Google/YouTube gave a reason, it was quoted in an article in The Guardian, I think. Violated terms of service, which apparently includes offline behavior, subject to YouTube's discretion.
We may or may not disagree, but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again). I only commented on what did happen, and why I don't think Google/YouTube did anything legally wrong, or even ethically objectionable, given that their interests differ from Russell Brand's interests and no longer intersect since Brand became a social pariah. Google has to cater to a lot more customers than Russell Brand and his audience, and has to consider public opinion about alleged celebrity rapists.
We all have our interpretations and ideas about how YouTube and the world at large should work. I try not to spend a lot of time and energy trying to reconcile reality with how I think things should work.
>but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again)
Well then we're really talking past each other because that's the only thing that interests me about this case. What actually happned is neither surprising nor particularly mysterious.
We are in a situation where a handful of globally dominant platforms and infrastructure providers can unilaterally shut people down for any reason whatsoever. Those of us whose livelihood depends on those platforms need more rights.
Google's interest to shield itself from reputational damage should not be permitted to outweigh all other considerations.
Brand's management company/agent dropped him too. Should they have to continue to represent Russell Brand while the accusations pile up, his reputation sinks, and anyone associated with him risks collateral damage? He has rights, but he isn't the only one with rights.
No one has a right to publish on a platform owned by a private entity. That is not freedom of speech. Brand was not de-monetized "for any reason whatsoever." He did not get censored by the government. He got kicked off YT for specific reasons stated by YouTube. They aren't just randomly booting people off or arbitrarily making up the rules as they go. Google absolutely has every right to protect their brand and their customers, and that does outweigh whatever rights you imagine Russell Brand has to continue posting on YouTube and profiting from it.
>Brand's management company/agent dropped him too. Should they have to continue to represent Russell Brand while the accusations pile up, his reputation sinks, and anyone associated with him risks collateral damage?
His management agent is not a globally dominant platform or infrastructure provider.
Russell Brand was not banned or kicked off the internet, Google, or even YouTube. His videos got demonetized because YouTube had ethical and contractual obligations to their advertisers and users. Focus on the penalties Brand has actually suffered -- demonetization of his videos, cancellations of some tour dates, book publisher getting squeamish -- rather than extrapolating the incident into an imaginary global soul-crushing dystopia.
It may turn out that Brand got wrongfully accused, though I doubt it, given that multiple women who don't know each other doing that seems unlikely, especially given Brand's self-admitted promiscuity and sex addiction, and cringe behavior towards women you can easily find. But if he's not guilty then he'll get his YouTube monetization back, and thanks to the UK's libel laws he would make a small fortune suing the TV channel and newspapers and the accusers.
We may or may not disagree, but I'm not discussing what you or I think should happen (you used that word again). I only commented on what did happen, and why I don't think Google/YouTube did anything legally wrong, or even ethically objectionable, given that their interests differ from Russell Brand's interests and no longer intersect since Brand became a social pariah. Google has to cater to a lot more customers than Russell Brand and his audience, and has to consider public opinion about alleged celebrity rapists.
We all have our interpretations and ideas about how YouTube and the world at large should work. I try not to spend a lot of time and energy trying to reconcile reality with how I think things should work.