YouTube jumped too soon and no UK Parliament are wading in!

[MetaverseMavis]

No matter what my personal thoughts are about RB, I feel very uncomfortable with this trial by the media. YouTube has taken it too far by deciding he has violated their T&Cs and removed his channel. Now UK Parliament want his Rumble channel down.

Why is Parliament getting involved today? what are they scared of, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but this is absurd.

I seem to remember the media accusing Cliff Richard - turns out he was innocent.

‘We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his TikTok posts, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him, and what the platform is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.’

You don't think that the above, under a House of Commons letterhead, implies a clear directive to TikTok? It’s not a neutral stance!

It's nothing to do with the Government and they should stay out of it. Think of all the people involved in writing that letter to Rumble. This is why our taxes are so high. Government have forgotten what their job is and continuously overstep.

The phrase used is ‘We are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.’

It is political overreach.

I don’t like Russel Brand and have never found him funny or attractive, but a Government committee sending such a letter is wrong.

Given bbc and ch4 and times ALL harboured details of an alleged rapist and left said alleged rapist to roam free(and potentially continue this behaviour)then dropped it as "the biggest story of the year" maybe they should be demonised too

Yeah there is literally no reason for the UK government to involve themselves in this situation. It should be a police investigation of the historic crimes of a media personality.

This isn't even trial by media, the government have literally targeted a citizen. Did they do this to Andrew Tate, another UK citizen? Did they do this to literally anyone else at all? Rose West still has a bank account and is able to make money, FFS, and she was proven to sexually abuse, torture and murder 12 women with her husband.

This whole thing is terrible but I give this thread an hour.

I don’t feel comfortable with such a gross overstep. The government can’t be allowed to promote punishment for people who as of yet haven’t been charged or convicted of anything!

^^ This. I don't like any kind of witch hunt and too many are being allowed to happen with zero checks.

Explain to me why it’s ok for YouTube to cancel women’s channels for knowing not what biological sex is, but outrageous for a millionaire male accused of rape? YouTube is a private platform, they can do what they want.

If the allegations are proven true, and we're demonetising things, the production companies and channels that profited from RB's work at the time the crimes took place should give those profits to the victims. Why should they be able to profit from this? Why should anyone?

But that's a conversation to have once the criminal investigation has concluded.

Parliament is a different entity, yes. Dame Caroline Dineage, the signee, is an MP. MPs have their own code of conduct which includes very specific rules about how their position and influence should be used.

For example -

‘Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.’

I would say that this action directly contradicts that. Elected officials, such as MPs, should be upholding due process. And if they don’t like the current system, they are in a prime position to fight for change.

You don't think that the above, under a House of Commons letterhead, implies a clear directive to TikTok? It’s not a neutral stance!

Absolutely nothing about it compels tik tok to do anything.

I would not be surprised if they come back saying that they will not comment on individual tik tok members and with information about their acceptable use policy and moderation procedures.

They’re writing to a multinational corporation, not an individual. I sincerely doubt tik tok will give much of a shit about the letter.

I think YouTube are well within their rights, as they are a private company - so they could demonitise anyone whenever they want for no reason what-so-ever, and to be fair, until he is proven innocent, he shouldn't be able to make money off this very large amount of exposure he is getting right now, as it is in bad taste.

I think its overstepping from the government to be getting involved, people get accused of rape every day and they don't get involved, so in that respect he is being unfairly treated.

It is similar in effect to someone being suspended from their job, if one of my colleagues was being investigated for multiple rapes, we would have to suspend them until the investigation was compete.

Has anyone on here said it is ok for YouTube to target women discussing the reality around biological sex?

Looks like people object to a company gaining dominant market share and then appointing it self arbiter of truth particularly with ambiguous rules. There needs to be clear standard, any targeting of women discussing reality regarding sex highlights the need for better standards.

If you had eyes and interest to see many YouTube channels during COVID times were taken down without scrutiny. It seemed obvious to me the government was asking the company to do so. But I was a conspiracy theorist for thinking so 🙄. It was shocking to me but obviously there was little coverage at the time and little public interest. Today's news shows just how they do it - a polite 'request' is sent. There'll be arm wresting behind the scenes I expect. Most will come into line: YouTube already have, they know their place.

With RB, what we are seeing are unproven allegations being used to bring down a person. They aren't satisfied with a 'never work on the BBC again'. They want to see him bankrupted, with a broken marriage, on the streets, on drugs. They want to COMPLETELY destroy him. Is that justified even if the allegations are true?

Cancel culture has gone too far. The government have overstepped the mark by getting involved. SA accusations are a regular (sadly) occurrence, and this doesn't happen to everyone accused of SA, most carry on until trial before losing anything.

@pinksunglasses totally disagree.

If a colleague is "aggressive and disrespectful" towards women while at work (as Brand's behaviour has been described), that's not a criminal offence - but it's unprofessional behaviour that should be dealt with by HR.

If a colleague repeatedly sexually assaults people at work, in a way that is an "open secret" (as Brand's behaviour has also been described), would you want to share an office with them until someone wins a criminal case? Would you want junior team members to do so?

Management and criminal convictions are different things. Would you want to be told "your colleague doesn't have a criminal conviction, so we won't take any management action"?

The BBC and C4 are publicly-owned broadcasters. It's appropriate for Parliament to look into how much management knew about his behaviour, and what they did in response.

@IncomingTraffic totally agree!

Completely agree.

Trial by media is disgusting and should be outlawed.

Can you think of a comparable case of a famous bame making money from media appearances while multiple substantial, detailer and substantial allegations of criminal conduct are made against them?

I can't think of a recent example where there hasn't been a call for them to be demonetised. When politicians were accused of less serious crimes and not suspended without pay there was outcry.

There is a principle in British law that one should not profit from one's crimes.

You don’t appear to have read my post properly.

I said:

‘Tesco would be entitled to do so (suspend or sack) depending on their own policies but the government should be upholding the justice system!’

Private companies should have robust policies for employees, including process should somebody be accused of a crime.

Parliament, however, do not get to decide how the justice system and due process should apply to each individual accused person because the law is supposed to apply to all of us equally.

If MPs feel that blocking income streams or censoring social media accounts of accused persons should be part of that process, they can lobby for that to be debated in parliament. As it stands, that’s not how it works and therefore they are over the line.

It’s no good emoting about hypothetical situations in which I might find myself sharing a desk with a prolific rapist because of course I would want to raise hell. Just as I would if it were my daughter or sister. But that is why the justice system is supposed to be unbiased.

And I’d rather not set a precedent for public shaming and misuse of power even if that means some people don’t have quite as bad a time before their trial as I’d like them to. Because in my heart, I know that if it was my son, my daughter, my husband or myself being accused of something - I would want them to be treated fairly.

Wariness about the justice system and it’s proper application is not because I care about Russell Brand or any one individual, it’s because the justice system either protects all of us or none of us.

Also, this approach means that even if this case were to get to trial - there is absolutely no way to ensure an unbiased jury now. Which is problematic in itself.

He hasn't been charged. Therefore no crimes 🙄

Maybe the select committee need to know if brand is/can make money out of this, and what SM companies are doing about influential people using them as a platform to undermine people who challenge them as part of the process of figuring out if there is a problem, and if parliament should be doing something about it.

You've said what I think but more eloquently than I could!

No one got charged or convicted for stealing my car 3 years ago. I take it that I shouldn't have claimed on the insurance since no crime was committed? 🙄

Apart from a brief clip of him refuting the accusations made against him I not aware that he has made any content referring to the accusations so I don't see how that principle would apply.