鈥淔inancial deplatforming, or banking censorship, will be a common lever governments and companies reach for when it comes to censorship of political opinions."
Personally, I don't know if Russell Brand is guilty of what he is accused of or not. But that's not really the point. Or rather it IS the point depending on how you look at it.
The point is that (at least in America) you are supposed to be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. An accusation of a crime is not enough to convict. However, corporations wield such control as to, for most practical purposes, convict you before a trial even begins. While for someone as wealthy as Russell Brand, perhaps the consequences o what YouTube is doing is inconsequential. But imagine for someone who counts on such income for their livelihood.
I know there are those that for some reason believe the supposed victim is always telling the truth but this is obviously not the case. Even if it is the case 99% of the time, 99% is not 100%. For one recent example, look at accusations Amber Heard made against Johnny Depp. As a result of those accusation, Disney dropped Depp. Yet it turned out that those accusations were dubious at best. Depp in fact won a defamation lawsuit.
I'm not suggesting accusations of abuse should not be taken seriously. Obviously they must be. However, can we not go back to the ideal of "innocent until proven guilt?" Is that so unreasonable? What's not reasonable is the ability of someone to destroy someone's life or career simply by accusing them of something. What's even more disturbing is that this sort of financial censorship happens for things as benign as political opinions. Toe the line or live on the streets I guess.
