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

261–270 of 491 posts

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

#261

Post by medecau »

jl6 wrote: post #137
tristanj wrote: post #18

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

That’s a style of web design I’ve seen before - lots of colors, different font sizes, wall of text rants... something about it screams mental instability. See Time Cube for an extreme example.

The description almost fits the drudge report website.

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

#262

Post by [deleted] »

JohnTClark wrote: post #241
jl6 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a style of web design I’ve seen before - lots of colors, different font sizes, wall of text rants... something about it screams mental instability. See Time Cube for an extreme example.

I think you should consider her age. She is 39 (old) so it is hard to keep up with the new trends in web design and movie making, plus she doesn't look very smart.

[deleted]

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

#263

Post by maxerickson »

CryoLogic wrote: post #251
JohnTClark wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should consider her age. She is 39 (old) so it is hard to keep up with the new trends in web design and movie making, plus she doesn't look very smart.

I don't know if it's in the spirit of HN discussion to judge someone's intelligence by their looks.

Depends on if you are a descriptivist or a prescriptivist.

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

#264

Post by spacehome »

twentyspot wrote: post #155
Theodores wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never met her but my guess is that she is orthorexic with a narcissism disorder and few friends. Maybe many thousands of 'Facebook friends' which is no replacement for family and a small handful of real friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa 'Orthorexia' masquerades as veganism but is not the same thing.

Dude, she is very obviously schizophrenic. This is as schizophrenic as any human gets. She’s on the level of Wesley Willis of Crazy Gail.

It's not obvious to me. Could you say what you see in her?

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

#265

Post by baud147258 »

ravenstine wrote: post #131
coralreef wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally when you have any rules at all, you piss off people. Can't make everyone happy.

That's true, too. Do you think that unclear or arbitrary rules tend to aggravate individuals as often as rules that are clearly laid out, enforced evenly, and can be appealed?

From what I've seen in a forum where the rules are pretty much arbitrary (don't piss off the boss), such rules aggravate individuals just as much as clearly laid out rules. But in case of unclear or arbitrary rules, the appeal process is non-existent and the application uneven.

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

#266

Post by pavs »

verylittlemeat wrote: post #206
rabidrat wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poppy is an act though. This woman does not appear to be acting very much.

Arguably the only reason Poppy got popular was because people weren't sure if she was an act. For a long time she was just "OMG who is this freaky youtube girl!!!" Obviously in hindsight we know she was an act and correspondingly interest in her has declined. Blurring the line between act and reality is one of the foundations of entertainment. It's the reason people admire good method actors so much. It's the reason…

My rule with Youtube is that, if the production value is relatively high, the character is an act (ie, scripted). I don't know who poppy was had to look it up and saw some of her older videos and it seemed to me that right from the beginning her videos had good lighting, makeup, dress code and overall editing quality was higher than your typical amateur youtube videos.

As someone else mentioned below that easy to have an opinion after the fact, my observation of the shooter, as well be biased, but I feel that even I didn't know anything about her - I would still think the videos were odd. I can't exactly pin-point whats odd about it.

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

#267

Post by pavs »

creaghpatr wrote: post #248
prawn wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched one video. It's possible that something was "not right with her" but then I think that's true in some small way with almost all of us (personality foibles, etc). But it's also possible she was on-edge because she was angry and frustrated by a situation that was important to her (earnings, passions, etc). Lots of people act like that when they feel upset, then you add in the pressure of a camera...

Also, hindsight is 20/20, it’s easy to ascribe abnormal characteristics to a person after an event like this rather than before

very true.

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

#268

Post by bilbo0s »

bitL wrote: post #222
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…

> if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons I think in this case she represents a significant number of YouTubers, and is like an extreme version of discontent that is happening. Imagine a hive of bees growing until they start getting annoying and one of them stings you; by removing one you don't solve anything, you need to do something with the whole hive. So you can remove any traces of her fr…

"...I think in this case she represents a significant number of YouTubers, and is like an extreme version of discontent that is happening..."

Doesn't really matter though. We shouldn't be giving these people the infamy they are looking for. If anything, it's made me think a little less of disgruntled youtubers, and some youtubers have legit gripes.

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

#269

Post by coldtea »

evgen wrote: post #246
coldtea wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it possible that her content just wasn't that good? Even so, she still had 366,591 views, which should all that matters re revenue.

300k or even a million viewers a month that no one wants to pay to reach should still be worth $0. Assuming that just collecting eyeballs gives you some expectation of an income is erroneous.

Actually just collecting eyeballs, if the channel is in the ad program and monetize, should give you a few 10s or 100s of dollars.

That's how it works in YT IIRC -- it's not like a specific advertiser has to sponsor/approve your channel before.

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

#270

Post by spacehome »

skookumchuck wrote: post #157
ironjunkie wrote: post #152

What a terrible disaster this afternoon. It should never finish like this. The only thing I hope out of this is that it will maybe relaunch the debates about the megaplatforms and censorship. (Facebook, youtube, Google,...). The bigger they become, the more they will start censoring everything. More people need to launch the movement to host their videos independentlty. Peertube is a good start for example https://jo…

People think that suppressing "hate" and "offensive" speech will only suppress speech other than theirs.

The people who say that don't have much in the way of independent thought in the first place, so they're probably right in thinking it will never affect them.
Post reply on HN