UK Rumble: Russell Brand’s ‘free speech’ platform may be forced offline

Rumble: Russell Brand’s ‘free speech’ platform may be forced offline
rumble01.PNG

The “free speech” website that hosts Russell Brand could be forced out of the UK under new online safety laws, experts have said.
Rumble, a video-sharing platform based in North America, has become home to Brand and other figures with extreme views, including Andrew Tate and Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist.

It also hosts extreme videos on race and antisemitism that mainstream platforms such as YouTube have made more of an effort to take down.

Rumble has been thrust into the spotlight after Brand used it to declare his innocence of sexual assault claims.

Under the Online Safety Bill, which is due to become law next month, Rumble will be regulated by Ofcom because it is accessible
in the UK.

Brand has recognised the impact the new law could have. In a statement on Friday, he said: “The British government has asked big tech platforms to censor our online content. [This] bill . . . is a piece of UK legislation that grants sweeping surveillance and censorship powers.”

Under the new law Rumble will have to prevent children from seeing pornography and material that promotes self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Violent content and material harmful to health, such as vaccine misinformation, will also have to be kept from children.

Who’s on Rumble, the home of alt-right video?
rumble02.PNG
Ofcom will also draw up new guidelines on violence against women and girls that will have to be adhered to.
Rumble will also have to take down material that is illegal, such as videos that incite violence or race hate.

All these obligations will be hard for Rumble’s management to stomach, according to Lord Allan of Hallam, a former Facebook executive who has advised on the bill.

“You can’t get out of this by saying ‘I’m a crazy American platform, that’s not ok’ and that somehow you get a free pass. They don’t get a free pass,” he said. “Their whole philosophy is freedom of expression . . . a kind of ‘screw you’. So when they get a letter from Ofcom saying, ‘Here are all the things you’re going to have to do’, it seems to me the most likely reaction is going to be they’re going to say, ‘Well, we won’t operate in the UK any more.’ ”

Noncooperation could leave Rumble executives open to arrest if they came to Britain, as the bill provides for senior managers to be held criminally liable.

Professor Lorna Woods, an internet law expert who was one of the architects of the bill, said Ofcom had the ability to disrupt or block Rumble if it did not comply.

“In theory Ofcom will engage with them, and say, ‘You’re not complying with rules’, and Rumble will grandstand before the press, as we’ve seen, and try to ignore what Ofcom does,” she said.

Rumble’s defiance was evident in a row with Dame Caroline Dineage, chairwoman of the culture, media and sport select committee, on Thursday.

She asked whether the video site, on which Brand has 1.4 million followers, would join YouTube in “suspending Brand’s ability to earn money”.

Chris Pavlovski, Rumble’s chief executive, posted an open letter on Twitter/X in response that said: “Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK parliament.” He noted that none of the allegations against Brand related to content on Rumble, adding: “We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living.”

He concluded: “[Joining] a cancel culture mob . . . would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK parliament’s demands.”

An Ofcom spokesman said: “Ofcom is preparing to regulate online safety by ensuring that tech companies have effective measures in place to protect their users, particularly children.

“As well as establishing these standards, we will engage regularly with . . .services to [understand] what they are doing to protect their users, and push them to make improvements where needed.”

Source : https://archive.ph/LqZep
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russell-brand-rumble-uk-new-web-safety-laws-7ngkmk5v9 (paywall)
 
The threat to the accesability of the site from government actors is rather low I would say. For example some european countries have been in sperg wars with porn sites over age verification and did not manage to take them offline/inacessabile.

But maybe they will just import the great firewall.
 
UK would never be able to force extradition from the US on these grounds. There's plenty of homebodies and Angloid-haters that would take being unable to travel there as a non-issue.
Since most of their userbase is in the states already it'd cause them to get even more positive spin among their base.
There's even better marketing opportunities. Make a geography-specific landing page explaining the exact law and that the content is too edgy. This is not going to generate revenue it would be prudent to find some way to subsidize it. Since the message only needs 20-40% of the page space, just sell the other 60-80% as ad space. Considering this is a perfect example of what VPNs are used for, providers would be idiots not to snap that space up with a quickness.

This complies with the law by no longer being accessible from the UK. Any of their "whales" won't think twice about the pittance a VPN costs. The only real "loss" is free-riders and squares that only trawl their site to find things to complain about.
 
