YouTube demonetizes Russell Brand citing his harmful ‘off-platform behavior'

www.foxnews.com...

YouTube has moved to prevent British comedian and internet commentator Russell Brand from making money through his YouTube channel this week, following allegations from multiple women that he sexually assaulted them more than a decade ago.

The online video platform announced Tuesday that it had suspended monetization for Brand’s channel, citing the creator’s "off-platform behavior" violating YouTube policy.

The site’s decision prevents Brand from earning revenue that comes from advertisements embedded in YouTube videos, the main way content creators make money on the platform.

Brand has a large following on the platform, with more than 6 million subscribers. His videos, most of which consist of critiquing government and corporate power structures, bias in the media, and encouraging users to embrace critical thinking when it comes to mainstream news stories, routinely earn millions of views.

The official reason given for demonetizing Russell Brand is the following

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community."

Youtube stated Russell Brand has harmed the users of the platform with his offline behaviour. In a few words the platform has already found Brand guilty as charged in the media and in the courts of public opinion believing the allegations against him to be true which implies they do think Brand sexually assaulted/raped the women who made these allegations.

So his punishment is demonetization of his channel for the time being. The presumption of being innocent until proven guilty has gone and YouTube is accepting the court of public opinion. So far Russell Brand hasn't been charged with anything and even if he was then he wouldn't be guilty until after the trial has been concluded and was found guilty for what he was charged.

There are severe criticisms against Youtube by members of the public and by other media over this incident.

Does YouTube have the right to demonetize a user based solely on a number of allegations? Nothing proven so far and he hasn't even been charged.

Has YouTube targeted his account already for his criticisms and stance over a number of matters, and has found an excuse to do what they wanted to do for sometime now?

It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

a reply to: AlienBorg

What you moaning about ?

YouTube could have removed his channel if they wished. They haven't. He is still free to spout his nonsense.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: AlienBorg

What you moaning about ?

YouTube could have removed his channel if they wished. They haven't. He is still free to spout his nonsense.

Do they have any grounds to demonetize a user who is making a living or who makes money because of some allegations? He hasn't been convicted of anything, not even charged.

If you take a look around, especially in some British media, there are severe criticisms against the platform for their latest actions.

In effect what YouTube said in their statement is that Russel Brand is guilty. This is outrageous as nobody knows at this moment whether he is guilty or innocent. And there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It's really worrying you find the actions by YouTube legitimate and justified and you think Brand is guilty because of the recent media trials.

Wondering what they mean by 'ecosystem ', that the general mindset of the YouTube community or our actual planetary ecosystem?

If it's the first one, then you are being punished for 'wrong think' and inspiring others to think outside the 'community' (or should that read cult??

If it's the second one then you are being punished (by a private company no less) for say, having a plastic straw in your cocktail or using single use plastic bags??

In Brands case, they are being judge and jury with no evidence.

YouTube, in the good old days of free expression and adding to it for the interest of the community rather than having compulsory adverts on every damn video, used to be a fabulous place for information, inspiration and news truth. Sad to see how far it has fallen and stepped in line with the NWO cronies.

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
Wondering what they mean by 'ecosystem ', that the general mindset of the YouTube community or our actual planetary ecosystem?

If it's the first one, then you are being punished for 'wrong think' and inspiring others to think outside the 'community' (or should that read cult??

If it's the second one then you are being punished (by a private company no less) for say, having a plastic straw in your cocktail or using single use plastic bags??

In Brands case, they are being judge and jury with no evidence.

YouTube, in the good old days of free expression and adding to it for the interest of the community rather than having compulsory adverts on every damn video, used to be a fabulous place for information, inspiration and news truth. Sad to see how far it has fallen and stepped in line with the NWO cronies.

Yes, harming the ecosystem...

a reply to: AlienBorg

Do they any grounds.

They don't need " grounds "

It's their business, they can do whatever they wish.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm pretty sure Mr. Brand unsubscribed before he was demonized by
you tube. A move he should've made some time ago as advised by
many subscribers on his many different channels.

Not hard to understand his reasoning tho. As a monetized account
he was making bank. While confident he had the you tube guidelines
mastered.

He quite likely underestimated you tubes ability to stab it's users
in the back. Above and beyond disgusting political persecution.
Insistant on controling dissenting information. But I'm sure he
knew the dangers.

I couldn't have cared less about Brand til this happened. Now
I'm in his corner. Oh and taking the high moral ground siting "A
sixteen yo school girl"? I'll just point out that she's not a school
girl anymore. Also maybe should've been in school instead of
be'n out sleeping around with older guys.

For all anyone knows she could've lied about her age.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

I doubt that's the last time we have to read it.

a reply to: quintessentone

Could I get a 16 year old school girl to lie about such?
With the right motivation I 100% could.
Without proof anyone can say anything and it still amounts to nothing.
Why women think they are special and their word should have more value than that of a man is beyond me.

