Russell Brand

[Noggin]

I've only come into the thread cos the title made me laugh. I was just in a bar with a mate (first human I've spoken to today apart from the nurse this morning!!) and we were accosted by a drunk acquaintance who started off on a proper tin foil hat rant about the world - where did he get his information? Mostly from Russell Brand videos


I haven't watched this one and won't (mentally I'm clinging by a thread, so don't need to deal with anything more than I currently am!!) - but the timing made me laugh

[McNab]

You came into this thread despite the title warning you he's on your list...

To be fair, the title is just "Russel Brand" so perhaps Felix thought you might be of a similar mind to him and it was a thread to slag Brand off (that's why I'm here).

Perhaps if you had titled it along the lines of "Russel Brand talks intelligently about corporate greed and blood donation" Felix might not have bothered. I get it's not as catchy a title though.

PS, I think Brand is a cunt, too, and refuse to watch anything with him in.

[Greenman]

I have been following Russell Brand for some time now. He has changed considerably from his days of old.



I don't hesitate to recommend his channel, this video is a pretty good example...

He's a legend and provides a more 'real' version of todays news backed up with what seems like pretty honest evidence.

I watch a lot of his casts on youtube.

[Horse]

He's a legend and provides a more 'real' version of todays news backed up with what seems like pretty honest evidence.

I watch a lot of his casts on youtube.

As I said earlier, in this particular case:
- a very rich bloke ranting about 'the rich'
- blood products issue, covered by The Guardian, ages ago (see link)
- sale of blood products from the USA to the UK was happening decades ago (see the BBC link)

If ranting recycled information is 'real' and what impresses you, and makes him a legend, well ok.

Caveat: that's the only one of his that I've looked at, and the only one I have done any background reading on.

[Greenman]

He's a legend and provides a more 'real' version of todays news backed up with what seems like pretty honest evidence.

I watch a lot of his casts on youtube.

As I said earlier, in this particular case:
- a very rich bloke ranting about 'the rich'
- blood products issue, covered by The Guardian, ages ago (see link)
- sale of blood products from the USA to the UK was happening decades ago (see the BBC link)

If ranting recycled information is 'real' and what impresses you, and makes him a legend, well ok.

Caveat: that's the only one of his that I've looked at, and the only one I have done any background reading on.

It all depends on how much you trust said media outlets.

I like Brand as he tends to cross reference all of the evidence or non-evidence as it might be, so that you can make a more informed judgement on what is truth and what is pure lies, IMO most of the media like BBC/Guardian etc etc etc is complete lies and there only to benefit their cronies that support them (rich people).

[Count Steer]

It all depends on how much you trust said media outlets.

I like Brand as he tends to cross reference all of the evidence or non-evidence as it might be, so that you can make a more informed judgement on what is truth and what is pure lies, IMO most of the media like BBC/Guardian etc etc etc is complete lies and there only to benefit their cronies that support them (rich people).

LOL. You pick your targets don't you? Wot? No Sky, Fox, Telegraph, Mail, Times, Sun? I guess they operate for the benefit of the poor.

[Greenman]

It all depends on how much you trust said media outlets.

I like Brand as he tends to cross reference all of the evidence or non-evidence as it might be, so that you can make a more informed judgement on what is truth and what is pure lies, IMO most of the media like BBC/Guardian etc etc etc is complete lies and there only to benefit their cronies that support them (rich people).

LOL. You pick your targets don't you? Wot? No Sky, Fox, Telegraph, Mail, Times, Sun? I guess they operate for the benefit of the poor.

Who knows.

As i said previously in this thread, make your own choices on who you trust, make judgements based on who you are not what society tells/wants you to be.

It's just common sense. If the BBC told you to jump off a cliff as it has massive financial benefits for the country you'd laugh in their face, so why do people accept everything as fact that some of these outlets tell them without using any independent judegment themselves, i find it strange!

