YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money off his channel — The suspension comes following the publication of rape and sexual assault allegations against the British star::YouTube has blocked Russell Brand from making money off its platform and the BBC pulled some of his shows from its online streaming service in the wake of rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian-turned-influencer.
I have no reason to doubt the allegations. But allegations shouldn’t be enough for somebody to lose their livelihood.
Well I’m sure Google will be donating the money to sexual assault non profits rather than pocketing the profits right?
Right?
Do you know any corporation that would?
Most corporations would suspend his account completely for damage control.
They’re suspending his income. That’s theft.
I made a joke comment, well since they’re taking his money, I’m sure it’s going to victims. Right?
And you come along and point out that, in your belief, all corporations steal revenue from their content providers when they get accused of a crime. Show me one other platform that’s done this. Suspended revenue (i.e. stealing revenue) prior to conviction rather than canceling content.
Note the BBC cancelled him. Google is still making money off an accused rapist. In fact, more. Because said rapist isn’t getting a cut.
No, they aren’t. His videos aren’t being promoted or monotonized. Search and find some. Since they will not be getting promoted to you. You will see no advertisements directly before or during. Because they aren’t.
Thanks for the correction.
Get out of here with your critical thinking!!!
Shakes fist
Reddit-ass post
Well at least we’ve learnt the all important hyphen eh?
Has he been banned from using the Internet? No? Then you’re spewing bullshit. YouTube doesn’t have to host his content and advertisers don’t need to pay him for it. He isn’t entitled to shit. He can fuck off to some right-wing hellscape of a site that will platform him. That’s capitalism baby!
FYI, even if ISP’s were absorbed the the government and made into a utility as you suggest, Google would still own YouTube and still be able to demonetize whoever it wants.
I’m not sure why this thread is such a swarm of brainless zero IQ takes.
deleted by creator
Again. Not a rapist until proven so in a court. And yes, I understand the difficulty in proving it and I believe him to be guilty, but not a rapist until proven so.
I know there is a huge failing by the courts with these types of cases but we must avoid trial by media at all costs.
As long as the content itself is legal, why shouldn’t they?
Where do you draw the line? Rapist, Alleged rapist, Murderer, someone who committed assault, fraud? They’d have to demonitize a good chunk of the entertainment industry.
Add communist to the list. Happened before, and history tends to repeat itself.
Actually YouTube should be exclusively rapist-produced.
For 700 years one of the central principles of British law has been that someone shouldn’t be punished without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.
It’s scary how many people are willing to throw that out the window and behave like medieval peasants lynching witches.
Yep. I understand that it’s hard to prosecute rape, but without rule of law we’re fucked.
This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.
If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?
Bullshit. If they wanted to cut ties and protect their image, they could block the channel and wash their hands.
This here is pure profiteering.
Profiteering by a mega corporation, say it ain’t so!!
deleted by creator
YouTube is big business. Of course content makers should be able to rely on it for livelihood.
I agree to an extent, however the reason behind Google cancelling his ads is almost certainly not because Google doesn’t want to monetize as much content as humanly possible, but because they expect or know that their advertisers don’t want their ads next to an alleged (and possibly convicted in the future) rapist / sexual predator.
Google used to be incredibly hands-off about these things, only terminating someone if they were actually convicted in a court of law.
Compare the cases of Austin Jones (who didn’t have his YouTube channel terminated until he was actually convicted of distributing child porn and sentenced to ten years in prison) and EDP445 (who was caught in a pedophile hunter sting operation and was immediately terminated from all social media.)
Google again pretending to be the moral police. Based on accusations of something that might or might not have happened 20 years ago. Apparently they don’t have a problem with him being on their platform or showing ads on his videos though, they just want to save some money and look like they’re doing the right thing (they are not).
Can’t wait for a future where multibillion dollar corporations decide what’s right and wrong and also who is and isn’t guilty.
What do you mean, wait?
That future is now…
deleted by creator
Google is still the authority of Youtube, and can decide any number of dumb policies they so desire.
Their platform their rules, they did not overstate their authority.
They aren’t showing ads on his videos.
Just a reminder that there are a far more allegations against Trump, and Trump has been found liable for rape, and yet Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Even if I find this appealing, I wonder why you need to do this whataboutism.