Stop the female victim role as an argument for anything. The proof is in the pudding, not the pudding brain of a 16 year old...

Nuff said?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: AlienBorg

Do they any grounds.

They don't need " grounds "

It's their business, they can do whatever they wish.

So it comes down to they can do whatever they want. But still they seem to have reacted to allegations against Brand. How can they justify demonetization based on allegations only? Simply put it they can't. That's why the ve received severe criticisms ove this new type of cancellation and censorship.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: quintessentone

Could I get a 16 year old school girl to lie about such?
With the right motivation I 100% could.
Without proof anyone can say anything and it still amounts to nothing.
Why women think they are special and their word should have more value than that of a man is beyond me.

Stop the female victim role as an argument for anything. The proof is in the pudding, not the pudding brain of a 16 year old...

Nuff said?

Allegations cannot be the basis of demonetization, media trials, cancellations, and whatever else we ve seen so far.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: AlienBorg

Do they any grounds.

They don't need " grounds "

It's their business, they can do whatever they wish.

You have forgotten their statement which is the following

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

They are admitting Brand is guilty. This has sparked a lot of criticisms against them as nobody is guilty based on allegations only. He hadn't been convicted and he hadn't even been charged. What about defaming someone online when it comes to an online platform.

How did they know he is guilty?
But yet their statement clearly implies he is.

I assume you think he is guilty too.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: AlienBorg

Do they any grounds.

They don't need " grounds "

It's their business, they can do whatever they wish.

thats an americanism that doesn't hold true as no business can do whatever it wants.. at least not any more as they are not east india companies with their own armies and the ability to openly kill who ever they want..

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

not illegal if consensual in the uk, deeply deeply unwise as it is for any celebrity or musician who has does engage with that age group, but this is not the andy case in terms of us age of consent/statutory rape..

its one of the reasons many fight the lowering of the age of consent in the uk as you go from deeply impressionable 16 year olds to even more impressionable youngsters.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

Whilst morally disgusting, being associated with a 16 year old is not illegal in the UK. Even if he was porking her, still not illegal.

Whilst I don't like Mr Brand and think he's phone call with his buddy Jonathon Ross to Andrew Sachs (actor who played Manual from Fawlty Towers) is awful and shouldn't of happened.

Transcipt here

I'm sure here are plenty of other incidents with Mr Brand other people.....

Rod Stewart

In the UK, you are innocent until you're proven guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt with a judge and jury.

Opinion is not the law, morals are not the law as can be seen with the auditing youtubers who go visit Police stations and taunt the police about their signage.

Personally i think he is a low life, but ......

The content he has been producing for youtube and other such sites has awoken many people to the precarious position humanity is in - brought on by other humans.... (thinking of law and morals here). Which would fall in line with the expected mis-information angle the WEF are going to go forward with.

My own questions about the whole thing is

why haven't the 'victims' come forward before this? It's not like the #metoo tag only came out yesterday

Why has the story gone to a TV program, rather than the Police?

Why has it gone on the national news, when if you are involved in a case you're not to breathe a word about it incase it damages the trial due to Jury influencing? It's going to be a difficult job to find an un-biased Jury or judge this one now.

I'm under the impression that this is related to the WEF mission to control mis-information for whatever plan they hav ein the pipeline.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: quintessentone

Could I get a 16 year old school girl to lie about such?
With the right motivation I 100% could.
Without proof anyone can say anything and it still amounts to nothing.
Why women think they are special and their word should have more value than that of a man is beyond me.

Stop the female victim role as an argument for anything. The proof is in the pudding, not the pudding brain of a 16 year old...

Nuff said?

Again, 16 year old school girl is involved and his TV colleagues said part of their job was to get him young women. Enough said. Actually, one more word....Epsteinish.

a reply to: quintessentone

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said

Until the UK raises the legal age of consent then you have to understand that this isn’t a Brand problem, it’s a legislation issue.
From our corner of the world she was too young, but the UK doesn’t seem to think so with their lacking consent laws. As a whole the country agrees on it and Brand grew up there. Right or wrong in our eyes would look different there.

So yes she was a 16 year old school girl where the country she resides in says it is okay to have consenting sexual relations with.
So if they are really concerned at all the entire UK should be demonetized from YouTube, but that’s not happening.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: quintessentone

Could I get a 16 year old school girl to lie about such?
With the right motivation I 100% could.
Without proof anyone can say anything and it still amounts to nothing.
Why women think they are special and their word should have more value than that of a man is beyond me.

Stop the female victim role as an argument for anything. The proof is in the pudding, not the pudding brain of a 16 year old...

Nuff said?

She doesnt neeed to lie about anything, its all there in his own memoirs where he refers to the 16 year old as "The Child"