Russell Brand; establishment takedown or legit concerns?

[MattR82]

Loved Rumble's response to UK parliament wanting Russell Brand to be demonitised from there as well.

"While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
"We would also like to know what Rumble 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."

THE SLAP DOWN:

"While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform," it said.

Noting YouTube's move, it said Rumble "stands for very different values".

"We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet - meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.

"We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so.

"Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.

"Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands."

View: https://youtu.be/YEa9pcOAZo8?si=5d06eci1pKUA3L0L

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[UK_Mike]

Loved Rumble's response to UK parliament wanting Russell Brand to be demonitised from there as well.

"While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
"We would also like to know what Rumble 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."

THE SLAP DOWN:

"While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform," it said.

Noting YouTube's move, it said Rumble "stands for very different values".

"We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet - meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.

"We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so.

"Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.

"Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands."

View: https://youtu.be/YEa9pcOAZo8?si=5d06eci1pKUA3L0L

That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the letter - it clearly asks whether Brand is able to monetise his content, and whether the platform intends to suspend that as Youtube have done. It doesn't suggest, or request, that the platform does so. Maybe they would have gone on to suggest that, but there's nothing in the letter about it.

I don't see where they've "attempted to control who is allowed to speak", or where they are "demanding his ban". I don't see where the UK Parliament have demanded anything.

Biggest surprise for me in all of this is that Brand is described as a comedian.

 

[MattR82]

That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the letter - it clearly asks whether Brand is able to monetise his content, and whether the platform intends to suspend that as Youtube have done. It doesn't suggest, or request, that the platform does so. Maybe they would have gone on to suggest that, but there's nothing in the letter about it.

I don't see where they've "attempted to control who is allowed to speak", or where they are "demanding his ban". I don't see where the UK Parliament have demanded anything.

Biggest surprise for me in all of this is that Brand is described as a comedian.

I think I'm understanding it pretty well...

 

[UK_Mike]

I think I'm understanding it pretty well...

On Rumble's part, rather than on yours. It seems to me that they have jumped to some conclusions.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MitchC]

On Rumble's part, rather than on yours. It seems to me that they have jumped to some conclusions.

Why are they even asking? The threat and request in those questions is hardly hidden.

 

[UK_Mike]

Why are they even asking?

Earlier in the letter it says that the committee is "raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today."

The threat and request in those questions is hardly hidden.

I guess it depends on how you read it. I doubt the MP concerned is under the impression that she'll be able to make any kind of demands on an independent platform that (as far as I know, I'd never heard of them before this) isn't based in the UK. I was a bit surprised that YT did what they did, at this point, where there is nothing other than accusations floating around, and I wonder if they'll make good any missing revenue if he is exonerated at the end of whatever investigations are going on.

 

[MattR82]

Earlier in the letter it says that the committee is "raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today."


I guess it depends on how you read it. I doubt the MP concerned is under the impression that she'll be able to make any kind of demands on an independent platform that (as far as I know, I'd never heard of them before this) isn't based in the UK. I was a bit surprised that YT did what they did, at this point, where there is nothing other than accusations floating around, and I wonder if they'll make good any missing revenue if he is exonerated at the end of whatever investigations are going on.

They are clearly trying to use political pressure to have him demonitised, sheesh.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Lex DeVille]

Earlier in the letter it says that the committee is "raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today."


I guess it depends on how you read it. I doubt the MP concerned is under the impression that she'll be able to make any kind of demands on an independent platform that (as far as I know, I'd never heard of them before this) isn't based in the UK. I was a bit surprised that YT did what they did, at this point, where there is nothing other than accusations floating around, and I wonder if they'll make good any missing revenue if he is exonerated at the end of whatever investigations are going on.

"While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform."

1. A country's government is contacting a business entity. This alone is an intimidating power move.

2. Their concern implies Brand's guilt, but guilt has not been concluded.

3. They cannot tell Rumble to demonetize, but they can imply what they want by stating their focus.


"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform."

4. The word "relating" attempts to connect his videos to a guilty verdict that hasn't been concluded.

5. There's no need to use the word "serious" unless the intent is to frame the accusations as something more than what they actually are (just someone's claims at this point).

