential (and therefore dangerous) people in the world to those under a certain age, primarily because he was ostracised and black listed long before he was accused of anything, let alone charged. He was always going to have his fans and followers to some extent, that’s just what happens when someone has the ability to speak to other human beings whether it be on a website or in the pub, but now he’s a martyr to millions. The people who claim to oppose him the most have turned him from a Poundland Katie Hopkins into a phenomenon, and one of the most famous people on the planet. They’ve made a former Big Brother reject whose misogynistic, wannabe playboy bullshit would’ve been lucky to get five minutes on GB News in any other walk of life, into a God. His biggest detractors are too stupid to realise that they made him by allowing him to create his own world, free from challenge or accountability. Now he’s got an army that can’t be swayed, because they’ve been radicalised away from the rest of society.

For the most part I am about as centrist as you can get, which is why I often look at both “the left” and “the right” and think they’re equally f*****g stupid. Particularly when cancel culture and one of the many freaks and undesirables from Table 9 collide.

 

[tonyw]

Which makes you wonder... Are YouTube still placing adverts on his output, and if so, considering the news coverage I'd expect his videos to be generating more views (and ad impressions) than usual, where is that money going? YouTube keeping it?

I'm pretty sure they're not - and that all Brand's content on YouTube is now advert-free.

YouTube makes about $29 billion a year, and almost all of it is from advertising. But their revenues have been going down recently as they've got more competition from the likes of TikTok. For them, the prospect of losing advertisers to their competitors because those advertisers don't want their products being hawked during Brand's rantings is a risk not worth taking.

Demonetizing Brand looks to me like a straightforward business decision for YouTube, not a political one.
It's not so much an example of lefty cancel culture as an example of extremism not being sufficiently profitable......