By Thaler
Burger King is facing calls for a boycott after the fast-food giant yanked its ads from video platform Rumble shortly after Russell Brand – who broadcasts a show weekly on the site – was accused of raping and sexually assaulting four women, including a 16-year-old girl.
Though Burger King hasn’t publicly stated why it recently removed its adverts from the popular site – just as other brands like Asos and HelloFresh recently did – social media users have questioned the timing of the move, which came just one week after Brand came under fire.
The Whopper House has since been bashed for pulling its ads from the self-proclaimed “free speech platform” before Brand has actually been convicted.
“Burger King has pulled its ads from Rumble because the free speech platform refuses to play judge, jury, and executioner of Russell Brand after the UK Governor demanded the platform demonetize him,” fellow Rumble host Charlie Kirk tweeted on Sunday.
“Reminder, Brand has not been convicted of a single crime. Boycott @BurgerKing. They hate free speech and due process, and their food is poison anyways. Stop eating it,” King added.
A flurry of other users chimed in, saying they would participate in the movement by tweeting “done.”
“Wish I ate Burger King so I could make a difference to this boycott,” another user said, while an additional commenter wrote: “Wendy’s it is!”
“Time to BUD-LIGHT BURGER KING!” yet another said, while a third chimed in: “Go woke, go broke” — a tagline that was spurred by the months-long boycott Bud Light and its brewer Anheuser-Busch are still reeling from over tapping transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to star in its March Madness campaign on social media.
In other nods to Bud Light, which is still reporting floundering sales, one tweet said: “One meal I will never have: Whopper with a Bud Light.”
“Let’s give the Burger King brand the Bud Light treatment,” another shared.
Despite the serious allegations made against the 48-year-old – which include claims of “grooming” where Brand would give the then-16-year-old “scripts” to lie to her parents – Brand said he would continue posting weekly to Rumble, which is popular among some conservatives and far-right groups.
Brand’s shows on Rumble is called “Stay Free.” His following exceeds 1.6 million on the platform, and his show’s titles include “Did This Just EXPOSE Obama’s BIGGEST Secret YET?!” and his latest, posted yesterday, called “ARE WE BEING SILENCED!? The Battle For Free Speech!”
Brand also posts exclusive content on a separate website under the URL russellbrand.locals.com, which fans can access for a minimum donation of $60 annually.
However, Brand’s biggest audience is seemingly on YouTube – where he has a whopping 6.6 million subscribers – though the platform said last week that Brand will no longer be able to make money from his videos on the site.
YouTube said monetization of the comedian-turned-influencer’s account has been suspended “following serious allegations against the creator.”
“This decision applies to all channels that may be owned or operated by Russell Brand,” the Google-owned video service added.
The suspension means Brand won’t be able to earn money from the ads that run within and alongside YouTube videos, which have titles including “What REALLY Started the Hawaii Fires?” and “Covid Tsar Admits Lockdowns Were NEVER About Science.”
Other channels associated with Brand’s main YouTube page include Awakening With Russell, which has 426,000 subscribers, Football Is Nice, which has some 20,000 subscribers, and Stay Free With Russell Brand, which has 22,200 subscribers.
Social media users were also fiercely critical of YouTube’s move, saying the video-sharing site was stifling free speech.
“Shame on you Google/YouTube for demonetizing @rustyrockets Russell Brand before ANY confirmed evidence of criminal activity even happened. Heroes like @elonmusk must continue to protect free speech and independent journalism,” one user wrote.
Political commentator Candace Owens chimed in: “I actually am struggling to comprehend how@YouTube can completely demonetize someone based on allegations- when there are actual drug dealers and convicts that currently have YouTube channels. How does that make sense?”