6. The implied correct action is stated. A politically correct way to make the statement without showing bias is, "we would like to know if Rumble has a response."


"We would also like to know what Rumble 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."

7. "What" Rumble is doing presupposes Rumble is doing something at all.

8. "ensure creators" suggests they want to know Rumble will act any time any creator is found guilty by any accusations they deem fit...

9. "Victims" have not been determined yet. How do they even define "victims"? It isn't Rumble's job to protect victims anyway.

10. Who deems content inappropriate? If behavior is "potentially" illegal, then it is also "potentially" not illegal. Framing it as potentially illegal sets the tone.


Bottom line, if a country's government has no power over Rumble, then they have no reason to engage Rumble in this discussion unless the intent is to...

1) Directly influence Rumble's decision-making through an intimidation move
2) Draw attention to Rumble from the public for added pressure in a certain direction
3) Influence the public's perception of Russel Brand as a villainous evildoer who "potentially" engages in illegal behavior


When governments send correspondence, they don't do it haphazardly. They have teams of people working to figure out the exact right messaging, down to the word, to achieve their intended purposes.

 

[MattR82]

I wouldn't be shocked to find out he could be guilty of some things considering his past, but I am surprised it took this long for the media and establishment to try and take him down considering his content over the last few years around the pandemic.

 

[OMDA]

I wouldn't be shocked to find out he could be guilty of some things considering his past, but I am surprised it took this long for the media and establishment to try and take him down considering his content over the last few years around the pandemic.

Life in the west seems to be going the way that there is dirt or potential dirt on just about everyone important.

They just keep it quiet for people on the "correct" side and punish the "wrong" side when it is time.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[UK_Mike]

They have teams of people working to figure out the exact right messaging, down to the word, to achieve their intended purposes.

I would have hoped they'd have teams of people working on exactly what you suggest, but it seems that all of those people now work somewhere else. That's the only explanation for some of the things that are said by or for some ministers, for either party.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

I've moved the Russell Brand topic to its own thread.

 

[ChrisStanton]

Couple things:

I neither like nor dislike Brand.

That said… how many people realize that false rape allegations are actually more common than people think?

How many people realize that Brand claims to have slept with HUNDREDS of women? With his personality and celeb status I don‘t doubt it.

How many people realize that overtime our memories change? Look into “false memories” to see just have crazy our memories are.

Some false rape allegations, when the allegation happens years after the fact, isn’t always because the woman is tying to frame someone, but rather become her memory morphed over time.

“I was drunk and kinda into him so I went along with it” slowly morphs into “I was drunk and didn’t want to” over enough time. This is why some women who have falsely leveled rape accusations at people and was later shown proof that it was in fact consensual (such as old text) these women are often dumbfounded. Its not that they were trying to lie, its that their memory actually changed!

Thats not to say all rape allegations are fake.

Sleep with hundreds of women and you are bound to have a handful who later regrets it and has their memories morphed.

I have no idea if he is guilty or not and what evidence exist either way.

My main point: I’m tired of people getting canceled before their guilt is even proven.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[UK_Mike]

I have no idea if he is guilty or not and what evidence exist either way.

My main point: I’m tired of people getting canceled before their guilt is even proven.

Me neither. I don't like his act, but that's not to say he's done anything. It is a little unbalanced that his alleged victims (and those of others who have been in this position) can protect their identities, but the accused cannot. I don't buy that it's an "establishment plot" because I don't see what there is to gained by it. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong about that, won't be the first time.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

because I don't see what there is to gained by it.

Yea, there really is nothing to be gained to discredit an outspoken critic of government overreach, medical fascism, and human rights violations executed by the state and co-opted mega-corporations. Yup, absolutely nothing to be gained by discrediting him! LOL.

 

[UK_Mike]

Oh, is that what he does now?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisStanton]

Oh, is that what he does now?

Some people, including myself, finds it odd that the entire time he was a big democrat no one ever came forward with anything bad to say about him but when he starts talking about about democrats and saying positive things about republicans and bad things a bout the establishment, suddenly anonymous women come forward with these allegations…. Odd timing.

