YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money off his channel — The suspension comes following the publication of rape and sexual assault allegations against the British star::YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.

  • ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you ever get accused of a crime, your whole life should be cancelled as a precautionary measure /s

    • DrZoidbergYes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another way this could be phrased is - Following serious allegations of rape and sexual assaults advertiser’s do not wish to be associated with Russell Brand so YouTube stops showing their adverts on his channel

      • Aghast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But why can’t those advertisers just block him as an individual?

        We are now in a world where accusations now result in a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

        No need for YouTube to blanketly make the decisions for all advertisers

        • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is how advertising works. Advertisers do not want to be responsible for vetting every placement, part of what the publisher is being paid for in “run-of-site” / “run-of-network” advertising is curation of ad-adjacent content.

        • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s nothing stopping him getting his own advertising on his channel, he hasn’t been banned from YouTube.

          • Aghast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why does Google have to restrict which form of advertising he needs to use?

            By confining him to certain types of advertising, it makes him less appealing to advertisers.

            What if these accusations end up being false? I’m not losing sleep over Russell Brand losing money but if we hold the same logic it could damage smaller entities that can’t afford it.

            We see this with channels like the Armchair historian. Google demonitized that channel just because they had Nazi flags in a historical context when talking about WWII.

            Another case could be made for anyone who wants to defame another individual. If someone doesn’t like management for a local restaurant that advertises on YouTube, someone can just say “I heard from several people you had rats in your restaurant” or “I heard you had racist employees in your restaurant”. We now live in a world where just the allegation is enough to damage an entity, regardless of if it is based in fact.

            • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In this instance it isn’t just an allegation though - one of the women has evidence she went to a rape crisis centre on the same day, which Channel 4 was able to confirm with the centre, and text messages from Brand on the same day where he apologised for his rape.

              Why would Google continue to profit from his actions? That would be mental.

        • ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

          We only saw this with Amber Heard. Speaking of simping, Depp had an army of incels and “men’s rights” douchers behind him from the get go. Anyone who had any objective comments about that whole case would get chewed out and brigaded by a bunch of insecure woman beaters standing up for poor little Johnny Depp. The worst was how everyone acted like they knew both of their lives inside and out, and they really believed that they were experts on their situation because they watched livestreamed court proceedings. It is a great example, just in the opposite direction.

          • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just watched a documentary about it which made Depp look pretty bad. I still believe he was more of a victim than her.

            Why in the fuck do you people think you can ignore the recording of her taunting him about how no one would believe him and then what a FUCKING PUSSY she kept calling him? The evidence she’s a huge piece of shit is there. Him too to a degree, but she’s at another level. He lost part of his finger. Can’t fake that shit.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is, he isn’t cancelled.

      Nobody who can say they are cancelled actually are cancelled, because if they were actually cancelled you wouldn’t hear anything from then.

      Anyway, he still is allowed to post Youtube videos, just doesn’t get money from Google for them.

      • CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “nobody who can say they were cancelled actually are cancelled” don’t you think that means you should redefine what “cancelled” means in your head?

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Russell Brand is a wealthy, famous Hollywood star who does not know who you are and will never give you the love you needed from your father.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have allowed yourself to become so cynical that the only reason you can conceive of for speaking up in another person’s defense is that it might be part of some psychological complex from childhood.

        • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Give me another reason to stand up for a famous hollywood star you know nothing real about, just a carefully and expensively crafted media persona.

          I’m all for a good discussion around the social implications of false accusations, but there’s an exceptional amounting of simping going on for one specific special boy.

          • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Aside from false accusations - how about tech monopolies (only beholden to profits/shareholders) being judge, jury and executioner?

            I think Brand is a narcissistic prick, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care how he’s treated by even bigger evils.

            • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I agree that capitalism is bad.

              But since we live in a capitalist country, I do my part as an informed consumer and I don’t use Google products.

              But this particular brand of whining about “big tech” is so stupid. Google risks losing advertisers. Google acts to not lose it’s advertisers. Cry a river that in a capitalist economy a business takes action to protect its income source.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, Brand has been executed by having his YouTube account demonetized. There’s no difference between not being paid by YouTube, but still being allowed to post videos, and being convicted of a crime. No difference whatsoever.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I stopped reading at the insult. This is not Reddit. If you can’t talk to me without insulting me, I’m not interested. I’ll just block you if it happens again. If you want to talk to me without the insults, fine.