Reply to: De-tubing

[NotAllThere]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2419237.html

Multi-Millionaire Russell Brand has urged his followers to support him financially by paying a subscription fee ...

I think there was a word missing from the article. I've added it.

[SueEllen]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2419237.html

Russell Brand has urged his followers to support him financially by paying a subscription fee on a video platform popular with right-wing streamers.
The comedian’s appeal for subscribers on Rumble came in a live stream just hours after the Metropolitan Police said it had opened an investigation into a “number of allegations of sexual offences” it had received against Brand in London as well as elsewhere in the country.

Russell Brand has urged his followers to support him financially by paying a subscription fee on a video platform popular with right-wing streamers.

The comedian’s appeal for subscribers on Rumble came in a live stream just hours after the Metropolitan Police said it had opened an investigation into a “number of allegations of sexual offences” it had received against Brand in London as well as elsewhere in the country.

Brand has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame and working for the BBC, Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films, following a joint investigation by The Times, Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches.

The allegations saw YouTube block Brand from making money via advertising on his channel, which has 6.6 million followers, saying he had violated the platform’s policies.

He has repeatedly denied all allegations, insisting that his relationships have always been consensual.

Brand addressed his followers on Rumble on Monday shortly after the Met Police statement was issued. He urged them to become paying subscribers to his channel at an annual cost of $60 (£49).

"You now know that I have been demonetised on YouTube... fully well aware that the government wrote to social media platforms to demand that I be further censored," he said during the live broadcast, an apparent reference to a letter written not by the government but rather by the chair of a parliamentary committee. In it, Dame Caroline Dinenage asks if Rumble will be following in YouTube’s example and cutting Brand off from advertising revenues.


Russell Brand has urged his followers to support him financially by paying a subscription fee on a video platform popular with right-wing streamers.

The comedian’s appeal for subscribers on Rumble came in a live stream just hours after the Metropolitan Police said it had opened an investigation into a “number of allegations of sexual offences” it had received against Brand in London as well as elsewhere in the country.

Brand has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame and working for the BBC, Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films, following a joint investigation by The Times, Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches.

The allegations saw YouTube block Brand from making money via advertising on his channel, which has 6.6 million followers, saying he had violated the platform’s policies.


He has repeatedly denied all allegations, insisting that his relationships have always been consensual.

Brand addressed his followers on Rumble on Monday shortly after the Met Police statement was issued. He urged them to become paying subscribers to his channel at an annual cost of $60 (£49).

"You now know that I have been demonetised on YouTube... fully well aware that the government wrote to social media platforms to demand that I be further censored," he said during the live broadcast, an apparent reference to a letter written not by the government but rather by the chair of a parliamentary committee. In it, Dame Caroline Dinenage asks if Rumble will be following in YouTube’s example and cutting Brand off from advertising revenues.

Rumble rejected the suggestion from Dame Caroline and posted its response online. "Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission," Rumble chief executive Chris Pavlovski said.

"We emphatically reject the UK parliament's demands."

Brand joined Rumble in September 2022, after receiving repeated warnings from YouTube over his mostly Covid-related videos. He claimed Rumble was a better platform for his content, as it advertises looser restrictions and a steadfast “resist censorship” ethos.

[gables]

Well at least one good thing came out of this thread, cheers DoctorStrangelove :-)

[DoctorStrangelove]

There was no debanking scandal. There was a grifter grifting.

Everyone knows Big Pharma is a thing, everyone knows that politicians are more often than not varying degrees of corrupt. Everyone knows that Governments engage in shady tulip in the name of national security.

That's not the same as 'There is microchips in vaccines!!!'

[JustKeepSwimming]

which of these Muslims was grifting?

https://www.newarab.com/news/explain...being-targeted

ooh that Gina Miller is a bit dodgy

https://www.theguardian.com/business...unts-every-day


who mentioned vaccines oh yes you...

https://www.ft.com/content/89610303-...2-64dd98e5c4d7

The fact that the Muslim is suing, yes I think its fair to say he is grifting.

Miller political party account was closed as Monzo does not allow any political party accounts.

No one denied that accounts are closed. People just dispute your irrational theories that its some mass conspiracy.

[vetran]

There was no debanking scandal. There was a grifter grifting.

Everyone knows Big Pharma is a thing, everyone knows that politicians are more often than not varying degrees of corrupt. Everyone knows that Governments engage in shady tulip in the name of national security.

That's not the same as 'There is microchips in vaccines!!!'

which of these Muslims was grifting?

https://www.newarab.com/news/explain...being-targeted

ooh that Gina Miller is a bit dodgy

https://www.theguardian.com/business...unts-every-day


who mentioned vaccines oh yes you...

