[indoclay]

> If people find these allegations credible—and most should

Why should most people find these allegations credible? I do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let alone a trial. These are currently just allegations, their credibility has not been adjudicated.

[Airsinner]

One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an understanding that the legal system is both slow and tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well before a system designed to be conclusive would.

The law is more about what can be proven than it is about what is true, and for people who know that, legal judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.

[indoclay]

What evidence has been provided to meet this preponderance of evidence standard you are putting forward for moral evaluation?

You have one party making an allegation claiming they have documents to back it up and the other party denying innocence with claims of their own exculpatory evidence. Nothing has been shared to the public by either party for me evaluate who has the preponderance of evidence.

I do believe YouTube (or any other private platform) can and should be able to set it's own rules for participation so I see no issue with what they did here. If it's a right for someone to be on that platform then we should not be relying on a private party to guarantee that and make the necessary legislative changes.

I would just love to understand why I should be outraged at this individual before anything has been presented before me so that I can evaluate for myself.

[Fervicus]

> ...to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality

And how exactly is it obvious that the guy is guilty? Just because he makes click-baity divisive videos, might allegedly have been a playboy in the past, and you don't like him, doesn't equate to "obviously he must have done it".