Is free speech for everyone, including Russell Brand?

A platform can define its own conditions of payment

At the same time another platform might take advantage of gaining followers who don’t want that

Someone linked to an article on Rumble on an another thread. They state they will not do cancel culture

In the end the followers decide

I'm 10000% happy with a private organisation being allowed the freedom of speech to choose who they pay money to, because I believe in free speech.

That doesn’t make sense.

Paying money is not an expression of an idea or a form of speech.

Paying money is exercising power, not speaking.

Russell Brand, as part of the 1% elite establishment, as someone with a massive platform that dwarves that of any of his victims, is the one who holds all the power here.

You can attack and demonise women all you like, you can use all the doublethink and manipulation you want, you won' convince feminists that an extremely powerful establishment figure sexual predator is being unfairly censored just because a company doesn't want to pay him money for his views.

As a GC feminist I'm disgusted and alarmed by the push and agenda to align the far right with GC feminism (this has been discussed in Feminist Chat multiple times over the years), and to exploit GC believes to defend a credibly accused multiple rapist is utterly beyond the pale.

The question is: is this a healthy position to be in where a private organisation has so much arbitrary power over information.

Brand hasn't been banned from YouTube. He hasn't been banned or restricted or censored in any way from uploading videos to YouTube. He has total freedom to upload anything he likes to YouTube, same as anyone else.

Are you happy with both of those?
I'm 10000% happy with a private organisation being allowed the freedom of speech to choose who they pay money to, because I believe in free speech. I don't believe anyone should be compelled to hire someone or pay someone money, because that is very dangerous. Suppose I own a coffee shop that hires musicians to provide entertainment, if you have your way, I should be forced to hire a TRA to sing songs like "Punch a Terf in the Face" against my will!

I also strongly disagree with the idea that YouTube is uniquely powerful or has the monopoly. I don't know why people are pretending that YouTube owns the entire Internet or is the sole way for people to share opinions. TikTok has over a billion users per month. Vimeo and DailyMotion are both very popular within their own audience base. Twitter/X is massively influential and a huge global platform to disseminate your views. There are tons of alternative social media platforms specifically created for right wing audiences, which have powerful political figures like Trump advertising them.

There are many, many alternatives to YouTube.

But all of that is irrelevant since posters seem to want to pretend that Brand has been banned from YouTube or censored from YouTube, which he has not been. For the millionth time: There is absolutely nothing stopping Brand from uploading anything he likes to YouTube. He has not been banned or censored in any way.

Giving people recourse when they are arbitrarily exiled from the public square or denied significant income they’d taken a long time to build up, is not an infringement of the ‘rights’ of people with disproportionate power to be arbitrary and unfair.

This case is very much about Russell Brand @MalagaNights. But if you want to expand it, I am happy for YouTube to demonetise any sex offender.

Sexually assaulting women is not the same as having an opinion.

I’m much happier with YouTube being able to make decisions I disagree with, that not being able to make decisions at all.

Forcing private companies to pay to air certain views could just so easily go the other way of forcing private companies to ban the airing of certain views. I mean who would have control over it - the government? Thanks but no thanks.

I presume you are just as happy for YouTube to demonetise people they regard as transphobic? Which they do.

*This is so fucking manipulative and transparent, it's laughable. Everyone knows that Mumsnet is very GC, trying to align Russel Brand, a misogynistic credibly accused of multiple rapes, with the GC movement is so blatantly manipulative and it's disgusting."

Oh don't be silly.
It's not disgusting it's a perfectly rational comparison.

YouTube can demonetise whoever they like.
Who they like to demonetise is both people they think are transphobic and some people accused of some crimes.

Are you happy with both of those? Just one of those? Or neither?

I'm neither.

You argue as if YouTube is just another private company like any other.
I'm sure you know it's not.

Yes legally they can do this. We all know that.
The question is: is this a healthy position to be in where a private organisation has so much arbitrary power over information.

You seem cool with it.
Many people find it scary.

It's not really about RB.

I believe there should be legal intervention ASAP, to make it fairer for the content creators so they can’t be arbitrarily deleted or demonetised without recourse.

You want legal intervention to force private businesses to give money to anyone who wants it, and deny them any rights to choose who to platform and who not to platform?

So you want to leally deny companies any form of freedom of speech?

So you're against free speech?

I presume you are just as happy for YouTube to demonetise people they regard as transphobic? Which they do.

This is so fucking manipulative and transparent, it's laughable. Everyone knows that Mumsnet is very GC, trying to align Russel Brand, a misogynistic credibly accused of multiple rapes, with the GC movement is so blatantly manipulative and it's disgusting.

Brand hasn't been censored. He has the same free speech as anyone else. End of story.

I presume you are just as happy for YouTube to demonetise people they regard as transphobic? Which they do.

If you're happy with: YouTube are just another private company and can do whatever they like, they you have to be fine with whatever they choose to do.