[Screwdriver]

I do not begrudge anyone earning money from honest pursuits. I accept that is in itself a contentious and arguable position, I mean for example : estate agents. Need I say more?

Brand made a lot of money because people wanted to see him. Fame and money go hand in hand and currently, he is touring the UK where one assumes, a very large number of people are happy to pay to go see him. Nothing wrong with that. He seems pretty damned smart and has a very impressive vocabulary.

The most impressive thing for me is that he is willing to risk all of that to rail against the current wokeism and expose the giant global corporations and big tech money making machines for what they are. I am surprised he hasn't been censored yet but it can be only a matter of time.

Get it while you can. A few years from now much of this type of discourse will be banned by law. Laws being dreamed up right now by global corporations and big tech/big pharma as they "lobby" governments around the world using their virtual billions to steer our society in their favour.

[DefTrap]

Surely this proves there is no real censorship? Brand is saying a lot of the same stuff that the "i-am-censored!" are saying. The difference is that he's a celebrity and that drives interest, most of the other stuff is by nobodies.

[Greenman]

Surely this proves there is no real censorship? Brand is saying a lot of the same stuff that the "i-am-censored!" are saying. The difference is that he's a celebrity and that drives interest, most of the other stuff is by nobodies.

Censorship is still there even though the truth might be getting told by some.

Censorship can also appear when one source tells you one thing and another source something else, which source will you listen to this week?

That is censorship also, censoring and condemning something that has been leaked by covering up it with lies, if you believe the one telling the lies to cover up the truth you are being censored/brainwashed without even knowing it!

[Horse]

As I said earlier, in this particular case:
- a very rich bloke ranting about 'the rich'
- blood products issue, covered by The Guardian, ages ago (see link)
- sale of blood products from the USA to the UK was happening decades ago (see the BBC link)

If ranting recycled information is 'real' and what impresses you, and makes him a legend, well ok.

It all depends on how much you trust said media outlets.

I like Brand as he tends to cross reference all of the evidence or non-evidence as it might be, so that you can make a more informed judgement on what is truth and what is pure lies, IMO most of the media like BBC/Guardian etc etc etc is complete lies and there only to benefit their cronies that support them (rich people).

So you're criticising The Guardian and BBC for being untrustworthy and covering the same news back when it was news, but complimenting Brand on being a runner-up?

[Screwdriver]

Surely this proves there is no real censorship? Brand is saying a lot of the same stuff that the "i-am-censored!" are saying. The difference is that he's a celebrity and that drives interest, most of the other stuff is by nobodies.

No of course not. Censorship takes many forms and since YouTube is Google, the use of shadow banning has become very popular to hide dissenting voices. You know horrifically insensitive types like J. K. Rowling with theyn/sher/deyre hateful views suggesting men can't give birth How dare xe be so controlling and dismissive of birthing persons.

That particular topic area was discussed by Sydney Watson who has just been "censored" by having her Patreon account shut down. Bit like the Canadian PM cutting people off from their own bank accounts for donating to a cause (truckers protest) that the government disagrees with.



Many other YouTubers find their content is demonetised for similar reasons. That is, people who make their living by creating content which criticises the governments ridiculous "decree of the day" have their source of funding removed. That can be for a little as suggesting that men are not women.

Hey ho. Sometimes I am glad I am so old I won't have to put up with this crap for much longer. Meanwhile, just to cheer things up, here's a lovely picture of "woman of the year".

[Horse]

Censorship takes many forms and since YouTube is Google, the use of shadow banning has become very popular to hide dissenting voices.

There was someone getting upset on here back around US election time, going on about youtube censorship, removing videos or somehow hiding them from search results.

I looked on Google, clicked 'videos' - Ta-dah! The 'banned' 'missing' videos came up top of the list. Censorship which lists stuff is a bit extreme.

[slowsider]

You've clearly been duped by the lizards, Horse.

[Screwdriver]

Censorship takes many forms and since YouTube is Google, the use of shadow banning has become very popular to hide dissenting voices.

