101–110 of 491 posts
It turns out that when an organization applies rules arbitrarily, they eventually piss off the wrong person.
Sounds like you are blaming the victim.
Looks like this is the culprit's website http://www.nasimesabz.com/index.html There are links to her (4?) youtube accounts, which have all been terminated. There's a link to her instagram, which has also been terminated, however there is a cached-copy here http://www.pictame.com/tag/yesilnasim
[°]
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrittanyVenti/status/981372650575...
Aaand, she's banned.
So if this person was not an employee, it's amazing to me how she got into the building? Usually these large tech campuses are pretty locked down, with at least one badged entrance, and security or front desk staff watching who comes and goes. That said, I've never visited the YouTube campus, so maybe it bucks the norm.
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.
Section 6(F): "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice."
Content platforms have no place policing content. All the algorithms currently used are utterly flawed, and they will always be flawed, both technically and morally. Technically, they'll always have false positives, especially at scale. Morally, they turn the platform owners into political figures inherently, siding with or against certain thoughts and sentiments. The only solution is for platforms to be completely c…
> advertisers should stop allowing online outrage to dictate where they advertise I agree, but good luck convincing the Tide executives that its okay for their ad to play before a video of a KKK rally. Furthermore, how do you even create a content platform that doesn't police content and not have it immediately attract scores of users that are only there because they were banned from everywhere else, thus turning you…
Google can and should do better than a boolean for monetisable.
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
Why downvoting? We have an honest website since 2004! That's more than 14 years. We do interviews, reviews, conferences reports. Medical technologies: no politics, no controvertial content. All our staff is US and European-based MDs and PhDs, hard working professional people. And starting with Panda update by Google, we can barely survive... Read our account: the story is true and is very honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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 en…
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.
Given the importance to work and life of having access to the wireless networks today, owned by AT&T, Verizon etc., should they be allowed to blanket deny you access to them as a customer (assuming you can pay)? Especially given the wireless carriers are essentially a group monopoly (spectrum limitations).
Or how we take away voting rights for felons, until a certain amount of time after they've been released, or in some states permanently (unless altered by a court order or governor's action). Something like 1 in 40 American adults can't vote right now because of that. It revokes the ability to participate in a critical democratic function.
I'd expect an increasingly large societal debate about the context of the platforms and what their rights are when it comes to restricting access. Whether they increasingly get treated as public utilities and if the FCC sets down guidelines/rules for them to comply with on access restriction. That overall conversation probably accelerates the longer they're part of a big part of society. I'm not sure how far that debate will get in the US in regards to actions/regulations, I expect it'll get pretty far in some nations though.
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 y…
Google controls the vast majority of search, and if they decide to not include me in their results because they don't like me, I am negatively impacted. Ditto for Youtube, its the default online video platform. If they don't like my content, they can just ban my account. Sure I can host it elsewhere, as long I don't care about advertising or dealing with the scale that video brings.