It turns out that when an organization applies rules arbitrarily, they eventually piss off the wrong person.
[deleted]
Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
111–120 of 491 posts
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#112Looks 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
> There are links to her (4?) youtube accounts and her instagram, which have all been terminated. You'd hope they just set a deleted flag and didn't remove the actual files, otherwise they're interfering with a criminal investigation.
Y'all know by now that FB/Google doesn't actually delete anything...it just hides it from you seeing it.
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#113So 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.
It was outdoors. Also, I have only been to a couple SV tech companies where they had solid enough doors/etc. at entrance to actually stop someone going in shooting from getting inside; the security is really just there for keeping homeless out, as well as to enforce corp secrecy/etc.
I see, early reports seemed to indicate the shooter was at a party, possibly inside. Really sad when employees in the bay area, which is generally very safe, have to fear for their lives because of something their employer may have done to piss someone off.
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#114I'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/
I must admit my first thought on hearing there was an attack on YouTube was that their recent monetisation changes have put a lot of people out of work, and some of those people must be feeling pretty desperate.
Surprised google survived Panda and related changes that more or less stopped unpaid traffic to sites. Yes, it's their platform blah blah, but when people kill you for looking at them the wrong way, shooting at the "person" that took away your livelihood is much more understandable. I was making $1000x, now I make $x, no money for rent, food...and people go into revenge mode. My life is over anyway so, at least I'll get some of them with me.
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#115So looking at her videos on Telegram (https://t.me/nasimesabz1), she was anti gun. She was a very weird individual with clear mental health issues.
I don't even know what to make of most of her content on that channel.
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> My question is, should such a shooting have any impact on that conversation?
Did you expect that the shooting would have a meaningful impact in the debate? Certainly, people will mention her name in the next few months, because of the infamy of her acts. But no, I don't think Google is going to openly say that an attempted mass murder of their employees was an incentive or disincentive. For likely the same reason why governments don't typically negotiate with ransomers and terrorists.
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#117Firstly, 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…
There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship.
Shooting people is not one of them.
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#118I heard on the radio just earlier that it was declared a "domestic dispute" by local police.
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you are blaming the victim.
As a general principal, there is no logical or moral reason why a victim should be beyond blame. The goal should be to judge the situation fairly; just as much as you don't want to automatically blame the victim, neither should you automatically find the victim blameless.
Give me one good reason why blaming a random Google employee lunching in the cafeteria is "fair".
(Disclaimer: I witnessed the shooting today, so not quite unbiased)
Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online
#120Content 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…
I think Youtube will let you post whatever you want. The filterings affects what money you can make.
That used to be the case until the "limited state" was introduced specifically for videos that don't break any rules but are not politically correct or are otherwise uncomfortable or controversial, which makes them not appear in search results, removes all voting and commenting, and basically makes YouTube a content hosting provider, not a content platform, for the creators of said videos.