Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

nbcbayarea.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 491 posts

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#51

Post by grizzles »

leereeves wrote: post #32
grizzles wrote: post #23

She's a disgruntled Youtuber. This is her website: http://nasimabc.com/ From her page showing a screenshot of her Youtube ad revenue dashboard: > Analytics Last 28 days > Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 Highlighted in Red: Revenue $0.10? There's also another bit where she shows her historical vs. current traffic and makes a reasonable case that she's getting down ranked. Interesting times.

> Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 So basically all of her videos were demonetized?

Looks like it. Considering that she would have needed to increase her views by 3 orders of magnitude to scratch out $100/month from them. She should have did affiliate marketing & patreon.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#52

Post by komali2 »

First two comments good for a world-weary chuckle:

1. Xenophobic, hateful comment about Muslims

2. Complaint about her suicide being a waste because "she's hot"

Still not sure why news websites bother with comment sections. I guess because it counts as "engagement?"

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#54

Post by mc32 »

mudil wrote: post #6

No justification for her actions, but Google does act as a serf master over the entire internet. It can single handedly decide who succeeds, who fails, and there is no recourse. There is no recourse, no appeal. Some 20 year old dude in Menlo Park decides, and your website, your life, your work, your future, is changed forever. Here's our account: https://www.medgadget.com/google

People need to realize that using "free" platforms, means they are beyond your control and your fate is up to their vagaries.

I'm against censorship (private censorship which takes political sides especially) but ultimately, unless you're hosting your own content, just enjoy what you get for free while you can and don't bank on it.

YT is not there to make _you_ money. They are there to make money for themselves. If you get in the way of that (via potential boycotts, online bandwagoning, etc.) they will likely cut you loose.

PS most of the censorship is done overseas, mostly SEAsia, not San Bruno, etc.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#55

Post by vowelless »

danso wrote: post #49
vowelless wrote: post #43

Firstly, my sympathies with the people at Youtube HQ. I have many, many friends in the bay area and so this kind of thing hits close to home. Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. Or even mention who they are. I tend to be on the side of: don't give them any air time. And certainly, don't acquiesce to this type of behavior because it is almost by def…

YouTube (and other social media services) usually take down the accounts of headline-making killers. You're asking if they should make an exception in this case?

No, that is not what I am asking.

In parallel, there has been a conversation going on about demonitization, censorship, etc (see the removal of the gun videos recently). My question is, should such a shooting have any impact on that conversation? I feel like we should restrain ourselves from letting violent acts like this impact those conversations, even if the violent acts were done "in the name of" fighting against censorship

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#56

Post by freakMagnet »

Natsu wrote: post #2

I have to really wonder if YouTube is actually anti-vegan or if she was filtered for something else.

She’s obviously a weirdo, and while many thousands of weirdos operating on her level usually turn out to be harmless, if eccentric, she seems to willfully blunder into explicit and vulgar territory, with no understanding or appreciation for the chilling effect it has, and instead, reacting with confusion when it doesn’t go her way, seemed to court the negative attention further, without differentiating between the end games that each carries.

Negative attention tends to isolate, while positive attention holds opportunity for sustained returns. But she obviously was profoundly untethered from reality or consequence for too long.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#57

Post by interfixus »

dang wrote: post #11
chapill wrote: post #5

I'm sure this submission will get flagged off the front page too because "Iranian woman bears arms against YouTube for censorship" doesn't really fit the narrative around here, but here's her page before it's wiped out too. Her YT and Insta have already been nuked. http://www.nasimesabz.com/

> the narrative around here In my experience, people tend to perceive that to be whatever they don't like, and it varies greatly with the perceiver. I don't see why this story would get flagged. (Edit: some users are pointing out the don't-give-airtime argument. That's a fair point.)

Nevertheless, 16 minutes old, it seems flagged and dead to me.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#59

Post by aaaaaaaaaaa12 »

One of her complaints was that YouTube age-restricted her yoga videos (which were modest by Western standard, she was just wearing shorts, a shirt and no socks), while not age-restricting much more explicit Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus videos. Is there any explanation to why YouTube does this?

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#60

Post by nailer »

rmrm wrote: post #12
Natsu wrote: post #2

I have to really wonder if YouTube is actually anti-vegan or if she was filtered for something else.

I watch a vegan channel that Youtube recommended to me quite often, and Im not even vegan. Based on her page, showing dogs being boiled alive, I think vegan isnt perhaps the best description for that content. A vegan channel is someone showing how to make salads.

YouTube should be smarter than having a Boolean for 'monetiziable'.

Eg, vegan channel showing animal cruelty should be marked as showing 'animal cruelty (newsworthy)' and advertisers should be able to say they do/don't want to advertise on the 'animal cruelty (newsworthy)' tag.

A big game hunting company might not want to advertise on that tag. Nor would a children's toy manufacturer. Fine.

But the RSPCA, an environmentalist politician, or The Body Shop might want to advertise and if I was a vegan I might want to give them my money.

> A vegan channel is someone showing how to make salads.

I can see that's the most common case, but check out for example /r/vegan - it's mostly content about vegan ethics.

Post reply on HN