I think it’s important to point it out. The other rapist is exalted when he should be getting shut down too.
Oh wow. Just like that, Russell is rapist.
Yeah. Here:
Of all those claims, these stuck out:
-
a 16 year old in 2006 when he was 30 and gave her instructions to hide from parents. Underage is rape.
-
In 2012 he is accused of raping a woman who was treated in a Rape Treatment Center afterwards.
-
In 2020, there was another 16 year old and evidently his manager believed him at first and then issued a statement saying he was misled and terminated business with him.
I only see allegations, no convictions. Remember what happened to Kevin Spacey and Julian Assange?
For what it’s worth: I’m not saying he’s innocent. But to go from allegation to conviction, you’ll need a judge in my book. Not a trial by media.
Well there are cases where one unnamed source makes an unprovable accusation, and then there are cases with multiple alleged victims over the span of a decade…
Removed by mod
Youtube yanks monetization from much poorer people for much more mysterious and never revealed reasons. It’s a privately owned business, known for fucking over its content creators.
Yes, this is true about Spacey being innocent. I have personally known people who have made false allegations so I don’t doubt it happens.
16 is not underage in the UK, where this is alleged to have happened.
While it’s not “technically” underage rape, let’s be honest it basically is. No normal person thinks it’s acceptable for some in there 30s to have a relationship with a 16 year old.
The law is there to protect say an 18 year old in collage, where it’s common for 16-18 year olds to be in the same classes, not for creepy 30+ year olds.
That’s not how the law works though. You can drink whatever alcohol you can legally buy the second you turn 18 (in the UK). The same applies for sex at 16. Maybe you don’t like it, but 16 is the age of consent for sex, with whoever else is legal.
Both child grooming and emotional and sexual assault are illegal in the UK, bizarre as this may seem to you.
I fully support them being illegal, why would you think that would be bizarre to me?
I merely pointed out, in the case of the 16 year old schoolgirl, she was not legally underage, no matter how shocking and disturbing we may find Brand’s behaviour, which I do. I don’t think she has made any claims of rape or assault against Brand, but others have. I don’t know what laws, if any, apply to his treatment of her, but I don’t think underage sex is one of them.
If we think something is already illegal when it isn’t, then it reduces the incentive to change the law - why make something illegal when you already think it is? Possibly the UK needs new legislation to vary the age of consent depending on the participants, as in other states.
-
Just trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance for Trump supporters who maybe haven’t thought about it in these terms.
Removed by mod
Imagine hating someone so much you bring him into any convo you enter. We get it bro, orange man bad, last I heard he is in jail or something. now shut up!
I can’t stand Trump but I also can’t stand people who don’t shut up about him either, some people make talking about Trump part of their personality and it’s on both sides… but in this case the way the person framed their comment makes sense
Just glad there ain’t a karma system lol
Fuck that, nothing wrong with being downvoted to shit, it’s your opinion some people may not like it but so what, plus internet points don’t mean anything
True that my friend, true that!
Is it against YT TOS or did they take the liberty with this decision
Second, as much as I have always found him sketchy and a very irritating person, I am very alarmed by the erosion of people’s right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. even when I know that he is quite capable of the committing those allegation
A platform can choose themselves who they extend the platform to.
It may not be justice, but if Youtube decides to demonetise every video featuring red sweaters, then they have the liberty to do so.
That’s too much power for a monopoly to have. And YouTube is quite close to a monopoly.
Maybe “more fool you” but entire livelihoods and businesses rely on YouTube not cutting them off at any random moment with no notice or warning.
But YouTube doesn’t have a monopoly, you’re more than welcome to start up a competing video hosting site and steal their customers. YouTube is providing a platform, for people to upload and store their videos for free – they have every right to decide who they do and don’t want on their platform.
Due to network effects, YouTube has a monopoly in video hosting. A monopoly is any company which has significantly more marketshare in its respective niche than all other companies in the same niche.
Now, does YouTube fit this definition?
Btw, there have been successful lawsuits against channel suspensions already from people making a living off of YouTube due to worker protection laws.
Removed by mod
Don’t want the risk of culpability ? Don’t want to consider others? Feel entitled? Then go Create your own distribution.
