Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

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

John_KZ wrote: post #215

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…

>Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. I don't know about your way of thinking, but when a person is willing to give his life for a reason, I want to know exactly what it was. Sometimes it's just crazy talk, other times it helps you identify a problem and stop further shootings or ruined lifes that end in shootings.

Post by wu-ikkyu » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

token_throwaway wrote: post #217

hux_ wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about people with mental illness. I think the platforms produce mental illness. If you influence and produce a certain kind of behaviour through appropriate reward mechanisms and then after a few years of conditioning reduce/remove the reward what do you think happens? Mental illness. YouTube has conditioned a generation of people to chant "subscribe like and share" like a robots. The day the "subscri…

The platforms might be the difference between crazy and crazier, but nobody is going from normal to psychotic because of YT.

Post by creaghpatr » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:50 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #109

trhway wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

There are a bunch of these in society that are interesting and very deserving of more public discussion, including that one (broadly communication access). 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 essential…

Post by sigotirandolas » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:52 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #257

At what point did she wrongfully decide YouTube owed her anything ?

Post by ataturk » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 12:53 PM UTC

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…