Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 439 posts

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#21

Post by GiorgioG »

mschuster91 wrote: post #6

I don't sympathize with shooting up a company's headquarters at all, but I feel that this could have been avoided by forcing Youtube (and, for that matter, all other social networks!) to have a way to reach an actual human support. In the end, this is one of the "externalities" that get forced upon society when the big companies decide to cut corners on support. Some will... take matters into their own hands. Be it b…

It isn't so much that companies decide to cut corners on support, it's that at companies that operate at this scale (YT, FB, Twitter, etc ) the individual content-creator is a drop in the ocean. When she was de-monetized, it may have meant the world to her, but in YT's perspective it's not worth the time/effort to even have a conversation about it (say beforehand.)

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#22

Post by rhcom2 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #16
sqdbps wrote: post #2

The media’s part in this: For whatever reason they started scouring youtube for “controversial” videos checking if they had ads (no matter how little views they had) then they would contact the advertisers for comment. Advertisers would initiate damage control and pull their ads from youtube. Youtube would explain that the numbers and views in question are insignificant and that this type of complex system can never…

> For whatever reason Anyone that’s been paying attention knows the reason. If you can’t attack free speech, make that speech too expensive. All of the recent controversial issues have one side scrambling to publicly list advertisers - see the March Against Guns tweets about who has deals with NRA or advertises on Fox News. It’s a horrible tactic that’s very much mob censorship.

They don't have the right to talk about who is supporting groups they disagree with?

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#23

Post by guelo »

Simulacra wrote: post #5
sqdbps wrote: post #2

The media’s part in this: For whatever reason they started scouring youtube for “controversial” videos checking if they had ads (no matter how little views they had) then they would contact the advertisers for comment. Advertisers would initiate damage control and pull their ads from youtube. Youtube would explain that the numbers and views in question are insignificant and that this type of complex system can never…

That's a very good analysis. You could apply that to just about anything in the news these days. What would you say are the worst organizations at manufacturing news?

Breitbart, Infowars, The Blaze, Fox News, Drudge.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#24

Post by sillysaurus3 »

meri_dian wrote: post #12
jimmies wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But she said she talked to the support team...

She was crazy. I don't think attempts to walk through her thought processes will bear fruit

Everyone can be crazy if pushed in just the right way.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#25

Post by hvass »

DanAndersen wrote: post #18
Klathmon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. Everyone is acting in their best interests, and in many cases are acting benevolently, but the outcome is still awful. Obviously YouTube is going to cave to advertiser pressure and start to restrict what videos can have ads, their whole existence depends on it, and if I worked at YouTube i'd see demonetizing some videos as a welcome alternative to closing the whole…

Scott Alexander's essay "Meditations on Moloch" is relevant here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ The no-win situation you describe is a prime example of "Moloch."

This is fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#26

Post by criley2 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #16
sqdbps wrote: post #2

The media’s part in this: For whatever reason they started scouring youtube for “controversial” videos checking if they had ads (no matter how little views they had) then they would contact the advertisers for comment. Advertisers would initiate damage control and pull their ads from youtube. Youtube would explain that the numbers and views in question are insignificant and that this type of complex system can never…

> For whatever reason Anyone that’s been paying attention knows the reason. If you can’t attack free speech, make that speech too expensive. All of the recent controversial issues have one side scrambling to publicly list advertisers - see the March Against Guns tweets about who has deals with NRA or advertises on Fox News. It’s a horrible tactic that’s very much mob censorship.

Ironically, your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech in a quite fascistic manner by labeling an actual expression of true American liberty as "horrible mob censorship".

First off: In America, 1A free speech means the government cannot oppress you, NOT that private citizens cannot disagree with you and make their displeasure with your speech known.

Second off: Voting with your wallet (a "boycott") is Economic Free Speech. It's Free Markets in their most basic and pure form. The freedom of an actor to associate how they please. Anyone who suggests that we should not be free to spend our money how we please is acting beyond the pale in a free society.

Quite frankly, it's incredibly ironic that those in our society who used to pretend to be "pro Free Markets" and "pro Free Speech" and "pro Freedom of Association" are now howling and crying about people freely choosing to associate with cetain businesses based on their freely chosen private criteria.

And of course: relevant XKCD https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

TL;DR: Free speech includes the freedom to not spend money with businesses whose speech you disagree with.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#27

Post by danso »

ep103 wrote: post #20
Klathmon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. Everyone is acting in their best interests, and in many cases are acting benevolently, but the outcome is still awful. Obviously YouTube is going to cave to advertiser pressure and start to restrict what videos can have ads, their whole existence depends on it, and if I worked at YouTube i'd see demonetizing some videos as a welcome alternative to closing the whole…

Everyone is acting in their best interest, except youtube. Youtube has a product team, its their job to come up with solutions to problems like these. If they haven't found a solution, they haven't done their job. Full stop.

What is the "solution" here? There is only mitigation, it's not a problem that could ever be completely solved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#28

Post by alex_young »

The monetization of YouTube has created a perverse set of incentives which have in turn driven noise up and signal down.

A few years ago videos were generally interesting, or at least authentic, ads were mostly uncommon for non-commercial content, and comments were a cesspool.

Today the comments are marginally better, the content is worse, and there are ads everywhere.

The focus of many creators isn't creating useful content, but tricking people into watching or playing on the notoriety of making money itself.

This unfortunate event probably wouldn't have happened if the system wasn't designed to incentivise controversial posts in the first place.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#29

Post by [deleted] »

ep103 wrote: post #20
Klathmon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. Everyone is acting in their best interests, and in many cases are acting benevolently, but the outcome is still awful. Obviously YouTube is going to cave to advertiser pressure and start to restrict what videos can have ads, their whole existence depends on it, and if I worked at YouTube i'd see demonetizing some videos as a welcome alternative to closing the whole…

Everyone is acting in their best interest, except youtube. Youtube has a product team, its their job to come up with solutions to problems like these. If they haven't found a solution, they haven't done their job. Full stop.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN