September 23, 2023

Creeping Techtatorship.

Entertainer and YouTuber Russell Brand was accused of sexual battery and abuse recently. In the wake of these allegations, Brand’s YouTube has been demonetized and he has been dropped by multiple contracts and services. Is creeping techtatorship responsible and should we be concerned?

Who is Russel Brand?

Russel Brand started off as a comedian around 2004. His comedy tour “Better Now” focused on his struggles with addiction. In 2006 he was working for BBC radio. The movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall came out in 2008 and in 2010 Brand did the voice of Dr. Nefario in the Despicable Me franchise. Brand briefly dabbled in politics, but since 2013 has put his efforts into his YouTube channel where he talks about politics, spirituality, and conspiracy theories.

What is techtatorship?

Techtatorship combines the words dictatorship and technology. A dictatorship is defined as a government or leader with absolute, imperial, overbearing power. Technology is anything made for utility by people, but it refers specifically to computer technology in this context. A techtatorship would mean the government wields the internet and social media technologies as a tyrannical weapon against citizens. Is there an unethical, immoral alliance emerging between big tech and world governments? Techtatorship could be creeping up on us.

On September 16 the Times, Sunday Times, and Channel 4 in the UK launched investigations into Russell Brand.

Preempting the media investigation, Brand released a video where he denied “very serious criminal allegations” and claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign. Four women reported anonymously to the media and took on pseudonyms. The crimes occurred within a sever-year window, from 2006 until 2013. The most salacious of these testimonies is from Alice. In 2006 Alice was 16 and in school, and Brand would have been 31 at the time. She accuses Brand of grooming her, orally molesting her, and being emotionally abusive.

The story starts when Alice was out shopping in the UK.

Brand began overtly flirting with her and reached into one of her shopping bags. He pulled out a red dress and stated that she was “going to wear this for our date this week.” Eventually Alice’s mother met Brand and urged Alice to tell him her age. When Alice did, this didn’t dissuade Brand. They had a three month relationship. Brand would routinely send a car to pick her up during school she alleges. She claims Brand instructed her on how to conceal their relationship from her friends and family, and insisted that she save him into her phone under the name “Carly”. Brand allegedly had pet names for her such as “the Child”. Alice accused Brand of once removing a condom during sex without her consent and being “engaged in the behaviors of a groomer.”

In an interview in Channel 4’s documentary she recalled that Brand forced his penis down her throat. He began choking her and continued despite her attempts to free herself. She wound up punching him in the stomach, and then Brand proceeded to spit in her mouth. Holding her mouth closed, he forced Alice to swallow it, as she was “gagging and crying.”

A second woman, named Nadia, claims Brand sexually assaulted her in his Los Angeles home in 2012.

She claims that when she refused to participate in a threesome, he pushed her against a wall and forced himself on her. Nadia told him to “get off” several times, but he refused. Text messages sent the night of the assault say “I’m sorry, that was selfish. The Times identified the number that sent the texts as Brand’s. I hope you can forgive me.” She shared medical records, which indicate she went to a rape treatment center that day. She considered seeking legal action at the time, but decided not to.

A third woman, Phoebe, told the Sunday Times that she met Brand at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in 2013 and began working with him.

While visiting his home in L.A., she claims he cornered her, held her down, and tried to take off her clothes as she begged him to stop. Phoebe says “I was screaming: ‘What are you doing, stop, please, you’re my friend.” Eventually Brand eased his grip on her, and letting her go he told her she was fired. Phoebe claims she never reported the incident because she was afraid it would hurt her career, and also that Brand threatened to take legal action against her if she did.

A fourth woman named Jordan Martin accuses him of sexually assaulting her during their six-month relationship in 2007. In her memoir kNot: Engtanglement With a Celebrity, Jordan Martin alleges that Brand abused her emotionally and physically.

More allegations of Brand.

The investigation included other allegations, which the BBC called his “allegedly controlling, abusive, and predatory behavior, and inappropriate behavior in the workplace.” The accusations included getting undressed in studio, throwing objects, urinating in a bottle in front of coworkers, and making staff pull aside young female audience members for him to talk to.

Brand adamantly denies wrongdoing.

Brand released a video preempting these investigations on his YouTube and Instagram accounts denying these crimes. He said “Amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute. As I’ve written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous. now during that time of promiscuity, the relationships I had were absolutely, always consensual.”

Media, agencies, and companies Brand has worked with are cutting ties.

Tavistock Wood Management dropped him as their client last weekend. Apparently they knew of one allegation of Brand for the last three years. A charity helping female drug and alcohol addicts that Brand worked with has cut ties with him. YouTube has demonetized his channel for violating its “creator responsibility policy.” YouTube’s video addressing its creator responsibility policy states “with great popularity comes great responsibility.” Understandable, but Russell Brand has only been accused of doing something wrong. He hasn’t been causing harm to his audience on or offline, unless it is his speech itself that is deemed harmful.