"extreme" LMAO
With Russel Brand of all people being the tipping point? Over unproven allegations?
One might think this was a ploy to take down Rumble as well, from what I understand it's grown to the point of becoming a threat to mainstream platforms.
The whole thing is gay as fuck, they're not even hiding their intolerance toward wrongthink at this point.
 
I was kind of wondering if Russia, in spite of all Putin's shenanigans, is in fact a freer society than the UK at this point.

Kind of seems like in Russia you can get in trouble for saying the wrong thing, but that you also have a pretty good idea what things constitute the "wrong things," and that they typically let the rest of it go. Unlike in the UK or increasingly the US where it is undefined, open-ended, and fully open to ex post facto charges.
We are definitely freer than Britain. No country can beat America's First Amendment though.
 
If only there was some guys like Elon Musk who could invest in Rumble, the blood pressure of leftists will go sky high.
Elon already said he wants to make X a video hosting site too. Among various other things. If Elon bought Rumble, it would just be absorbed into X.
 
What first amendment?
(seriously, it will take years of appeals to start to restore it between the Mackey case, the Showyer case, the Trump cases, and the Eastman case)
That one that allows Amerifats to seethe and moan about their government and engage in "hate speech" against minorities without the government being able to prosecute them for it, which is NOT true for Europe, where hate speech is often illegal and the police will simply come and lift you up.
The cases you mentioned are debatable, cause speech has legal limits even under 1A. They are still far better than Europe's
 
So what we've learned here is that the bill was written by former social media leaders, who seem all too eager to clamp down on free speech platforms, and so-called internet legal "experts" (i.e. censorship advocates and feels over reals idiots)

This part is most interesting and concerning:

All these obligations will be hard for Rumble’s management to stomach, according to Lord Allan of Hallam, a former Facebook executive who has advised on the bill.

“You can’t get out of this by saying ‘I’m a crazy American platform, that’s not ok’ and that somehow you get a free pass. They don’t get a free pass,” he said. “Their whole philosophy is freedom of expression . . . a kind of ‘screw you’. So when they get a letter from Ofcom saying, ‘Here are all the things you’re going to have to do’, it seems to me the most likely reaction is going to be they’re going to say, ‘Well, we won’t operate in the UK any more.’ ”

Noncooperation could leave Rumble executives open to arrest if they came to Britain, as the bill provides for senior managers to be held criminally liable.


Professor Lorna Woods, an internet law expert who was one of the architects of the bill, said Ofcom had the ability to disrupt or block Rumble if it did not comply.

As authoritarian, horrifying and dangerous as it is in itself.. The real question is whether it applies to the last line scenario. Because it kind of sounds like it does since not playing along results in a block anyway. What about blocking UK directly? Does that let them legally off the hook? What about people in the UK getting around the blocks? Courts and govs have been trying for a while now to argue that blocking isn't enough, if someone can see it, it counts.

It sounds like the UK government is literally saying any website, globally, that doesn't follow our content laws and censor to our standards, forcing us block you.. Will also be held criminally responsible. JFC

The fact that this wasn't thrown together by clueless political scum, but by conforming social media shills and legal hacks. Together with this new aspect of the attempt. Make me see this as an attempt at solving the global (and particularly the US) free speech issue as much as it is about the UK.

I don't think people are going to give the threats here the seriousness they really deserve in terms of "guiding" bigwigs globally to comply. The fear and inconvenience of having to worry about essentially being wanted in a major 1st world nation. This doesn't even begin to touch on what happens if they extend this to orgs and companies who support said web site.. or investors etc. Let alone the legal nature of the crimes.. Like whether they are crimes that could potentially fall under extradition. I mean OC the home nation would have to agree, even with treaties in place.. but imagine a democrat run US gov being relied on to deny, or a court system to be willing to disregard the treaty.
 
And Burger King removed their ads on Rumble as long as Russell Brand channel is still there but as Stonetoss might said "how this will help to sell more burgers? Burgers?" They got the unintended consequence to face the same music as Bud Light.

...It seems more logical that antiwoke protesters would be angry about a beer brand partnering with a transgender woman than that same group would step up to protect someone accused of rape and sexual assault.

Opposing assaults against women seems in line with a conservative — or anyone's — political agenda.

But Burger King is now facing calls for boycotts after the fast-food brand pulled its ads from the Rumble podcast platform, which hosts shows from Russell Brand, a comedian who faces multiple allegations of rape and sexual assault....
 
Atrás
Top Abajo