 

[UK_Mike]

Some people, including myself, finds it odd that the entire time he was a big democrat no one ever came forward with anything bad to say about him but when he starts talking about about democrats and saying positive things about republicans and bad things a bout the establishment, suddenly anonymous women come forward with these allegations…. Odd timing.

Whereas I just thought he was a has-been sort-of comedian that used to have a reasonably popular show, I didn't realise he was doing anything at all any more, never mind sticking his nose into US politics (which I admit I'm presuming from your democrat / republican comments). I'm still not convinced he's important enough for anyone to bother, but maybe everyone else knows differently.

With hindsight, I should have known better than to comment on political stuff, as I know little about the subject.

 

[Lex DeVille]

Whereas I just thought he was a has-been sort-of comedian that used to have a reasonably popular show, I didn't realise he was doing anything at all any more, never mind sticking his nose into US politics (which I admit I'm presuming from your democrat / republican comments). I'm still not convinced he's important enough for anyone to bother, but maybe everyone else knows differently.

With hindsight, I should have known better than to comment on political stuff, as I know little about the subject.

He's got over 6M subscribers on YT where he's built himself up as a voice against a lot of left-leaning ideas.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[NeoDialectic]

"While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform."

1. A country's government is contacting a business entity. This alone is an intimidating power move.

2. Their concern implies Brand's guilt, but guilt has not been concluded.

3. They cannot tell Rumble to demonetize, but they can imply what they want by stating their focus.


"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform."

4. The word "relating" attempts to connect his videos to a guilty verdict that hasn't been concluded.

5. There's no need to use the word "serious" unless the intent is to frame the accusations as something more than what they actually are (just someone's claims at this point).

6. The implied correct action is stated. A politically correct way to make the statement without showing bias is, "we would like to know if Rumble has a response."


"We would also like to know what Rumble 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."

7. "What" Rumble is doing presupposes Rumble is doing something at all.

8. "ensure creators" suggests they want to know Rumble will act any time any creator is found guilty by any accusations they deem fit...

9. "Victims" have not been determined yet. How do they even define "victims"? It isn't Rumble's job to protect victims anyway.

10. Who deems content inappropriate? If behavior is "potentially" illegal, then it is also "potentially" not illegal. Framing it as potentially illegal sets the tone.


Bottom line, if a country's government has no power over Rumble, then they have no reason to engage Rumble in this discussion unless the intent is to...

1) Directly influence Rumble's decision-making through an intimidation move
2) Draw attention to Rumble from the public for added pressure in a certain direction
3) Influence the public's perception of Russel Brand as a villainous evildoer who "potentially" engages in illegal behavior


When governments send correspondence, they don't do it haphazardly. They have teams of people working to figure out the exact right messaging, down to the word, to achieve their intended purposes.

I don't personally care about the Russel Brand stuff, but your post made me think about a topic I've been mulling for a while.

Just talking out loud here, but I sometimes wonder if someone's ability to "I see what's going on here" and then be able to analyze rhetoric piece by piece based on broader context is directly correlated to marketing ability.

Socially keen people excel at reading between the lines and intuiting the meaning of something or a situation, but they can't necessarily break down why. (E.g seeing this letter for what it is, but not being able to pinpoint why you feel it's implying something)

Analytical types are very keen on breaking down situations block by block, but can miss the mark because they are being too literal. (E.g Seeing this letter as a govt simply asking a random company about mundane policy decisions based on spontaneous interest in the topic since there are no direct or obvious indirect threats in it)

The combination of both traits may be the killer combo for marketing. Once you understand a system, it is much easier to manipulate it.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. On the one end it could just be another general g-dependant exercise or on the other end just a case of bias leading to "seeing what you want to see".

 

[SalesGod]

I am not dismissing that these things happen and some men are in fact guilty of the crimes they are accused of.

But as a numbers guy:

It's not unusual for a famous & rich men to sleep with literally thousands of women. Wilt Chamberlain claimed 20000 and Charlie Sheen thousands etc.

