291–300 of 491 posts
So much for pervasive surveillance revealing domestic terrorists and other such threats.
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.
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.
If your speech causes enough problems? Yes. Remember Kevin Mitnick was banned from using computers at all, and I think was banned from the phone system for a while too?
Remember how Kevin Mitnick had a trial with transparency and formal procedures to prevent abuse of authority?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. A mentally unwell person is equally likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by a platform that harbors content which, in fact or merely their perception, endorses, advocates, or directly does any of targeting, oppressing, threatening, or harming them or any group they identify with. Heck,…
I'm struggling to understand the difference between a mentally unwell person and a mentally unwell corporation or government. I don't think YouTube is mentally unwell, but there have certainly been examples in the past of corporations acting in ways that resulted in the deaths of individuals - either through negligence (justified economically) or through rare but not nonexistent direct corporate violence. Contemporar…
Corporations and governments are collections whose concrete eleemtns are individuals. If corporations or governments act out of mental illness, it is the mental illness of one or more of the individuals comprising the collection.
The aggregate might be subject to dysfunction distinct from but in some way analogous to individual mental illness, but that isn't mental illness, just a loosely analogous state.
> Why do we consider murderous individuals mentally ill
We generally don't, though mental illness is an explanation for some personal violence.
So much for pervasive surveillance revealing domestic terrorists and other such threats.
It also seems to be standard corporate training procedure to tell employees that they should report any behavior like this that might suggest that a coworker is "at risk" for doing something like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People need to eat.
Last time I checked, jobs from lawyers and doctors to gravediggers and street sweepers are still there. Nobody was promised to be a YouTube icon.
That's right, but if you're going to try to make a living creating content, you have to be able to provide for yourself. Outside of advertising, there aren't that many options for generating income - and most of the time, you have to do all of them (adverts, patreon, live appearances, swag sales, etc.) to make a living because individually they aren't enough. And this is what 'hustle' looks like in this space.
There is something off-putting about expecting some of those guys to devote hundreds of hours creating their content and then criticizing them because it's not free enough. High quality content is hard and requires talent, equipment, time and money to do.
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…
As far as I know, her videos were demonetized, not rejected. There's a huge difference between being silenced and being refused ad placement on your videos. Getting paid to express your opinion is not a human right.
Loads of people rely on YT for there income and recent changes to the content algoritms are demonetizing all kinds of video's without any warning or clear indication that it happened (or why ftm) and no real recourse to fix things. It already was a bit of a crap shoot, but now it is quite easy to loose months of income without being acknowledged as a person. I mean, even if you reach the 'you-get-human-support' level of views, you still only get to mail with bots...
Anecdotal evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzb8U0Bje5A ;)
She's complaining about being censored. She would have been helped immensely by somebody showing her how to host her own videos on her own website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"people like nicki minaj, miley, many others who have sensual things so inappropriate for children to watch, don't get age restricted. But videos, my workout videos, get age restricted." Very valid points. Has coherent thoughts, and from her videos doesn't appear to be mentally crazy.
I strongly disagree.