YouTube sucks, but it’s not a monopoly. It’s nowhere close to one. Monopolies are not “there’s only one product.” People love spouting monopoly to every mainstream product like iPhone and Windows.
YouTube has plenty of competition in video hosting. There’s more professional high cost ones like Netflix. Less giving but just as easily accessible is TikTok. Hell there’s even PornHub.
Just because YouTube has a unique combination of services that has allowed self employment for many people that can’t get it easily on existing sites does not mean that competition does not exist. Many content creators on YouTube actually advertise a competing site on YouTube.
Before we can start offering solutions we need to have a good understanding on what the problem is and what it isn’t.
YouTube doesn’t need to presume shit. You’re confusing YouTube with the US government.
YT is a private company supplying a server. They can set their own policy (TOS which is neither enforceable by law for either side) and they don’t actually owe anyone their livelihood. It’s like getting kicked off of any platform,even Etsy. Etsy doesn’t then owe you money that you could have made. You don’t own potential money. It’s not promised to you. They are a platform. Not your distributor. And even at that you can be kicked from a distributor anytime as they can also have policies on content they will associate with. If they decide it’s disagreeable, that in itself is a breach of contract.
Removed by mod
he’s not EMPLOYED by YouTube. That is not what this is.
Yeah, I don’t know anything about this guy but this is an alarming decision if the headline is accurate.
It’s more alarming if he is innocent
Great, now demonitize the catholic church while you’re at it.
And pragerU
Just spray Dennis Prager with a can of RAID so the fucker’ll skitter back to whatever dark corner of the universe he crawled out of.
Actually permetherins (the class powerful general purpose insecticides found in RAID) don’t have much of an effect on lizards 🤷
Unlike PragerU you’ve actually taught me something!
I guarantee you they spend wayyy more money on production than they make in views.
I have no idea if he did or didn’t any of the alleged. But what happened to innocent u til proven guilty? Anyone accused of anything these days gets cancelled.
I mean there are definately people who havent been canceled. Reminder that Chris Brown is probably bigger than he once was and everyone knows hes actually beaten up people
Removed by mod
Worst case scenario Ben Shepiro offers them a spot on the Daily Wire.
I would say that ACTUALLY being “cancelled” is the exception.
I’d argue it’s the opposite.
Most working class people can suffer real consequences as a result of it. Those who are rich, famous, and/or influential can afford to just pivot.
Google is not the law, and they can do whatever they want with their company.
They don’t have to continue to pay him if they don’t want to — innocent, guilty, whichever. Just like they don’t have to continue to host nazi garbage or MAGA garbage if they don’t want to.
Google is not the law, and they can do whatever they want with their company.
Sure, but imagine your employer just fired you because of accusations before it ever reached trial. Illegal? No. Ruining someone’s livelihood even though they’re innocent legally speaking? Yes.
Not defending this person, I genuinely do not even know who they are. But “private company can do whatever they want, your rights are only something the government has to care about” is a pretty concerning position to take. Not to mention they didn’t seem to take down or stop running ads on the channel, just stopped giving him the money. They’re profiting off of his content without paying him and using an unverified (but very possibly accurate) accusation as an excuse. That should be illegal.
I would hope my job would fire me if there were a dozen complaints about me ranging from mental abuse to rape over the span of over a decade.
I agree with you about Google just pocketing any money made off him though, that’s messed up
The influx of libertarian dead minded commenters here is exhausting. Too concerned with zero tolerance rules to even consider the details or understand the difference. I thought Reddit was bad.
When YouTube disables monetization they stop running any ads on the channel. Other articles like this one are clearer on that matter.
I genuinely do not even know who they are
Don’t kkow too much about him but I liked him in this video.
This puts Russel Brand in a position to sue for libel and slander as the court of public opinion has already declared him guilty. What happens if he is found innocent at his court case. What if they did this to Johnny Depp?
“Not guilty” is distinct from “innocent”, and such a verdict, if a trial ever comes of this, would not impact libel or slander. Being unable to prove your accusations in court to the standard required is not a determination that the accusations were false, only that doubt remained.
Nothing. These people aren’t entitled to companies wanting to work with them. This isn’t the same thing as being a W-2 worker somewhere.
