Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

Post by ikurei » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #216

leereeves wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 So basically all of her videos were demonetized?

The fact that this happens seems even worse than PayPal freezing the accounts of random users.

Post by bitL » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:29 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #268

bitL wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

silveroriole wrote: post #234

prawn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible that the decision to demonetise or age-restrict was algorithmic, then she was too small-fry to get any interest/reconsideration from support? We've heard loads of stories of people getting AdSense accounts shut unfairly and without recourse, for example. If that was your entire income, you already felt hard done by, and were so inclined, I could see how you might go off the rails.

For sure. Its like if your boss used an algorithm to decide your pay, and he wouldn’t disclose this algorithm to you. Some months “the algorithm” declares all your work bad and the boss pays you nothing. Meanwhile, you can see other employees’ much worse work getting paid regularly, essentially because they’re more popular and the boss likes them more. Anyone would feel unfairly treated under those circumstances, and…

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #10

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…

>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.

Post by ben509 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:43 PM UTC

anxrn wrote: post #119

ben509 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)