There was someone getting upset on here back around US election time, going on about youtube censorship, removing videos or somehow hiding them from search results.

I looked on Google, clicked 'videos' - Ta-dah! The 'banned' 'missing' videos came up top of the list. Censorship which lists stuff is a bit extreme.

As with many things and certainly all things big tech, nothing is so simple you can dismiss it so easily out of hand without a moments thought.

I could easily send you a link to a video which is shadow banned. Much of Sydney Watsons videos are so afflicted. What happens under those circumstances? Well, you get a link, the link plays a video, business as usual right?

Wrong. That's not how the world works, otherwise I'd just set up a server here, promote my own content and sit back, rake in the millions. What happens in the real world (!) is that a vast amount of data held by our big tech masters on ALL OF US is fed through an algorithm to determine how best to maximise their profit by selling your preferences to other agencies who pay for access to it.

I'm not even going to take a stab at how that really works, suffice to say your previous preferences and viewing habits will be cross linked and some extraordinarily complex statistical routines will predict your likely response to "matching" video content which a third party has paid access to. If there's a match, a link will suddenly pop up in your feed, unrequested. Like a virus, if that auto-suggestion happens to ping a significant proportion of viewers (there is almost certainly an "R" value) then the video will suddenly become massively popular and "go viral".

Who is to say if a video is popular? Well if it's all over the news, all over the mainstream media, all over the internet, top of the Google search results then surely that means it is independently and impartially a "popular" opinion/view/statement/truth... Yes??

NO!!

Google and YouTube have vast, unimaginably vast computational resources which will sift through an entire library of content in an instant. It will be searching for key words and (I'm guessing now) using a.i. to interpret those data for promotion or relegating to nowhere. Pretty sure that's how they will end up dealing with the Joe Rogans, Jordan Petersons and Russell Brands of this world. Just quietly remove any positive feedback effect to make sure their "whistleblowing" antics don't upset the money-go-round. That is a crude description of shadow banning.

They dare not cancel or overtly censor many of the big players or they'll take their content and vast audiences to another platform. Google can't just keep buying up everything (like for example Pfizer do). Anyhow, I am beginning to sound like a lunatic so I'll just leave it there but no, it's really not that simple, it is an elaborate con and while "conspiracy theorist" has become a defacto derogatory term, these cross platform, orchestrated restrictions are, true to the very meaning of the word, a conspiracy.

[Count Steer]

Don't sound like a lunatic at all. All of them are there to make money not promote free speech. They operate in a range of jurisdictions and usually bow to government pressure. No matter how much Facebook, Twitter and the like trumpet their actions over Ukraine, the same companies took down stuff that Putin and Co didn't like in order to keep operating/making money on that patch. It's just that on balance, now, they don't want to upset all the other jurisdictions/users. It's a business decision, not a battle cry for free speech.

There's pretty much only two types of mass media - those that do as the governments tell them and those that tell the governments what to do.

[DefTrap]

Yeah I'm less convinced about Facebook, Twitter and YouTube trying to indoctrinate me. I still have a brain and I can sift through the politics and w@nkers. These services are choice-led, it shows you more and more of what you already asked for. So maybe it's not that it's hiding stuff, it's that I'm not asking?

[Screwdriver]

It goes back to that old adage that half the people in the world are below average intelligence. If you can lead a big enough crowd by the nose, the rest will find it increasingly difficult to resist the flow. Politicians and global corp. inc. will find it easier to "have their way", increased surveillance, crushing penalties for dissenting views, authoritarian control all under the guise of anti-terrorism and "for your safety"...

[Horse]

Censorship takes many forms and since YouTube is Google, the use of shadow banning has become very popular to hide dissenting voices.

There was someone getting upset on here back around US election time, going on about youtube censorship, removing videos or somehow hiding them from search results.

I looked on Google, clicked 'videos' - Ta-dah! The 'banned' 'missing' videos came up top of the list. Censorship which lists stuff is a bit extreme.

