Asklemmy

43853 readers

668 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Russell Brand allegations question from non American (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was reading about the allegations against Russell Brand and couldn't help but wonder how it works legally that his revenue can be blocked based on allegations and before any juridical ruling.

Don't get me wrong I don't know much about the guy and what he did or didn't do and agree that anyone should be punished according to their crimes.

But how is this possible with the principal of innocent until proven guilty? I'd be happy if someone could explain me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you live in a country where the government would put a gun to YouTube's head and say 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP BROADCASTING THIS MAN'S CHANNEL, PUT ADS ON IT, AND SHARE THE AD REVENUE WITH HIM, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME"?

That seems weird.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Depends on the contract between that man and YouTube. Most countries are strong in enforcing contract terms.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The idea that Google would give anyone a contract that says something other than "we'll fuck you if we feel like it." Hahahaha.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

True, but that comment was still badly conceived. Because pretty much all countries would absolutely crack down on a platform, should there be a contract that states that there must be a conviction, and no morality clause. This can absolutely legally be in a contract.