That’s a lot of words to say “I don’t believe people who call the police and file police reports”. Also, that’s a lot of words to say “I feel that private companies shouldn’t have the ability to moderate their platform, and they should be forced to host accused rapists, despite what their advertisers believe is a good look for their brand.” Of course there will be an investigation. This isn’t a coordinated attack on Brand. This is reporting the news. Was it a coordinated attack on Danny Masterson? A coordinated attack on Trump supporters in the days following Jan 6th? Assuming that the investigation will undoubtedly clear Brand’s name is the naive cynicism that the article is referring to.
To your second point, I never said alphabet has to host Russell Brand’s content. They’re private company they’re free to do as they like.
I’m going to ignore the what-aboutisms.
The original comment was not about this particular incident, but the media playbook for any outrage incident. Getting people to engage with media sources is the goal of media, so regardless of the underlying facts, this outrage cycle is very profitable for some people. As the article was about people reacting to media, it was relevant.
That’s a lot of words to say “I don’t believe people who call the police and file police reports”. Also, that’s a lot of words to say “I feel that private companies shouldn’t have the ability to moderate their platform, and they should be forced to host accused rapists, despite what their advertisers believe is a good look for their brand.” Of course there will be an investigation. This isn’t a coordinated attack on Brand. This is reporting the news. Was it a coordinated attack on Danny Masterson? A coordinated attack on Trump supporters in the days following Jan 6th? Assuming that the investigation will undoubtedly clear Brand’s name is the naive cynicism that the article is referring to.
To your first point, trust but verify.
To your second point, I never said alphabet has to host Russell Brand’s content. They’re private company they’re free to do as they like.
I’m going to ignore the what-aboutisms.
The original comment was not about this particular incident, but the media playbook for any outrage incident. Getting people to engage with media sources is the goal of media, so regardless of the underlying facts, this outrage cycle is very profitable for some people. As the article was about people reacting to media, it was relevant.