[JustKeepSwimming]

Well after the debanking scandal one does wonder. Don't forget the thousands of Police officers who should have been sacked years ago, the babies killed and died because of incompetence and the government workers that spend their time zipping themselves up in bags alone or slitting their wrists in the woods. We should question such things as our government has been caught with dirty hands repeatedly.

I dislike Brand with a passion but cannot really support him being treated unreasonably. Though covering his groin in honey and burying him a fire ant colony looks pretty reasonable to me.

There was no debanking scandal. There was a grifter grifting.

Everyone knows Big Pharma is a thing, everyone knows that politicians are more often than not varying degrees of corrupt. Everyone knows that Governments engage in shady tulip in the name of national security.

That's not the same as 'There is microchips in vaccines!!!'

[vetran]

You don't see why advertisers don't want to be associated with Brand?

You don't see why Youtube would act to please advertisers?

You don't see why an MP (or many others) don't like the idea of Brand profiting from even accusations of a crime? Even if he is innocent, the whole 'Deep state is out to get me' is damaging to society.

Well after the debanking scandal one does wonder. Don't forget the thousands of Police officers who should have been sacked years ago, the babies killed and died because of incompetence and the government workers that spend their time zipping themselves up in bags alone or slitting their wrists in the woods. We should question such things as our government has been caught with dirty hands repeatedly.

I dislike Brand with a passion but cannot really support him being treated unreasonably. Though covering his groin in honey and burying him a fire ant colony looks pretty reasonable to me.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Also ad revenue is generally a minority of a creators income. Especially someone like Brand who will routinely have videos demonistised, like the anti-vax 'discussions'.

[SueEllen]

I just don't understand how stopping his revenue actually fixes anything. Just a principle thing.

Yes to protect their greater ecosystem.

They will also hide his stuff through their algorithm so unless you subscribe you won't accidentality come across it. Rememberthey share advertising revenue with the content creators.

You are aware if TikTok don't like a creators content they use their algorithm to hide it?

Basically all social media sites have ways of hiding content so unless you have a habit of live streaming on their platform, they don't need to ban you from it.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I just don't understand how stopping his revenue actually fixes anything. Just a principle thing.

You don't see why advertisers don't want to be associated with Brand?

You don't see why Youtube would act to please advertisers?

You don't see why an MP (or many others) don't like the idea of Brand profiting from even accusations of a crime? Even if he is innocent, the whole 'Deep state is out to get me' is damaging to society.

[northernladuk]

One assumes if the allegations are unfounded (might be possible) he can sue them for loss of earnings/breach of contract?

I suspect the wording of the terms are so wooly they can use any reason they want to remove the ads so any action is unlikely to work.

If his content hasn't been taken down then where is the money going?

They've turned off adverts to no money being generated.

I just don't understand how stopping his revenue actually fixes anything. Just a principle thing.

[JustKeepSwimming]

One assumes if the allegations are unfounded (might be possible) he can sue them for loss of earnings/breach of contract?

If his content hasn't been taken down then where is the money going?

Youtube just doesn't run ads (or they run cheap limited ads from advertisers who don't really care). It's not some kind of punishment, it's to prevent cascade effect of advertisers withdrawing from youtube because their brand is being associated with something they don't like. In 2017 there was a widescale advertiser boycott against youtube which made them tighten up.

Funny enough, several big companies have pulled their adverts from Rumble because they don't want to be associated with all this.

What youtube has done is absolutely in line with their current attitude/policy on demonetisation, including allegations/defence of criminality which don't have the political scope as Brand's.

[vetran]

One assumes if the allegations are unfounded (might be possible) he can sue them for loss of earnings/breach of contract?

If his content hasn't been taken down then where is the money going?

[northernladuk]

YouTube have their own terms and conditions which every content creator accepts when they sign up with them. He breached those so they turned around and said you can't make money of your content. They haven't taken his content down which they can do in other situations.
.

This is true but it would be interesting to know what he's breached. He's not been legally charged with anything, just all the accusations. I assume the terms have some wooly term is like 'actions that would bring harm, distress or reputational damage to youtube' or something that would allow them to pull it just based on the anger and upset of some people.

EDIT:-

Ah
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youtube...t-allegations/

"If creators have off-platform behavior, or there's off-platform news that could be damaging to the broader creator ecosystem, you can be suspended from our monetization program,

Goes on to talk about sparking a debate about the policies which is totally understandable. If it was damaging the broader creator ecosystem should they not take his account down, not just stop his revenues?

That said, as you say, at the end of the day it's YouTube's call whether anyone else thinks it's right or wrong.