Russell Brand is being accused of rape

[Tanz]

12 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

hat raises the issue of how were the women ever found if they never reported it? 

Its easy google, apple and the government have a list of people you've come in contact with.  We live in a surveillance state. They have a chain of all people you've met and have contact with, you don't have to be famous.  

[Danioover9000]

   I will likely wait and see if this whole thing is going official, I mean official investigation into the matter.

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

Just now, Tanz said:

Its easy google, apple and the government have a list of people you've come in contact with.  We live in a surveillance state. They have a chain of all people you've met and have contact with, you don't have to be famous.  

   Oh no, the evil surveillance state! How am I to privately change my clothes, the evil pervy politicians, when they've tapped into my computers and my phones?!? Sorry, in comparison to a user messaging me that my pic was used as masturbation material, there's little comparison. Surveillance systems are needed, given the big population numbers and density per state, cities and even counties and towns. FBI and other criminal investigation cases do rely on CCTV footages showing mass shootings, kidnappings, theft, or other bits of information to track offenders, so no realistically we still need a surveillance system in place, just like we need a strong robust moderation system in this forum.

   There's good reason why we sometimes need regulation systems in check. Please keep your anti establishment anti mainstream biases in check.

[Tanz]

23 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

spreading covid-19 misinformation, and shadow ban him from YouTube

He worded his language in a clever way.  He never offered his opinion on covid, but more on the minds of how people feel.  I don't feel he gave misinformation.  If so can you cite a clip with a timestamp?

More than likely it took them a while to track everyone down and get enough stuff.  

Who knows how deep this things goes....
 

13 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

There's good reason why we sometimes need regulation systems in check. Please keep your anti establishment anti mainstream biases in check.

You are pretty naive, data collection is extremely valuable.  At the least companies store data and sell them, its not far fetched that companies wont sell that information to data brokers or to the government or give it to them to get tax breaks any many other things.  
Here is a video of a guy in tech that talks about relationship map

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Tanz

[Yimpa]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

YT is pretty fickle.

This should come as no surprise.

https://killedbygoogle.com/

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

1 minute ago, Tanz said:

He worded his language in a clever way.  He never offered his opinion on covid, but more on the minds of how people feel.  I don't feel he gave misinformation.  If so can you cite a clip with a timestamp?

More than likely it took them a while to track everyone down and get enough stuff.  

Who knows how deep this things goes....
 

You are pretty naive, data collection is extremely valuable.  At the least companies store data and sell them, its not far fetched that companies wont sell to the government or give it to them to get tax breaks any many other things.  
Here is a video of a guy in tech that talks about relationship map

 

   That was what I was saying, that surveillance systems are needed, and you were saying the opposite of that. Yes data collection is important, but I don't know to what extent is it sold to other parties, or is just stored for future use. Obviously it's important, data collection of users or people, because, you know, if one person offends and does a criminal action, and the system has data on the one individual, can make tracking much quicker no?

[Tanz]

@Danioover9000 I'm making a point to @Jodistrict that its not hard for companies to have data on people and whom they came in contact with.  Finding people connected to Brand in the past isn't hard.

Surveillance can be helpful but equally that kind of power can be abused by people in power that can do more harm because they have so much power.  

 

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

2 minutes ago, Tanz said:

@Danioover9000 I'm making a point to @Jodistrict that its not hard for companies to have data on people and whom they came in contact with.  Finding people connected to Brand in the past isn't hard.

Surveillance can be helpful but equally that kind of power can be abused by people in power that can do more harm because they have so much power.  

 

   So one negative outweighs the positives of a system?

[Tanz]

9 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   So one negative outweighs the positives of a system?

I'm not sure if it is used for positive or not and to what extent.  If they had that kind of power, they would be able to find an authentic person whom wants to change things and we would have a better president than Biden.  
Its safe to say these companies and the government want to keep things the same.

I know people in law enforcement, why aren't they getting more calls of people molesting children?

If they are going at the velocity of going after Brand why not go after someone worst?
 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Tanz

[Bobby_2021]

YT has low Brand awareness.

 

[Bobby_2021]

If advertisers do not want to associated with rapists, then YT would remove them for obvious reasons.

He is most likely guilty. Just my first impressions here. I wish I am wrong. 

------

YT is just trying to save it's ass. There is a money issue and nothing more. They want to make it advertiser friendly and no one is cancelled. And he is not short on money anyway.

If YT had principles, which is too much to ask for a corporation, then they would wait until he was convicted. 

If they don't do anything, then they could get too much flack.

I agree with Leo that the government should come up with some protocol on how organizations should treat the accused until they are proven guilty. There are far too many situations like this happening and it is putting everyone involved in a dilemma. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Bobby_2021

[Leo Gura]

27 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If advertisers do not want to associated with rapists, then YT would remove them for obvious reasons.

But we don't know that he's a rapist yet.

And if it is YT's policy that rapists are not allowed to be YouTubers, then they should state so explicitly in their terms of service.

Imagine if you went to a grocery store and they told you: "Sorry, you raped someone 15 years ago, so no food for you."

The reason we have a legal system is to punish crime so that private businesses don't have to.

If Brand raped someone, let him go to prison. But nowhere is it written that the punishment for rape involves losing your YouTube channel.