As with many things and certainly all things big tech, nothing is so simple you can dismiss it so easily out of hand without a moments thought.

I could easily send you a link to a video which is shadow banned. Much of Sydney Watsons videos are so afflicted. What happens under those circumstances? Well, you get a link, the link plays a video, business as usual right?

Wrong. That's not how the world works, otherwise I'd just set up a server here, promote my own content and sit back, rake in the millions. What happens in the real world (!) is that a vast amount of data held by our big tech masters on ALL OF US is fed through an algorithm to determine how best to maximise their profit by selling your preferences to other agencies who pay for access to it.

I'm not even going to take a stab at how that really works, suffice to say your previous preferences and viewing habits will be cross linked and some extraordinarily complex statistical routines will predict your likely response to "matching" video content which a third party has paid access to. If there's a match, a link will suddenly pop up in your feed, unrequested.

All fair points. Apart from:
- I did the same keyword searches on YouTube and Google. Yt didn't find it for me, Google did.
- I don't make a habit of watching [whatever it was] videos. So neither search history would be relevant.
- I was doing what we've been challenged to do, 'read' around, look for evidence. In that case, the frothing was shown to be nonsense.

[Screwdriver]

All fair points. Apart from:
- I did the same keyword searches on YouTube and Google. Yt didn't find it for me, Google did.
- I don't make a habit of watching [whatever it was] videos. So neither search history would be relevant.
- I was doing what we've been challenged to do, 'read' around, look for evidence. In that case, the frothing was shown to be nonsense.

You are missing the point and it's not even about you other than you are a single figure in a population of millions, depending on how your demographic is sliced.

Which videos did you not see during the election cycle?

Is that a trick question? How do you know what you didn't see? Well, at the time, Hunter Bidens laptop was already in the hands of the FBI. I didn't see that story on mainstream. Drug abuse, hookers, bribery and corruption, it was a great story! Google actively blocked any information surrounding it as did Twitter, Insta, YouTube...

The contents of that laptop are devastating. Despite being totally "debunked" by every single media outlet as "Russian disinformation", it is right now, as we speak, being verified as belonging to Hunter and all the emails tracked back to their various recipients in Ukraine, Russia, China etc.

As I said at the time, the truth will out - once it's too late. And here we are now looking at compelling evidence that big tech, social media and mainstream media in collusion with the FBI hushed up a story so that they could install Biden.

Your reply also conflates the "keyword searches" I refer to with whatever you type into the Google search box. That is incredibly naive. All you are doing is "telling Google" what you would like to see, Google then shows you what it wants you to see. The search result is derived from a fantastically complex algorithm which includes paid for results, influenced by whatever data is held on you (or your assigned demographic) while at the same time demoting or ignoring results it has been programmed to suppress.

Your individual habits are of no interest to anyone (!) but whatever metric you may be assigned will be a darned sight more complex and targeted than mere search history. Sorry mate but you are not immune to this wizardry, none of us are. Even advertising which we all hate or spam leaflets all work to some degree. We are defenceless against the relentless brainwashing which we accept as normal day to day crap we like to believe we can safely ignore. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

The final point is all we can do. Find as many disparate sources as possible, try and establish any consistent unbiased information and make up your own mind. It sort of reminds me of that "innocent schoolboy knocked off his scooter" when he wasn't a schoolboy nor was he innocent but instead a drug running mule on a stolen motorcycle.

The other big clue is language. When all of the media are singing from the same songsheet, you know something is up. Like the "reporting" of the "insurrection". Every single mainstream outlet used exactly the same language. So what you might ask, that's what it was err, wasn't it?

Well there are hundreds of people who were in that crowd, still in jail to this very day. All held without charge and tellingly (because the word itself is a very specific act in law) not a single one of them being charged with "insurrection".

That's not really my point though, the point is that every single news outlet used exactly the same language, the same words, the same exaggerated hyperbole, the same narrative...