This only works because Youtube has the loosest form of contracts with its creators. Your regular employers can’t fire you because of allegations or hearsay (modulo local labor laws).
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, nobody here knows if he did it or not.
Unfortunately, that’s pretty much a wrap for him. Nobody has come back from rape allegations, even if they win in court.
I don’t even like the guy, but I really dislike how we’ve regressed to the point where feelings are more important than facts.
Cancelled people don’t come back!? What fucking planet are you living on?
Bret The Rapist Kavanaugh got everything he wanted after getting cancelled.
Floyd Wife Beater Mayweather will still be remembered for his boxing career than the shit he should be remembered for.
Louie Indecent Exposure CK came back to the Comedy Scene years after getting cancelled only to make disingenuous jokes about his behavior.
These pieces of garbage should hang their heads in shame and suffer social ostracism until all their victims vocally and emphatically forgive them publicly.
The fact we make excuses for and defend these “people” because of their social status and a myriad of legal loopholes that allow for them to walk free with their heads held high while their victims are questioned and vilified is fucking pathetic.
Trump lost in civil court for what the judge called rape, and still has a rabid fan base.
Removed by mod
I mean Deshaun Watson came back with 230 million dollars guaranteed after several sexual harrasment allegations. Public image wise hes gone, but that doesnt mean he still doesnt make a shit ton of money (and all of it guaranteed)
Several? Man was at 26 allegations and he is still currently being sued. The Browns were stupid enough to pay him thinking he was going to save them and to a vast majority of football fans joy he isn’t playing well. I wouldn’t be shocked if he goes broke.
What about Johnny Depp? Don’t forget Al Franken too.
deleted by creator
Presumption of innocence is in law. IANAL.
He isn’t jailed is he?
And not even cancelled either. He is still even allowed to post content to Youtube.
Anyone who can still say they are cancelled aren’t actually cancelled.
It’s not the fucking job of YouTube to judge and punish. We have judges and the Criminal Code for that. We should not let us ruled by corporations!
It is their job to make profits. Literally. Google is legally bound by stake holder agreement to maximise profits, absolutely nothing to do with the justice system or any sort of ethical code.
deleted by creator
Yea I understand that, but so many content creators get thrown under the bus by YouTube, twitch, etc. that I think there should be a law protecting individuals from big cooperations that they are dependent on. I know, it’s different in America compared to where I live, here, if you have someone Working for you and you fire that person, depending how long this person works for you already, you have to pay salary for up to 3 months. (There are few reasons that allow cancellation of contract immediately) After you got fired, you can go to a place called “Arbeitslosenkasse” where you get 80% of salary going forward as long as you try to get a new job.
So maybe thats why I find it odd when YouTube just flick a switch upon obligations…
Btw. I don’t know that guy the post is about and highly doubt that he is innocent given the infos I have seen yet.
deleted by creator
We have the same laws in the UK, but he’s self-employed. Can you not be self-employed where you live?
Advertisers won’t want to be shown on his videos while this is ongoing.
Keeping them happy is in fact literally their job.
Didn’t know Google was the one that sentenced him to jail.
Not giving money is punishment
No, it is a consequence of having bad publicity.
Agree, there’s actual rapists and incels on YouTube that need banning before an alleged rapist or SA.
and they might have tainted any jurors ifa case did come about.
He isn’t banned though.
My god… some of the commenters would make you think he was being sent to the lethal injection chamber.
The guy had his account demonetized. He’s not even banned from YouTube. He can post as many videos as he wants. He just doesn’t get paid for them. Which makes him… like most of us who post YouTube videos. The horror!
It’s scary seeing how many people also don’t understand that these laws protect you from government entities.
IYoutube is considered a private company, as it isn’t run by the government. So, protective laws against government rules don’t really apply. Proper court proceeding would be good, yes, but youtube is not the Court. Youtube can and does control what is on their platform. They are contract bound to advertiser interests, and their advertisers don’t want to risk encouraging him if he is guilty. That is also their right, as they are also private entities. There is nothing that obligates them to continue funding someone. They could also decide to stop funding because the guy like bagels.
