FBXL Social

Ok, this is intriguing. A famous person has been publicly accused of sexual assault. He hasn't been convicted of any such crime, indeed no charges have been laid. So he's innocent until proven guilty, right?

Yet in a trial by media, this person has already been declared guilty by YouTube, who have demonetised their channel. Also by a bunch of companies who are withdrawing ads from another platform where the person can still make money, to pressure the platform to demonetise them too.

(1/3)

If this person stops making money because the audience believe they're guilty and walks away, that's one thing. But here we have powerful institutions and corporations trying to prevent them receiving the income they normally could, from an audience who continue to support them.

Should our response to this be based on whether we like this person ourselves and agree with their politics? Or should we be defending their freedoms on principle, even if we fundamentally disagree with them?

(2/3)

As it happens, the person in question on this occasion is someone I strongly agreed with up until the pandemic, and often strongly disagreed with since. Should this matter in deciding whether to criticise what's happening to him?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/23/firms-pull-ads-from-rumble-platform-over-russell-brand-videos

If we look away while powerful institutions knobble people we disagree with, can we be surprised if the same happens to people we agree with? Do we really want them to be able to shut down any critic who isn't a saint? Who's next?

(3/3)

@strypey

that's why decentralized media and value for value funding matters.

@wjmaggos
> that's why decentralized media and value for value funding matters

This is a fix on the technical layer but the problem goes deeper. It's things like a lack of non-partisan agreement on universal human rights. If we don't address the philosophical problems, people will always be looking a technical fix to the perceived problem of not being able to banish "bad" people.

We've seen this here since Eternal November, people talking about how to make "Mastodon" more like pre-Musk Titter.

@strypey

I agree about upping the basic civic norms of our culture, but two things. The companies get to make choices too, and I think OJ did it. I don't know how to properly balance a strong personal view that differs from what our institutions say is "true". I guess I think everybody should try to default to innocent till proven but it gets hard. And when shit looks like a take down job like here imo, be even more defiant.

PS it goes without saying that the things this person is accused of doing are horrific, and I utterly condemn any such behaviour. Respect for freedom includes respect for bodily autonomy, so touching someone sexually against their will is always wrong. No exceptions.

Is what they are accused of doing worse than what's being done to them? They're both wrong, for very different reasons, and with very different potential results. I see no reason to prioritise one pursuit of justice over another.

@strypey

I am ok with a loss of income stream for anyone accused by five women of sexual assault. Anyone.

Income tends to be more resilient, especially for wealthy white male celebrities, than what is harmed in a person in an assault situation.

@anomalon
> I am ok with a loss of income stream for anyone accused by five women of sexual assault. Anyone.

I addressed that here;

https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/112294542163504856

Let's not forget that Julian Assange was initially accused of sexual assault. These charges were later withdrawn and it's become clear they were just a smear tactic, used to shut down his journalism exposing US war crimes. This is a good example of why presumption of innocence matters.

@anomalon
If he'd been *convicted* of sexual assault on 5 women, that's a very different matter. But after 2 police interviews, he hasn't even been charged.

@strypey I cannot stand the person concerned for many reasons but the foremost is that he has a history of not paying his bills. He has sent many small contractors into bankruptcy. He is a fraudster.

@CarolynStirling
> he has a history of not paying his bills. He has sent many small contractors into bankruptcy

I agree this is wrong. But I don't think two wrongs make a right. I addressed this here;

https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/112294542163504856

My point in this thread is that regardless of who the person is, or what they've done, they still have inalienable human rights. We erode the universality of those at our peril.

@strypey
I see how people may feel a delima here. On legal grounds there is not. No charges filed. In the US there is an organisation called the ACLU that can step into situations like this to support individual rights on principle no matter how unsavoury.
Much to unpack here. The fact he is on a Peter Thiel platform, Rumble, makes me suspicious all around. Unlikely to be much truth or reality behind anything in that case. I find Brand choice of Rumble suspicious

@wjmaggos
> I don't know how to properly balance a strong personal view that differs from what our institutions say is "true"

You may be doing the political equivalent of trying to apply quantum theory to everyday objects. These are 2 vastly different scales. Different principles can apply.

