71–80 of 491 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know what scrutiny scares them To be fair, YouTube/Google just had an active shooter on their campus. If there's anything that justifies terminating someone's account, it would be opening fire on the company directly and injuring people.
You made me scroll through the youtube TOS to see if that was considered a violation. As far as I can tell it's technically not... in fact, I can't even find a blanket "YouTube reserves the right to remove any content, for any reason, whatsoever" statement. They don't actually need to state that in the TOS, because they do have that right, but, still.
Still interesting to see that there's no blanket termination policy, though. I stand thoroughly corrected.
This looks like it's going to be an increasingly big problem for the platform giants, as it pertains to their increasingly aggressive speech restrictions. As they ramp those restrictions up, I'd expect the need for security to increase accordingly. A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. They'll feel isolated and it'll very likely feel like a persona…
>The platforms today are so large, it surely can seem like being cut off from society in general, like a human right is being revoked. probably similar to say imagine Bell's denying a landline in 197x because of your speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.)
> people tend to perceive [the narrative] to be whatever they don't like Heh heh. This is supported by research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
It's the most astonishingly consistent phenomenon. Nearly as astonishingly, it appears impossible to convince anybody of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a mirror of her videos http://www.dailymotion.com/yesilnasim
There is a video in which she's edited footage from "America's Got Talent" with footage of her performing a cringey act. Can't tell if it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek parody or if she's being delusional about being TV famous: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5dax32
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.
Please consider not giving this person the online attention she sought as a result of her actions, and join me in flagging stories that dwell on her motives.
Would you have said the same thing about Mark Conditt? Or is there a difference? Should we talk about some murderers and not others? Was he a terrorist? Was she?
In this case, it appears to be someone who was frustrated with a lack of social media attention; we should be careful in not rewarding her heinous act in a way that encourages a future shooter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> She should have did affiliate marketing & patreon. And, like, ... not shot people.