As a private entity, google could theoretically stop every single youtube channel today, if they chose to do so. They can decide to not host your content just because you like potatoes over radishes. It’s their private platform.
I don’t get why that’s complex. Private vs public.
Agreed, but what’s really grinding my gears here is he hasn’t been banned from YouTube. He just won’t make money from his videos. People are complaining because a multimillionaire isn’t getting paid by Google. Baffling.
Maybe because in principle someone had lost their income due to unproven allegations. Who they are our the financial status is irrelevant.
What’s relevant is that Google has no obligation to pay anyone but their employees.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If you ever get accused of a crime, your whole life should be cancelled as a precautionary measure /s
Another way this could be phrased is - Following serious allegations of rape and sexual assaults advertiser’s do not wish to be associated with Russell Brand so YouTube stops showing their adverts on his channel
But why can’t those advertisers just block him as an individual?
We are now in a world where accusations now result in a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
No need for YouTube to blanketly make the decisions for all advertisers
This is how advertising works. Advertisers do not want to be responsible for vetting every placement, part of what the publisher is being paid for in “run-of-site” / “run-of-network” advertising is curating of ad-adjacent content.
a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
We only saw this with Amber Heard. Speaking of simping, Depp had an army of incels and “men’s rights” douchers behind him from the get go. Anyone who had any objective comments about that whole case would get chewed out and brigaded by a bunch of insecure woman beaters standing up for poor little Johnny Depp. The worst was how everyone acted like they knew both of their lives inside and out, and they really believed that they were experts on their situation because they watched livestreamed court proceedings. It is a great example, just in the opposite direction.
deleted by creator
There’s nothing stopping him getting his own advertising on his channel, he hasn’t been banned from YouTube.
Why does Google have to restrict which form of advertising he needs to use?
By confining him to certain types of advertising, it makes him less appealing to advertisers.
What if these accusations end up being false? I’m not losing sleep over Russell Brand losing money but if we hold the same logic it could damage smaller entities that can’t afford it.
We see this with channels like the Armchair historian. Google demonitized that channel just because they had Nazi flags in a historical context when talking about WWII.
Another case could be made for anyone who wants to defame another individual. If someone doesn’t like management for a local restaurant that advertises on YouTube, someone can just say “I heard from several people you had rats in your restaurant” or “I heard you had racist employees in your restaurant”. We now live in a world where just the allegation is enough to damage an entity, regardless of if it is based in fact.
In this instance it isn’t just an allegation though - one of the women has evidence she went to a rape crisis centre on the same day, which Channel 4 was able to confirm with the centre, and text messages from Brand on the same day where he apologised for his rape.
Why would Google continue to profit from his actions? That would be mental.
Russell Brand is a wealthy, famous Hollywood star who does not know who you are and will never give you the love you needed from your father.
The thing is, he isn’t cancelled.
Nobody who can say they are cancelled actually are cancelled, because if they were actually cancelled you wouldn’t hear anything from then.
Anyway, he still is allowed to post Youtube videos, just doesn’t get money from Google for them.
“nobody who can say they were cancelled actually are cancelled” don’t you think that means you should redefine what “cancelled” means in your head?
deleted by creator
Since when did innocent until proven guilty stop being a thing? Not defending anyone here, just seems that principle is all but forgotten in modern society.
deleted by creator
What happened to Al Franken three weeks after Leeann Tweeden, a conservative talk-radio host, accused him?
We absolutely need to investigate claims and make sure due process is not an up hill battle. At least 63% of rapes are not reported. Yet there needs to be due process. Due process is different from a private company deciding not to do business with you or pay you while due process is under way, so I’m not surprised by YouTube taking this action.
Removed by mod
Youtube cutting off their monetisation is not the same as putting the person in jail.
I didn’t say it was?
Then why are you framing your post like it was? If you get accused of raping a woman and you’re going on live TV wearing your employee uniform defending yourself, your employer is firing you 10 out of 10 times.
You did though. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a business concept. Businesses are allowed to choose who to do business with.
You’re literally quoting a law that is used in court about penalties and it’s still up there. You forgot to delete before saying you didn’t say it. You’re both lazy and stupid.
Yes you did
Because cutting off monetisation has nothing to do with being proven guilty or not.