What YouTube should police is the content of videos posted on YouTube, not outside behavior. If Brand was promoting rape on YouTube, then YT should rightly ban him. But he's not even close to doing that. This alleged rape occurred before YT even existed as a platform.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Alex M]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And if it is YT's policy that rapists are not allowed to be YouTubers, then they should state so explicitly in their terms of service.

I wonder if Mike Tyson is next in line. Or maybe YouTube's policy only relates to hearsay. Perhaps you should send the powers that be at YouTube a link to your Explicit vs. Implicit Understanding video. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Alex M

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Alex M said:

I wonder if Mike Tyson is next inline. Or maybe YouTubes policy only relates to hearsay.

In truth, YT's policy relates to public pressure and outrage. That is their one ultimate unstated policy: don't piss off the mob too much or you get canned.

But this opens the door for manipulation.

This is why the court system does not work based off mob rule. Court decisions are often not what the mob wants because justice requires careful evaluation of evidence. The evidence against Brand has not yet been carefully evaluated.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Alex M]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

In truth, YT's policy relates to public pressure and outrage. That is their one ultimate policy: don't piss off the mob too much or you get canned.

Of course, survival 101

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Alex M said:

Of course, survival 101

Bingo!

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

I'm not sure if it is used for positive or not and to what extent.  If they had that kind of power, they would be able to find an authentic person whom wants to change things and we would have a better president than Biden.  
Its safe to say these companies and the government want to keep things the same.

I know people in law enforcement, why aren't they getting more calls of people molesting children?

If they are going at the velocity of going after Brand why not go after someone worst?
 

   They did go after Mr. Girl, with the shady mass reporting by Those other streamers.

[Bobby_2021]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But we don't know that he's a rapist yet.

Mere association with one is enough to lose money. If you an actor who signed a deal for a movie which expects a few millions in revenue, then you are putting yourself in a position where you could lose that revenue. He is not convicted a rapist yet, but there is a 50% chance that he might be.

Do you accept a 50% chance of losing maybe half of your revenue? It is a huge risk from the side of the person signing the deal. Which is why they stepped back from the deal.

Brand is revenue. Tarnishing your brand is tarnishing revenue. ( I can't stop using this pun )

Corporations exists only to maximize their shareholder value. They are not interested in Truth.

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And if it is YT's policy that rapists are not allowed to be YouTubers, then they should state so explicitly in their terms of service.

He is still allowed to be a youtuber. Just that you cannot make money off of his content.

And you cannot dictate the TOS of a private company. Unless you are a shareholder of course. All shareholders will say is to keep making more money.

All social media company has the same TOS. We can ban or demonetize anyone, anytime we want as we will not give reasoning whatsoever. That is their TOS. And you agree by signing up for it. 

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What YouTube should police is the content of videos posted on YouTube, not outside behavior. If Brand was promoting rape on YouTube, then YT should rightly ban him. But he's not even close to doing that. This alleged rape occurred before YT even existed as a platform

I do agree with you. But YT is not willing to bet on him not being a rapist. It is a risky bet. 

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Mere association with one is enough to lose money. If you an actor who signed a deal for a movie which expects a few millions in revenue, then you are putting yourself in a position where you could lose that revenue. He is not convicted a rapist yet, but there is a 50% chance that he might be.

Do you accept a 50% chance of losing maybe half of your revenue? It is a huge risk from the side of the person signing the deal. Which is why they stepped back from the deal.

Brand is revenue. Tarnishing your brand is tarnishing revenue. ( I can't stop using this pun )

Corporations exists only to maximize their shareholder value. They are not interested in Truth.

He is still allowed to be a youtuber. Just that you cannot make money off of his content.

And you cannot dictate the TOS of a private company. Unless you are a shareholder of course. All shareholders will say is to keep making more money.

All social media company has the same TOS. We can ban or demonetize anyone, anytime we want as we will not give reasoning whatsoever. That is their TOS. And you agree by signing up for it. 

I do agree with you. But YT is not willing to bet on him not being a rapist. It is a risky bet. 

   Yep, similar thing happened to Mr. Girl, due to the mass reporting against him.

[Bobby_2021]

I will tell you a short story. A friend of mine got a job in a top tech company. He later posted in twitter that women are hired in tech companies due to diversity quotas, or something like that. A bunch of his classmates reported his posts to the company and they dropped his offer. He is barely 22 years of age.

You can make a case for Truth that companies should not dictate what happens in real life. But corporations do not want to be associated with stuff like these. Bad reputation can come back to bite them in their ass. And we cannot dictate what they want to be associated with.

Their revenue is associated with their reputation. Clients go for the companies with good reputation. You cannot blame them for their own internal decisions. They do as they are told by their shareholders; aka follow the money. They would not want to engage in a stupid risk.

-------------

What Brand should do is to not give a fuck. Normalize being called a rapist that it does not become a bad mark on his name. If people buy into that and see that as normal, then they may not demonetize him. 

Governments should clear up some protocol. But even if they need to come in power, they need to appease all these people. Any party that says the accused rapists should be treated as innocent and normal citizens would be shamed for "supporting the rapists" party as the opposition. This reputation thing goes deep.