De-tubing

[Gibbon]

Totally agree. If you looked at this policy with no current name in the frame it would be madness. Should you the platforms demonetarise someone for allegations? Big debate to be had but it's their choice. Should the gov get involved in de-platforming of someone based on an allegation? Absolutely not. On what basis? Passions run high when it's a certain person or certain actions which I get but that shouldn't trump law and policy just purely on how angry or upset people are.

Very worrying trend.

Agreed, the worst part is it wants to 'de-monetise' him for 'potentially illegal' behaviour. We have a supposedly independent legal system, so fecking hands off until found to be guilty, no matter how 'obvious' the guilt may seem. Look at Malkinson! In fact to be correct, nothing should be done until a Police investigation is started. Just think if your neighbour mouthed off on facebook that you had raped them and then you lost your job without the police even been called?


I'm in no way defending Mr Brand, but I firmly believe in blind justice and innocent until proved guilty no matter whom it may be.

[SueEllen]

Even if he's put on trial and found guilty there is nothing in our laws that forces platforms to take down content of his or not give him money for his content in the UK, unless the content itself is illegal.

There is an infamous 70s glam rock star whose content rarely but randomly comes on social media and TV. He's not paid for this because even where he owes the copyright, the content posters know he doesn't have the cash to sue them and he also doesn't want the publicity.

However there are less notorious ex-cons who do get money from social media and TV simply because their crimes, however horrible, aren't in the same sphere.

[northernladuk]

Must admit I flip-flop on the demonitising or deplatforming. Half of me thinks a company can chose to do that to protect reputation or possibly the public from halmful content, the other half thinks doing that to someone only alleged to have done something is wrong as he's done nothing illegal (so far). The final half thinks that whatever the previous two halves are the public anger and outcry means they've no choice to act so again, actions based on how angry people are and not what should be done.

Should they do it once he's found guilty is another discussion I guess.

Don't think they've much choice in this day and age but still doesn't feel right to do it at this point.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Not really seeing the tyranny here. They aren't telling the companies to do anything, they are asking for them to explain their position.

Youtube demonetised him for one reason, advertisers.

It has a portcullis letterhead its funded by the government.

Government is funded by Parliament, not the other way round.

[ladymuck]

Not really seeing the tyranny here. They aren't telling the companies to do anything, they are asking for them to explain their position.

Youtube demonetised him for one reason, advertisers.



Government is funded by Parliament, not the other way round.

And with that is the implication that they are expecting a certain outcome.

For sites such as YT, it will always be a commercial decision whether they allow a particular user and their content to remain.

[northernladuk]

Not really seeing the tyranny here. They aren't telling the companies to do anything, they are asking for them to explain their position.

Yes and no. When you get an official letter like this you tend to sit up and listen so maybe not telling them but it brings pressure to bear. And it's the principle they are even getting involved which is the problem, not the actual message, direct or implied.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Yes and no. When you get an official letter like this you tend to sit up and listen so maybe not telling them but it brings pressure to bear. And it's the principle they are even getting involved which is the problem, not the actual message, direct or implied.

Do you not think an MP, or group of MPs, might have questions about how and why someone is allowed to profit from 'drama' around sexual offence allegations? That's before you consider the manner in which that person responds.

You agree that censorship in general is needed to some degree. So it's a matter of finding the line. Yet now you're getting pissy that someone who is tasked with finding that line is looking into a controversial topic where the line might be.

[SueEllen]

Do you not think an MP, or group of MPs, might have questions about how and why someone is allowed to profit from 'drama' around sexual offence allegations? That's before you consider the manner in which that person responds.

You agree that censorship in general is needed to some degree. So it's a matter of finding the line. Yet now you're getting pissy that someone who is tasked with finding that line is looking into a controversial topic where the line might be.

Parliament is not a Court of Law.

So while parliament makes the laws they don't interpret and enforce them.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Parliament is not a Court of Law.

So while parliament makes the laws they don't interpret and enforce them.

Parliament is a Court of Law.

What law do you think they are enforcing here? Asking how streaming companies are managing the Brand situation is a valid line of inquiry for an MP who focuses on the media and censorship. Sure the wording isn't perfect, but you're all acting like Mrs Soprano MP said 'What a nice business you have here, be a shame if something happened to it...'

[NotAllThere]

It has a portcullis letterhead its funded by the government.

Funded by parliament. That is why it is able to be (in theory at least!) impartial.

Or do you truly believe the BBC (which most Tories hate) is funded by the government and therefore must kowtow to them!