I'm not. Because YouTube isn't just another private company it's a worldwide broadcaster and controller of information so it's pet causes matter. Whether it's stopping people who have views they regard as transphobic making a living, or people who questioned the vaccine mandates, or some people accused of crimes.( not all strangely??)

I think the amount of power they have to control information they chose is dangerous.

I have a monetised YouTube account and that's bollocks. The terms of service you tick is very clear that YouTube owe you absolutely nothing.

A terms of service is not remotely comparable to an employment contract.

If people who sell stuff on social media don't like the terms offered by one specific privately owned website, they can go to one of the many alternatives.

I had a seller account on Etsy and didn't like their terms so I deleted my account. And Etsy have the monopoly on their area even more than YouTube do - are you going to start a thread complaining about Etsy's monopoly being a freedom of speech issue and claiming that everyone on Etsy is a contract worker having their rights violated?

WTF at Russell Brand fans whining about his freedom of speech, which he still has, when he silenced so many women who tried to speak out.

Russell Brand is not a victim. He is a very wealthy, relatively powerful, multiple sex offender.

I don’t have a monetised YouTube account, but I am pretty sure there will be terms and conditions laying out legal obligations of both parties which are ticked when a person is at the point of being monetised.

I do not believe this looks anything like an employment contract, but I believe there should be legal intervention ASAP, to make it fairer for the content creators so they can’t be arbitrarily deleted or demonetised without recourse.

Is Dan TDM very, very stupid?

I don’t know who that is, but if they are solely relying on YouTube for their income and have no backup plan then yes.

There’s only one YouTube. That dominance and monopoly means they get to dictate all the terms.

There's tons YouTube alternatives, many of which are extremely popular with those, like Brand, who monetise their right wing views.

And for the billionth time Brand has not been banned from YouTube, he still has the exact same access to YouTube and the exact same ability to upload anything he likes to YouTube that every single one of us have.

What contract??

Please provide proof that Russell Brand has ever signed an employment contract with YouTube.

Brand isn't a YouTube employee, he's never been a YouTube employee, there's not been the slightest suggestion by anyone, ever, that he's ever been hired to be a YouTube employee, or that he's ever signed an employment contract with YouTube.

Ranting that uploading videos to YouTube gives you the legal status of YouTube employee and thus protected by employment law and legally owed a salary just makes you look either deeply unintelligent or determined to make up any kind of doublethink nonsense.

By that standard every single person who's ever uploaded a video to YouTube is legally an employee and can sue to receive a salary.

Is Dan TDM very, very stupid?

I am pretty sure that YouTube’s lawyers have constructed terms and conditions which unfairly weight the contract in their own favour. Might is right. What are people going to do, pop in down the road and choose the other YouTube, which offers fairness and more security? Er no. There’s only one YouTube. That dominance and monopoly means they get to dictate all the terms.

If someone relies on YouTube for an income and doesn’t account for the risks then they are very, very stupid. People are not employed or contracted by YouTube if they choose to upload videos and meet the criteria for monetisation.

Youtube are within their right to pull monetisation for an individual or for anyone at any point. YouTube could go down, get sold, lose popularity etc at any point.

I don’t think Brands life has been “ruined” because YouTube has pulled his monetisation, and if I’m wrong about that then it’s the consequences of his own actions and I have no sympathy.

Private companies are still subject to employment law and contractual obligations.

Please provide proof that Brand signed a legal employment contract with YouTube and that he legally holds the status of YouTube employee.

You are the one going Orwellian!

Private companies are still subject to employment law and contractual obligations.

YouTube have far too much freedom to arbitrarily wreck someone’s life on a whim. There needs to be special measures for tech giants and businesses like banks who can disproportionately harm their customers/clients by sudden withdrawal of service, to prevent them doing this for personal or political reasons.

Except it is such a monolith central platform that removal or demonitisation actually means you can't share your content and you don't make money.

Brand has access to every single form of free speech as the rest of us, and has substantially more power than anyone who isn't part of Brand's elite 1% establishment.

And the government should have no influence on who has access to YouTube.
LOL the government don't have any influence. Why are you pushing borderline Q-Anon conspiracy theories trying to hint that a private commercial enterprise is somehow secretly being controlled by the government? (The government is part of the same elite establishment as Brand).

If you're fine with RB being demonitised you have to equally be fine when they take against someone you do like for their own arbitrary reasons.
Yep I'm perfectly fine with any random private commercial enterprise not paying money to someone I like. Since no one is entitled to celebrity, and no one is entitled to be paid money for their views.

Brand still has access to any public platform as the rest of us.

Brand is still completely free to post anything he likes on YouTube or any other platform. He has not been removed or banned from YouTube, so how on earth can this possibly be a free speech issue?

Brand isn't being denied anything at all.

@TeenEyeroll People kept punished in plenty of ways without a court trial.

If people could only have negative consequences for their behaviour following a court trial then things will only get worse for women.