• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Russel Brand... your thoughts?

Apparently certain MPs are weighing in on Brand's social media platforms, and pressurising them to de-monetize him and his content.

If this doesn't back up the 'they are out to get him' position, I don't know what does.

Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?. This is looking extremely convenient for the establishment now. How can they make this move, when no charges have even been brought yet. This is an utterly ridiculous sham, and suggests that certain factions have been desperate to silence him, seeing as how grossly premature and hasty they are in their demands. What a total farce!

Youtube have already demonetized him, and I think it's Rumble that are now being pressured to follow suit.

He's getting complaints from certain quarters because "he shouldn't be allowed to criticise the media and politicians" amongst other things. Why not!?

Stitch up job all the way.

All hope is lost.

Freedom of speech is officially dead.
 
It's like a cash grab or a land grab seemingly

Opportunity has presented itself for 'establishment' to attack Brand so they have taken it.

Whether they have created that opportunity is unclear. Looks like a solid, intense, no-stone-left-unturned bit of investigative journalism to me though, but ofc I can't be certain. I'm not even certain I exist though, or that you do. Certainty...it's tricky eh.

I'm not sure where the 'pedo' allegations are coming from, I haven't seen that. What I have seen is rapist / predator / general cunt to women allegations, and I'd say the evidence for the latter of those two is compelling. Not criminal though is it? Unsavoury, most definitely. The rapist bit being true wouldn't surprise me either, but would also be unsurprised were that not to be the case.

I'm thinking about taking a break from all media for a couple of weeks, fucking exhausting and demoralising
 
Burnt Offerings said:
Do it, you’ll feel a lot better. I don’t know how the people who consume that shit every day do it..
Click to expand...
I do it reasonably regularly and also keep any news watching down to a bare minimum anyway thesedays

And yeah, it's hugely beneficial mental health-wise even for a low-news consumer like me - thoroughly recommended
 
Bleaney said:
Apparently certain MPs are weighing in on Brand's social media platforms, and pressurising them to de-monetize him and his content.

If this doesn't back up the 'they are out to get him' position, I don't know what does.

Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?. This is looking extremely convenient for the establishment now. How can they make this move, when no charges have even been brought yet. This is an utterly ridiculous sham, and suggests that certain factions have been desperate to silence him, seeing as how grossly premature and hasty they are in their demands. What a total farce!

Youtube have already demonetized him, and I think it's Rumble that are now being pressured to follow suit.

He's getting complaints from certain quarters because "he shouldn't be allowed to criticise the media and politicians" amongst other things. Why not!?

Stitch up job all the way.

All hope is lost.

Freedom of speech is officially dead.
Click to expand...

Actually Youtube had already de-monetized his work some days before. In fact MPs pressured Rumble although it is ridiculous that MPs should think it within their remit to apply pressure. But the why? Because IF criminal charges against RB are made, they do not want the media to refer to him as 'Youtube Star' or similar. Advertisers would not wish to be associated. It's call brand management and in this case risk management. You really should read a full list of people Youtube has banned or at least suspended. It runs into the hundreds, and that's just people with over 1 million views. He hasn't been singled out but anything that's bad for Youtube's business, they will remove.

I totally agree that until sufficient evidence is provided to the police, no charges can be referred and even then their is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

But why so twitchy? Well because I did painstakingly go through the 3 times he was taken off television for his behavior. Behavior that in all three case did occur and nobody is denying it. So while the legal system requires a very high standard of proof, media platforms whose income is almost wholly derived from advertising do not.

Given his wealth, their isn't anything stopping RB from hosting his own content and to directly sell advertising space. It would seem the logical thing to do.
 
I normally loathe the very sight of Piers Morgan, nevermind trying to listen to what he has to say, but shockingly, and I think for the first time ever, I find myself in almost complete agreement with what he says here on this clip.

There is no being deliberately controversial or provocative imo, and it seems to me that it's a thoroughly balanced, fair, and objective assessment. He sums up the whole thing better than I ever could. Unfortunately in these circumstances though, I gather that Morgan's own new-ish channel is failing quite badly, so I don't think many people will see this, and Morgan isn't really very influential any more..Especially when compared to previous times, but here is the interview anyway.

 
@AlsoTapered I remember 2 previous instances in Brand's career where he's been taken off air, although I didn't realise that the Bin Laden incident was the day after 9/11. Jesus! What shockingly bad judgement, he deserved to have something of an enforced career break after that. I also remember him and Jonathan Ross making some prank phone call to Andrew Sachs (Manuel from Faulty Towers) another prank which backfired, Sachs was upset, and Brand was fired from his BBC job as a radio 2 presenter.