Obviously companies have a right to fire their employees, but they should have justifiable cause. As has been stated, Russell Brand has not been found guilty of anything yet. This feels a bit like creeping techtatorship.

Can justice prevail in the face of creeping techtatorship?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

This was an unassailable cornerstone of American democracy. Obviously this wasn’t consistently upheld throughout history. Of course, Brand lives in the UK, but the UK is where the presumption of innocence originates from. Innocent until proven guilty can be traced back to the Magna Carta, which was signed in the year 1215. It’s presumption of innocence which makes lynch mobs illegal and ensures a fair trial. Presumption of innocence makes a country a more fair, just place. Were presumption of innocence to disappear, the world would instantly become an unrecognizable, much more hostile place. Throwing presumption of innocence away is just what a creeping techtatorship needs and wants.

Regarding Alice’s accusations.

The most disturbing of the testimonies is Alice’s. Alice was 16 at the time of these crimes, as previously stated. 16 is very young. While a 31-year-old man dating a 16-year-old girl is a somewhat disquieting thought, it isn’t illegal. Whether that should change or not is for British people to decide. The age of consent in the UK is 16, so Brand was not breaking any law by dating Alice. Her accusations raise some interesting questions. At what age is someone able to adequately detect people’s intentions? Is removing a condem during sex without consent sexual assault?

People are jumping to conclusions, either condemning Brand or dismissing his actions altogether.

Anyone who is acting like they know the truth clearly doesn’t. The truth is unknowable without a trial that has analyzed the available evidence and testimonies. There are common themes of abuse in these accusations. It’s impossible to say at this point whether Russell Brand was sexually and physically abusive however. Ten years is a long time to wait to accuse someone of a crime. Without physical proof other than receipts from doctors, it is difficult to prove.

Suffice it to say, Brand probably wasn’t the nicest lover, and he very well might have been emotionally abusive. Is being a mean person a criminal offense? Should it be? How is it proven, after more than ten years, that Russell Brand was so beyond the pale emotionally abusive? It’s often difficult to pin emotional abuse to one person in a current relationship let alone one that finished ten years ago.

Strange coincidences.

Three of the women who talked to the media did not come out with their stories themselves. It seems that the media were more interested in pursuing a trial against Russell Brand than the victims themselves. The timing seems odd as well. Suddenly when Russell Brand is more successful than ever, the accusers decide now they must speak out. Why didn’t the documentary investigators immediately go to the police with these accusations if they thought they were valid?

Are these mere coincidences or is this creeping techtatorship?

As previously stated, people have been rushing to either condemn or defend Brand. There are two theories aligning with people’s opinions of Russell Brand’s guilt or innocence. Those who believe the victims assert that there is a societal conspiracy to squelch women’s stature by controlling our bodies and sexuality. Meanwhile, Brand’s defenders have a theory that sounds so otherworldly it seems impossible or you wish it were. There are many theorizing that Brand is the victim of a well-organized, coordinated effort by powerful people. This theory is all too perfect for Brand, who consistently speaks out against big government and corporations in his YouTube videos.

Is techtatorship creeping up on us?

This is a terrifying possibility to consider. To many creeping techtatorship sounds like a conspiracy theory that would be pedaled on Brand’s YouTube channel. Something happened recently that gives this some eerie credibility though. A representative of the UK Parliament, Caroline Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons media committee, contacted Rumble recently.

Dinenage wrote a letter to Rumble requesting that Brand be deplatformed. She said “While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.” She stated as well “We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior.” Never before in the history of the internet has a politician so boldly advocated for stifling speech on a private company’s website.

Rumble responded to Dinenage’s letter on twitter. Rumble said “We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet – meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.”

Things only get weirder in this creeping techtatorship.

Many in the UK are calling for Represenative Dinenage to resign for not notifying her committee before sending her letter. Oddly, none of her coworkers are bothered by her actions. Many are calling for Dinenage’s resignation for violating the Magna Carta, which states an Englishman’s property may not be arbitrarily seized or stripped from him without the lawful judgement of his peers.

Why should you care about creeping techtatorship?

And why should you care about what the UK government is doing? This story isn’t about Russell Brand. He is often shrill, repetitive, and obnoxious much of the time. The outcome of Brand’s trial isn’t important on a personal level. How big tech and government treats netizens does matter, and they need to be held accountable. Representative Dinenage was called out for her irresponsible leadership, but could a politician get away with this in the not too distant future?

Creeping techtatorship will impact the world.

Unfortunately, any technology has the potential to be used for bad. There are many unstable places in the world due to poverty and war or both. In these situations, there would be many eager to implement techtatorship for their own depraved, inhumane reasons. People’s futures and lives could easily be destroyed if this techtatorship is pursued to its full potential. Our response, or lack thereof, to creeping techtatorship will reverberate throgh history.

As always I, and the team at Brooklynites, thank you for reading about this pressing issue concerning our times. Click back soon. <3