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.

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?

Can't wait for a future where multibillion dollar corporations decide what's right and wrong and also who is and isn't guilty.

Even if I find this appealing, I wonder why you need to do this whataboutism.

And pragerU

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.

I'm guessing the challenge is advertisers. Advertisers buy ad space next to or in video content. No advertiser wants to buy ad space that is adjacent to or makes it look like they are supporting someone under public scrutiny for sexual assault allegations. So as Google, where you need to sell good ad space to paying advertisers, bother with running ads next to Russel Brand or just say no and make that clear to advertisers to build confidence?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Youtube cutting off their monetisation is not the same as putting the person in jail.