Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

31–40 of 439 posts

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

#31
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

Whenever something like this happens, people like to dismiss the situation by saying we can't possibly understand "crazy" people. It avoids having to consider the systemic reasons why something like this can happen.

I'd imagine a significant part of it is that we live a society where some people can have their livelihood yanked away from them, with no support structure to help them, leaving them desperate and angry.

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

#32
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…

> Be sure to remind youtube of their power and responsibility after tragedy strikes.

To be clear - they aren't actually responsible for an active shooter showing up on campus. It sounds like you're saying they could have some responsibility in someone coming to their office with a gun.

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

#33
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean a support team that has actual freedoms to help the customer and is not forced to operate on a script that has only one option to tell the customer: You're screwed. Or, even better: as here the case seems to be that the shooter depended on Youtube as income, why shouldn't she have the right to have her effective "firing" appealed in a proper court of law, like in Germany?

It's been alleged that her videos were genuinely controversial (vegan screed, animal violence depictions). How is a support team going to fix that?

And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it.

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

#35
post #11

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…

The problem is not Youtube support ...

Yea. To even suggest this is Youtube supports fault is absurd.

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

#36
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean a support team that has actual freedoms to help the customer and is not forced to operate on a script that has only one option to tell the customer: You're screwed. Or, even better: as here the case seems to be that the shooter depended on Youtube as income, why shouldn't she have the right to have her effective "firing" appealed in a proper court of law, like in Germany?

Because youtube didn't employ her. She was never hired, and so can't be fired, in any sense of the word. If anyone thinks that they are working for Youtube, then they must be delusional.

Edit: I meant if anyone thinks they should depend on youtube ads for income, they are delusional.

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

#37
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…

I get how that gets some channel into trouble: politics, guns. Than channel was apparently a Iranian-American vegan animal rights activist.

I’m not a vegan, but I don’t see the point in opposing them. Other than the banter about how in-your-face they can be, do people violently oppose vegans, or animal rights activists? She was upset over a workout video being age-gated: who would oppose that video?

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

#38
The YouTube ad-pocalypse was a set of terrible policy decisions from Google. They demonetized a ton of legitimate YouTube channels in a rush to appease their advertisers. Only after much outcry, did they re-enable the monetization for some of those more popular channels. But many channels remained affected by it.

You would think that with all of this talk about "human-beating AI" lately, these things would be better and more precise by now. But they're not. It's almost looks like they've gotten worse. Unwarranted censorship on social media platforms is just as rampant as fake news and manipulation is.

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

#39
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.

Why is it a "horrible" tactic? Citizens have a right to free speech, not to make massive profit off of it as a corporation.

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

#40
I can't help but think of of the Tunisian guy who was trying to eke out a living, faced his own Arbitrary Machine (the state in this case) and lost, getting de-monetized. Then set himself on fire, more or less starting the "Arab Spring."

If you never read of the Tunisian man, from wiki:

> Twenty-six-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi had been the sole income earner in his extended family of eight. He operated a vegetable or apple cart (the contents of the cart are disputed) for seven years in Sidi Bouzid 190 miles (300 km) south of Tunis. On 17 December 2010, a female officer confiscated his cart and produce. Bouazizi, who had had such an event happen to him before, tried to pay the 10-dinar fine (a day's wages, equivalent to 7USD). In response the policewoman insulted his deceased father and slapped him. The officer, Faida Hamdi, stated that she was not even a policewoman, but a city employee who had been tasked that morning with confiscating produce from vendors without licenses. When she tried to do so with Bouazizi a scuffle ensued. Hamdi says she called the police who then beat Bouazizi.[35] A humiliated Bouazizi then went to the provincial headquarters in an attempt to complain to local municipality officials and to have his produce returned. He was refused an audience. Without alerting his family, at 11:30 am and within an hour of the initial confrontation, Bouazizi returned to the headquarters, doused himself with a flammable liquid and set himself on fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution#Mohamed_Bo...

They are obviously not the same, and the Mohamed didn't attack other people, but as people earn a monetary (or just a social) living on more arbitrary platforms, they are conjoining their own fates to these platforms, for better or worse.

If you ask Fukuyama, Niall Ferguson, or many historians how to build a non-dysfunctional state, they will tell you that rule of law and property rights matter. Systems that can easily and arbitrarily take away one's living (monetary or social) are not good for society.

Post reply on HN