In this case though, it's now a matter of principle, about legal process and the nature of free speech. People should be allowed to hold and express views that certain MPs and people in positions of power don't like. As far as I'm aware we don't yet live in a Fascist or Stalinist dictatorship, and free speech is one of the few things this country still has going for it. Although it is under threat right now with this case imo.

I concede that there's a lot of complicated issues going on all at the same time. And the allegations against Brand are making things far from clear cut. But a fair and proper process needs to be followed by all parties.
 
Last edited:
I think people are conflating the idea of a 'free internet'. ANYONE can register a domain name for a nominal fee. It's who is paying for the storage of content. You have to go back to the 1980s to see a model where the users paid. The internet only became mainstream when it was advertisers were prepared to pay for the storage. The model is simply that users generate content, services like Youtube host the content and advertisers pay to be associated with content.

In essence, I suspect very few have been through the changes in the internet through the decades. In 1984 it cost £10/month to access the internet through a server and that price was based on your chosen server mirroring the commonly accessed sites hosted on other servers. Before then, it was far more costly. Of course it didn't mirror everything but an algorithm would work out the most cost efficient manner of mirroring or caching.

So nobody is banning RB from the internet. But Youtube chooses ads from a range aimed at individual users. So if I watch hundreds of videos on motorcycles and then watch a RB video, Youtube's algorithm will select an ad most likely to tempt me based on my previous viewing. In that example, a motorcycle manufacturer. If said advertiser is put at risk by association, they won't invest in Youtube ads. So this is how Youtube works:

qz.com

How YouTube shields advertisers (not viewers) from harmful videos

When it comes to hateful and misleading videos, YouTube's systems for protecting advertisers are stronger than those protecting its users.
qz.com qz.com

Now Rumble is in a quite different position. No headline is going to state 'Rumble Star RB' because Rumble isn't one of the dominant platforms. I hadn't even heard of them. But every day since RB announced he would use the platform, the name of Rumble becomes more widely known. THEY are acting out of self-interest because they have potentially much less to lose and much more to gain.

As I previously stated - RB certainly has the resources to host his own content and directly sell advertising space. Of course, because of that direct link, he would be at risk of people suggesting he's altering content to maximize profitability. Using a third party service disconnects him and everyone else profiting from the ads in the minds of viewers to give the impression of independence.

After all, the mantra 'because of the algorithm' is the most cited reason for Youtube personalities not saying, doing or showing certain things when the truth is, it's because they would lose out financially.

ISPs operate out of self-interest, social media platforms operate out of self-interest and even search engines act out of self-interest.

I feel certain that if he hadn't already been fired 3 times for doing frankly awful things, Youtube would likely have kept the ads even if he was charged.

I am old enough to have witnessed these changes but free? Not for that last 30 years.
 
Last edited:
www.theguardian.com

Firms pull ads from Rumble platform over Russell Brand videos

Burger King, Asos and HelloFresh remove ads from site in wake of allegations about comedian
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Now let's see if a for-profit business will continue to host RB when it impact's their bottom line. To be fair, they do seem to specialize in controversial content so it's a reasonable fit for their key demographic, After all, RB isn't producing content for some sense of duty, he's doing it for the money. People somehow seem to forget that. Youtube didn't ban him, they just didn't put ads around and in his content. If he WAS doing it for YOUR benefit, I think the £10 million he's already got would have allowed him to continue on Youtube.

www.pewresearch.org

Key facts about Rumble

Here are key facts about the alternative social media service Rumble, an online video-sharing platform founded in 2013.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

Rumble also 'places content providers first' but allows a content provider to provide moderation information so that the more risk averse advertiser won't be associated with certain content,

corp.rumble.com

Rumble Proposes an Open-Source Content Moderation Policy & Process to Improve Transparency & Put Creators First - Rumble

First phase of a content creator-designed moderation process will help the video sharing platform stay true to its mission as it continues to grow; changes will be incorporated into terms...
corp.rumble.com corp.rumble.com

That is a good idea but does rely on the user community of acting in good faith. What they might accept from one content provider, they might not from another. But they are a bit slippery because the term 'sufficiently egregious' is an utterly subjective definition and yet they reserve the right to remove content, suspend or ban a content provider based on breaching said definition.

