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

181–190 of 491 posts

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

#181

Post by noobermin »

chapill wrote: post #31
mankash666 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pity that Google terminated those accounts - I don't know what scrutiny scares them. As for the lady, she seems to genuinely believe in veganism and fitness. Whatever weird things she did to propagate that seemed to be working (330K views?!!). Why she resorted to gun violence is much awaited.

Here's her last video. One youtube doesn't want you to see evidently, https://www.freedomsafespace.com/m/videos/view/YouTube-Shoot... She seems really upset.

Why the downvotes? This is valuable to the news report as it is a primary source for the rant.

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

#182

Post by icantdrive55 »

celdon25 wrote: post #34
mankash666 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pity that Google terminated those accounts - I don't know what scrutiny scares them. As for the lady, she seems to genuinely believe in veganism and fitness. Whatever weird things she did to propagate that seemed to be working (330K views?!!). Why she resorted to gun violence is much awaited.

> Why she resorted to gun violence is much awaited. My theory is this: I went through some of her past images. One of them showed a picture of a dog that was being mutilated (alive). She states that dogs in China are skinned alive because they believe that it makes the meat taste better. Well, that is going to invoke strong feelings, especially if that's part of your core cause (to expose the mistreatment of animals…

I didn't watch that animal abuse video.

I am appalled at the way Chinese treat animals.

(Yes--I said it. And I don't need a lecture how Americans are hypocrites. It's Apples and Oranges. It time we call everone out that tortures animals.)

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

#183

Post by [deleted] »

adventured wrote: post #3

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…

[deleted]

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

#184

Post by toomanybeersies »

verylittlemeat wrote: post #171
toomanybeersies wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship. Shooting people is not one of them.

Blowing people up got Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology manifesto printed in the NYTimes. Even if got through to one person I bet he feels like it was worth it. It's not something to admit in polite company but violence is a great way to start a conversation.

Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's correct though.

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

#185

Post by sneak »

jd20 wrote: post #113
rdl wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

It would be if that were true, but it isn’t. Even if there were an order of magnitude more attacks along these lines it would not warrant anyone having to fear for their life as they would still be exceedingly rare.

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

#186

Post by akamaka »

danso wrote: post #39
mankash666 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pity that Google terminated those accounts - I don't know what scrutiny scares them. As for the lady, she seems to genuinely believe in veganism and fitness. Whatever weird things she did to propagate that seemed to be working (330K views?!!). Why she resorted to gun violence is much awaited.

> It's a pity that Google terminated those accounts - I don't know what scrutiny scares them. Because they don't want to encourage people to gawk at the death spectacle? This includes all the times a suicidal killer leaves behind a manifesto that could serve to inspire copycat killers.

The Elliot Rodgers videos are still up on YouTube, though. On the balance, it’s probably more helpful to allow people to understand what led up to these events rather than suppressing the shooter’s words for the sake of some theoretical safety benefit.

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

#187

Post by subcosmos »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #174
declan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 4(J): "YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time." Section 6(F): "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice." https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

That's indeed quite telling about the TOS nowadays: two people from HN double/triple checked the TOS to find a simple statement and couldn't find it. Yet, it's there.

We need a grep that finds semantic meaning instead of exact string matches. Like an latent factor model of sorts.

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

#188

Post by sitkack »

rdl wrote: post #145
jd20 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This incident was enough of an outlier that probably the correct thing to do is nothing, although that's really hard for people to accept. I'd just recommend improved first aid/trauma response (put AEDs around, train people to CLS standard).

As sad as this is, dying in a car crash is more likely.

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

#189

Post by hycaria »

adventured wrote: post #3

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…

Maybe with some AI we could target unhealthy people and flatter their egos. Like fake accounts subscribing commenting and agreeing with the troubled soul.

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

#190

Post by jobigoud »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #117
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…

There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship. Shooting people is not one of them.

She started the discourse in video rants though, shooting came after.
Post reply on HN