That’s only a legal principle - he’s not in jail, is he? Individuals and organizations can do whatever they want. It has nothing to do with modern society.
Punishing people based on accusations isn’t just.
Is this him being punished or YouTube protecting it’s brand?
He should be able to sue youtube for a nice settlement (if he is in the right), maybe? Idealistically, that should keep such bullshit in check.
But then again, youtube probably has “Youtube reserves the right to do fucking anything to you” in its TOS that everybody just skips.
Since when are corporations actions based on justice?
Removed by mod
He should be able to sue youtube for a nice settlement (if he is in the right), maybe? Idealistically, that should keep such bullshit in check.
But then again, youtube probably has “Youtube reserves the right to do fucking anything to you” in its TOS that everybody just skips.
Then he’ll sue
deleted by creator
It’s not the legal system, it’s a heartless corporation trying to maximize their revenue. Capitalizing on the situation.
Removed by mod
You do realize that innocent until proven guilty only applies with the government, right? Normal people and companies do not have to extend the same luxury. Hell our military doesn’t even give that luxury.
It applies to morally sound people as well as in law.
I’ve been accused and then shunned after some valuables went missing at a house party.
I was the only minority. Nobody dared to stand up for me and everybody just pointed fingers to the weakest individual.
Branded as a thief despite my life long upstanding morality, career, ethics.
Guilty until proven Innocent, and even then still kinda guilty.
That’s just how people operate today, and it’s disgusting
Edit: Second sentence added for clarity
He hasn’t been thrown in jail without trial.
This is a private company protecting itself.
You can just send me all your money. It’s not like you need income to get food and shelter, or anything like that.
Yeah they’ve taken all his money.
Removed by mod
Am I misreading your comment or are you supporting the idea of guilty until proven innocent?
Definitely misreading it
I think you might be misreading.
Innocent until proven guilty is part of the legal system. Not part of an advertisers choice to place ads.
He has not been found guilty of a crime without evidence. He’s lost ad revenue from a private platform.
Damm guys 15 dislikes? I get that I misunderstood but i didn’t expect to be ratio’d.
Removed by mod
If you watched the piece, there is video evidence of him being a disgusting piece of shit regardless. There was footage of him forcefully kissing a presenter and undoing her bra. The police failed to investigate. These women were failed by lazy, misogynistic police, just like they always are.
To top it off, slander laws in the UK are very strict, no one is going to post accusations like this without serious evidence to back themselves up.
Removed by mod
So you’re saying channel 4 makes allegations of rape against celebrities all the time?
Removed by mod
This is a two day old account with many hot takes that are stone cold.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Christ you have a conspiracy for everything don’t you? Lemmy’s a small place. But this is very informative about your other comments.
Judge, jury, and executioner.
HE WAS EXECUTED BY GOOGLE EMPLOYEES???!
Removed by mod
Kevin accuser status:
"She was hit by a car in March and died in the hospital shortly after. No driver was charged for the incident. "
“In September, another accuser died, although his name is unknown. The man, who was a massage therapist, was suing Spacey under the name of “John Doe” for sexual assault. Shortly before the trial began, he died. A source informed Variety that he passed away from cancer. Because of the massage therapist’s death, his case against Spacey was dismissed.”
“On Christmas Day of 2019, Ari died of an apparent suicide. No further details have been disclosed as of yet.”
So I don’t think Kevin Spacey is a good example of “innocent man”
Also some people need to read more about the “rumors” that “support” these allegations as they are “open secrets” in Hollywood. For any accusations, a little bit of research can provide very amazingly details about these cases from early 2000 in blogs and gossip Hollywood magazine.
Yeah Spacey 100% fucked kids.
Don’t forget how the government weaponised similar accusations against Julian Assange.
My dad got sucked into the Russell Brand woo during the pandemic. Maybe he’ll finally come to his senses now this guy is an obvious fraud?
Low chance, more likely he’ll think Brand is some kind of martyr. Brand immediately dove into the Andrew Tate angle.
It’s simple: if you’re a media personality that uses your influence and money to groom and/or sexually harass or assault women, simply tell your audience that the government is trying to silence you, because “you’re a dangerous revolutionary too close to the truth” or anything like that really.
Block your dad’s router and blame the deep state