I don't expect every person to base their decisions on presumption of innocence, or behave as if verdict = truth. But I demand that *institutions* do. If they don't, we all live in fear of trial by media..

@strypey

I wasn't aware that the charges against Assange had been withdrawn by his accusers.

I can't imagine letting the police be the arbiters of what I consider to be credible, for what it's worth.

Five women is a lot. I'm really unconcerned about dude's ability to make even more money this fiscal quarter.

@anomalon
> Five women is a lot

You're presuming guilt. The point is, as with Assange, we don't know what happened, only those who involved do. Which is why we have rights to due process, fair trial etc, rather than trial by media.

You're well within your rights as an individual to judge him guilty as accused. But there are historical precedents for what happens when this becomes an institutional norm. They're not pretty.

@strypey

Wow. I hope you are never sexually assaulted, so you can continue to unflinchingly question which is worse, a rich man's loss of further income or sexual assault. I'm pointing out your privilege so you can consciously be grateful for it.

@anomalon
> Wow. I hope you are never sexually assaulted

Perhaps your privileged enough never to have been assaulted. I'm not. Check your assumptions.

> I'm pointing out your privilege so you can consciously be grateful for it

I'm trying to explore democratic principles, where their boundaries are in practice, and how we defend them. I'm not remotely interested in a sneering match.

@strypey "Innocent until proven guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)" is the standard for a criminal trial. It's more-or-less appropriate to have a highish bar as a stopbank against malicious prosecution and state power. But it's not even the evidence standard for civil court cases - (that is "balance of probabilities").

I agree that there can be a problem when corporate power and popular opinion rush to condemn with poor information, but let's discuss that using the appropriate standards. 1/

@strypey IMO it's important we have the ability to freely say things like "[Person] stands credibly accused of [misdeed]". There are some cases where it might be appropriate to limit this, e.g. not biasing an upcoming trial, but there are also cases where it's very much not, e.g. where statute of limitations prevents prosecution, or where victims are unwilling to go through retraumatisation in a court case. 2/2

@scattermutant
I have no problem with any of this, but it's all orthogonal to my point here. There's been a number of responses to my initial 3 post thread. I've tried to use my replies to flesh out my arguments. Do any of those clarify anything in terms of your concerns in these posts?

@ByronCinNZ
> I find Brand choice of Rumble suspicious

See my comments in the third post of the initial thread. Who he is or what platform(s) he's on is neither here nor there.

Imagine Naomi Klein, for example, arbitrarily lose her living on the basis of trial by media. I expect that principled conservatives would be against that, even though they disagree with Klein, or find The Intercept suspicious, to. Some things just go deeper than partisan politics.

Unless we're in a civil cold war?

@strypey

Please do not inform me about the contents of my mind. That's just a hard rule for me.

I'm autistic. Chances are your algorithm for how to read my mind has some calibration ineptitudes.

Are you really going HAM about the Youtube demonetization of a $20M man?

(O, the Assange things got dropped because of the intersection of statute of limitations and the complications of his squatting in Ecuador's embassy; not merit-related, not debunked)

@anomalon
> Please do not inform me about the contents of my mind

I'm merely interpreting what you said. Your argument in that post would make no sense if it wasn't assuming guilt.

> I'm autistic. Chances are your algorithm for how to read my mind has some calibration ineptitudes.

Same, same.

> Are you really going HAM about the Youtube demonetization of a $20M man?

You're fetishising the particular. My whole point is that it's about the principles involved, not the person in the example.

@strypey Struggling with this and trying to unpack it..
In an abstract sense, the person / platform should not matter.
Yet also "the media is the message". Rumble is a predominately right wing platform owned largely by Thiel who is a self professed . . . .A common tactic for a platform with a clear political slant (left or right) is to allow someone "from the other side" air time for the purpose of discrediting that side. Bothsidesism can be a trap that forgives abhorrent behaviour

@strypey And yes, unfortunately, it seems we are in a cold civil war. Wish it weren't so

@ByronCinNZ
> yes, unfortunately, it seems we are in a cold civil war

I'm neither convinced that we are, nor that it helps to challenge institutions violating basic democratic only when it happens to be people we agree with. Seems to me the lack of a non-partisan consensus on defending such rights makes us all vulnerable to divide and rule, in a way that only empowers authoritarians.