Sleep with 2000 women
% of women who are psychopaths: 0.5-0.7%
Throw in jealousy + lack of care about ruining someones life and you have atleast 10 women willing to come forward.

Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant, McGregor, Ronaldo have all had charges brought against them not saying they didnt do it but given the amount of women they encounter/have access to the odds are against them. Charlie wasn't accused but he was being blackmailed for 10m by someone who was going to expose his Aids diagnosis.

 

[MattR82]

New statement from Russell Brand. He talks briefly about the UK's online safety bill and the "Trusted News Initiative" (LOL!) which is a collab between big tech and legacy media to target independent media.

I have a rumble account but rarely go there. I'll be making more of an effort to go there from now on.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIQxQF6nFts

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Timmy C]

Heard about this, no idea if it's true.

What I will say, is that it wouldn't surprise me if he did considering his past.

 

[PureA]

I don't know how many of you have been following but has anyone seen the Russell Brand drama?

No matter your opinion of him, this is CONCERNING. How is this even legal?

UK parliament wrote to youtube, rumble etc to get him demonetised on the basis of accusations...

Trial by social media... is this the world we live in now?

It sets a very scary precedent.

 

[MitchC]

I don't know how many of you have been following but has anyone seen the Russell Brand drama?

No matter your opinion of him, this is CONCERNING. How is this even legal?

UK parliament wrote to youtube, rumble etc to get him demonetised on the basis of accusations...

Trial by social media... is this the world we live in now?

It sets a very scary precedent.

Well the Tate brothers spent how long in jail and they’re out now so clearly they didn’t actually do anything.

Tates banned from all social media and YouTube.

Steve will do it is banned and I think they use face detection to demonitise any video he’s in.

So yeah that’s the world we live in and it’s only getting worse.

I love that dispite their best efforts the people still love and follow these people.

Every time they fight them, jail them and demonitise them, it makes them more popular, and the establishment even less trusted.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

I don't know how many of you have been following but has anyone seen the Russell Brand drama?

No matter your opinion of him, this is CONCERNING. How is this even legal?

UK parliament wrote to youtube, rumble etc to get him demonetised on the basis of accusations...

Trial by social media... is this the world we live in now?

It sets a very scary precedent.

When properly preparing for the next scamdemic, we can't have Mr. Brand giving the peasants any wrong ideas, can we?

 

[socaldude]

It sets a very scary precedent.

Yes. Very scary.

Governments don't like anybody who is "anti-government" even if they are just voicing free speech or opinion. To them that's a criminal. Criminals are shamed, punished and humiliated.

Law got started as "natural law". Our intuitive moral judgement of certain actions or behaviors. The problem now is that like a set of mutated DNA instructions lunatics come in and write power tripping gibberish as "law". Like a record played in reverse or white static noise on a TV.

"Something" power-related nefarious is trying to actualize itself from the eternal order.

 

[MattR82]

The politician that led the campaign against Brand, Caroline Dineage, is married to Mark Lancaster, a politician that was in a psyops/psycholgical warfare section of the Army (77th Brigade). Lol.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

Loved Rumble's response to UK parliament wanting Russell Brand to be demonitised from there as well.

"While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
"We would also like to know what Rumble 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."

THE SLAP DOWN:

"While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform," it said.

Noting YouTube's move, it said Rumble "stands for very different values".

"We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet - meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.

"We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so.

"Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.

"Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands."

View: https://youtu.be/YEa9pcOAZo8?si=5d06eci1pKUA3L0L

Go rumble.

I don't know anything about this guy, but Rumble did a good job.

 

[Roli]

As somebody who has worked in the entertainment industry and still knows a lot of people who do (including people who have worked with and met Brand), I believe it to be somewhat true.

His change of political stance happened right around the time certain rumours were doing the rounds in London. I feel it is no coincidence he has courted an audience who are largely blind to criminal behaviour if the message is right. He was a complete lefty till around 2017ish and his change in politics, also coincided with him "settling down."

Saying that, I believe 99.9% of his sexual encounters were consensual, however that's like me saying I haven't murdered 99.9% of people I've met.