Russell Brand is being accused of rape

[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. 

[Leo Gura]

12 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.

I admit, that is a good argument.

However, YouTube also has to consider the feelings of its creators and what they consider to be fair or not. If creators feel censored or unfairly treated then they might whine to politicians who then start to regulate YouTube and Google as companies.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Tanz]

This is a good overview and thoughtful input.  She brings up good points about Instagram and how the lead people to be attracted to underaged girls

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Tanz

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If creators feel censored or unfairly treated then they might whine to politicians who then start to regulate YouTube and Google as companies.

It could be worse than that - for example less people will sign deals with youtube, because they know that they can lose their career really fast just for an accusation.

You can lose potential youtube stars because of that, and it doesn't seem like a good business model to me.

Also youtube's automatic action of demonetizing you after an accusation - just makes the narrative of you actually being guilty much stronger, so why would any famous person ever risk getting into a business deal like that (that can potentially fuck up their whole image)?

[LSD-Rumi]

19 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

Thise line of thinking works for movies and tv shows, because the crew is small in the first place, so if the star of the show is accused of rape it will massively aftect the show. But you cannot project this on youtube which has tens of thousands of popular content makers.

[Leo Gura]

In the end government will have to set up standards for the entire social media space. Right now we are still in the wild west days where anything goes.

This is how the legal system got established in the first place. People were out there raping each other and accusing each other of rape, long before there were courts. And justice was shabby until someone set up a court with a legal process.

Now we gotta do it all over again for the virtual world.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

My bigger worry is that we have cases of monetary companies like banks and online banking cancelling people, and all of them doing it in unison. That's just insane to me.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

My bigger worry is that we have cases of monetary companies like banks and online banking cancelling people, and all of them doing it in unison. That's just insane to me.

Paypal is certainly capable of that.

[Carl-Richard]

58 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

He is not convicted a rapist yet, but there is a 50% chance that he might be.

Bro you're like so confident in your own bullshit 

[Hello from Russia]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Paypal is certainly capable of that.

Paypal is such nazi in Russia, God

Maybe for a good reason though

[Scholar]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bro you're like so confident in your own bullshit 

It's kind of funny because, by that logic if someone accuses you of anything, it's automatically the case that there is a 50% chance that you are that thing.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Scholar

[Raze]

1 hour 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. 

Let’s say it gets proven Russell actually did it and he goes to prison, how exactly does that hurt YouTube in any way? Why would YouTube lose money because he had a channel there? Plenty of YouTubers have been found guilty of crimes and punished and it did nothing to them.

[Leo Gura]

37 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

Paypal is such nazi in Russia, God

Maybe for a good reason though

Because Russians are such scammers.

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, LSD-Rumi said:

Thise line of thinking works for movies and tv shows, because the crew is small in the first place, so if the star of the show is accused of rape it will massively aftect the show. But you cannot project this on youtube which has tens of thousands of popular content makers.

They become "massive" because of their public reputation in the first place. They are very sensitive to how they are perceived by the public. And they go to extreme lengths to do bullshit even if it has a minor chance of tarnishing their brand. But right now they can brag being on the side of the oppressed victim women and stand in solidarity with them.

They might not lose in money from a single dude but there is a larger picture to it. And no one is going to use this level of logic in reality although that is their intention.

56 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bro you're like so confident in your own bullshit 

Feel free to call me out.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

In the end government will have to set up standards for the entire social media space. Right now we are still in the wild west days where anything goes

This is the only solution. We shouldn't have to Trust these corporations to do anyway. For them we are just a penny. An expense or a child that they should pacify.

They will fire or hire creator who toiled for years on their platform.

Also what should the government do and what they can do? Tough moral and ethical question. You can never piss off the blue hair ladies who will now show up to government when they try to regulate big tech. ?

41 minutes ago, Raze said:

Let’s say it gets proven Russell actually did it and he goes to prison, how exactly does that hurt YouTube in any way? Why would YouTube lose money because he had a channel there? Plenty of YouTubers have been found guilty of crimes and punished and it did nothing to them.

Their reputation will be further tarnished, had they not took any action at all in the first place.

--- 

Even BBC has removed his shows from their streaming platform. 

[Bobby_2021]

If I am running a competitor to YouTube I will brand it as

"hey this is a safe platform for your kids. We don't allow rapists to make content in this platform" 

That's one way competitors can market their platform and it's pretty persuasive. And might end ip eating into their market share.

You might say that is not logical or the possibility is minimal, but they have entire departments set up to deal with these kind of stuff. They are not logical. They make knee jerk reaction to weed out the possibility of losing the Market shares. 

[Butters]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If I am running a competitor to YouTube I will brand it as

"hey this is a safe platform for your kids. We don't allow rapists to make content in this platform" 

That's one way competitors can market their platform and it's pretty persuasive. And might end ip eating into their market share.

You might say that is not logical or the possibility is minimal, but they have entire departments set up to deal with these kind of stuff. They are not logical. They make knee jerk reaction to weed out the possibility of losing the Market shares. 

You make it out as if there's serious YT competitors just waiting for some excuse to brand their platform, I don't understand what you're saying. 

The only ones who could start a serious YT competitor are Meta and perhaps one or two Chinese giants. Well, why haven't they? 

You could argue that TikTok is a YT competitor but I can't imagine they care about this sorta stuff since it's basically an app where old men look at videos highschool girls dancing while China steals their data. 

[Leo Gura]

Don't worry guys, Musk is here to save the day. He will take as many rapists as he can on X.

"X, where rapists feel at home."

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Feel free to call me out.

Either say you're guessing, or say that it's for the sake of the argument (the argument that you made later which actually seems reasonable if you grant the premises). Don't just say "it's 50%".

Edited September 19, 2023 by Carl-Richard