That it's community members who decide is good, but the fact that they cannot be identified means that it's just as faceless as any other video-sharing platform when it comes to pulling content.

I should add that I personally wouldn't trust any streaming service that requires one to install an application. There are some very sophisticated supply-chain attacks. Rumble itself relies on Apple, Google and WebCatalog making it a rather lengthy supply chain.

www.fortinet.com

What are Supply Chain Attacks? Examples and Countermeasures | Fortinet

Learn what supply chain attacks are and how to counter them. Discover how the visibility and control offered by the Fortinet suite of solutions can guard your system.
www.fortinet.com www.fortinet.com

I may becoming cynical in my old age but I suggest that monitoring TRUTH Social in the run up to the 2024 US election will be telling. I'm all too aware of Rupert Murdock essentially dictating that his media outlets reflect his own political preferences. When a presidential candidate along with certain other individuals (you be the judge of THEIR motives) entirely own a streaming platform, I somehow doubt we will see the finest journalism (without fear or favour).
 
Last edited:
Never liked him.

Seems like a really obvious creep... like I'm not sure how he could actually be more blatantly predatorial and abusive (and get away with it)?

Russel Brand has always surfed that line. He open mouth kisses female journalists on live television without permission then turns around years later and says it's a conspiracy.

Give me a break. Honestly.

The guy used his celebrity status and his power to circumvent consent and put many, many women in uncomfortable positions. He knew what he was doing. He didn't care about anyone other than himself. He deserves everything he gets.

Anyone defending him: would you be happy if your daughter was associated with this guy?

There's not a lot of talent, as far as I'm concerned. He coasts on his grating shrill British personality, which some people seem to like.

I suspect he appeals to intellectually insecure people because he "seems smart" because he speaks fast and/or has a British accent.

Like Joe Rogan, he is such a ridiculous and immature voice. The left deserves better. The world deserves better. We should listen to wise men and stop idolizing fools.
 
russel brand is a sexual predator typcial he tries to hide behind conscpiary theories and spiritual community. hes a fucking nonce.

I hate mainstream shit, but they did a great job investigating and bringing down this motherfucker finally.

Hope he goes to court.

Now this mf acutally has evidence out there to send his ass to jail.

Not like the hit job they did on the tates
 
TripSitterNZ said:
russel brand is a sexual predator typcial he tries to hide behind conscpiary theories and spiritual community. hes a fucking nonce.

I hate mainstream shit, but they did a great job investigating and bringing down this motherfucker finally.

Hope he goes to court.

Now this mf acutally has evidence out there to send his ass to jail.

Not like the hit job they did on the tates
Click to expand...

C'mon man, they're both fuckin wankers... :\
 
Frog Dreams said:
I suspect he appeals to intellectually insecure people because he "seems smart" because he speaks fast and/or has a British accent.
Click to expand...

Bingo - he's APPEARS knowledgeable on certain subjects, but he doesn't actually understand what he knows. The absolute definition of the pseudointellectual. No application of critical thinking or even use of it's most basic tool - Occam's Razor.

That's why British people are not impressed. We all know SOMEONE who does exactly what he does. Reels of statements at speed, desperate for nobody to stop them and challenge them. At which point, you discover they have skimmed the subject and don't actually understand said subject in any depth.
 
Last edited:
Have you heard the latest? Women are complaining to the police that Russell Brand DIDN'T sexually assault them.
 
I can believe the Tate brothers tricking, manipulating, even abusing a certain celeb status/power to get women to do things for something they may have thought they'd get in return, and let's face it. most of these basic bitches thought it would be money and fame.

Take that away and it's "oh yeah he raped me after I found out I wouldn't get xyz" - Happens all the time, so I'm told..

Do I think the Tate brothers are nonces? I wouldn't put it past either of them. Do I think Brand is? He's Garry Glitter mk2, check the hard drive!
 
LoginNotSecure said:
Do I think the Tate brothers are nonces? I wouldn't put it past either of them. Do I think Brand is? He's Garry Glitter mk2, check the hard drive!
Click to expand...

On one hand I would have thought RB aware enough to conceal evidence, but check into the story of 'Ken Lockley' who worked at Core Design with me. He had left his OFFICE PC full of illegal images. An office almost entirely staffed by computer programmers. When the police arrived we actually cracked his passwords and used some search tools to view his internet history.

So I have to admit that it's an experience that has made me more aware of how such people will attempt to conceal with they are, but just can't. That obviously colours my opinion but I hope my judgement merely uses the case to spot similarities in behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top