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

121–130 of 439 posts

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

#121

Post by nullifidian »

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…

I'm not an American. The fact that a targeted online advertisement shown before the video is associated with the video and not with the platform, and requires damage control is perplexing and unexplainable to me... "There is no direct relationship between the video and the ad - It's matched by the machinery to the viewer, not to the video." should be the official answer and the end of the story.

Is an ad exposure before a "controversial" video any different in its effect compared to "acceptable" video exposure? It shouldn't be. I presume ad-to-video strong association is some kind of established US norm, where you pressure companies to "pull ads" when something offends you. Not being able to pull ads in a targeted manner is unacceptable I suppose, and that great American institution of pulling ads is "ought to be preserved".

Also I don't understand why Youtube went with advertisers' demands -- they have near-monopoly, big coffers and can impose their own rules. Like "You can't dictate at the start of which particular video your ads are shown, only the demographics and some keywords". The current set of rules is giving advertizers the power they shouldn't really have. It's as if the ogranization is willing to implement what equals to advertizers moralistic/political policing of content.

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

#122

Post by spraak »

stareatgoats wrote: post #87

Funny how a very complex situation can be synthesized into a single perspective. Is this heading what will become the lasting impression of this tragedy? I can imagine a few other possible and maybe more valid interpretations, none of them exclusive though. (I don't have all the facts so this list should probably balloon, or have items removed as facts unfold): An example of how some people are so triggered by advoca…

Are you just extrapolating assumptions here? Because you're saying a lot that hasn't been said.

E.g.

> An example of how some people are so triggered by advocacy groups (in this case PETA) that it just takes a slight economic misfortune to bring out the guns?

They said she was a vegan activist [1], not part of PETA.

> An example of how when the shooter is a woman she is not really demonized the way guys are (even when being an immigrant)?

Where did it say she's an immigrant? Her parents maybe.

[1] I really hope the media doesn't spin the vegan part.

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

#123

Post by ajross »

walshemj wrote: post #102
ajross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is "vegan screed" controversial

Animal violence is controversial. I added the vegan bit to clarify that she wasn't, I dunno, a dog fighting afficionado. Her content (which, again, I haven't seen!) was "controversial", it wasn't a straightforward ToS violation.

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

#124

Post by Asooka »

colechristensen wrote: post #63
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Internet was supposed to be about the free exchange of information. People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are "The Internet" when they are publishers. "You" are not publishing content on YouTube, YouTube is publishing your content. Just because they do almost nothing to curate what they publish, doesn't mean the little they do is some civil rights violation. We're learning with the R…

YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces. The problem is they're right now one single public space and people can't disengage with speech they don't like, which is as much their right as I should have the right to publish it. You want centralised systems in order to reap benefits from economies of scale and so you can use the ad revenue from more acceptable publications to support publications on more controversial topics, which are, or might be, nonetheless important to society as a whole, even if certain citizen groups don't like them. And you want it centralised because no single person can bear the costs of publishing videos online.

Ultimately service providers have to take a stand for free speech and allow both the publishing of controversial media, as well as let people easily filter out what they don't want to see. I would really like to see a youtube in the model of reddit or 4/7/8chan where you can manually segregate by "board" and just not engage with speech you don't like. This entire problem is because each new user content publishing site has to re-learn the lessons from UseNet, except the ones that are popular today want to take away the voice of people they don't like and put them in some underclass that doesn't have access to what everyone else has. Let people pick their spaces, move or delete content that doesn't fit the space it's posted in and warn&ban repeat offenders.

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

#126

Post by Raphmedia »

arenaninja wrote: post #7

Man, I wanted to have a go at making a YouTube competitor, I think there's room for one, but SESTA makes me wary to have any platform that hosts user-generated content EDIT weary -> wary. Thanks wccrawford

There is https://d.tube/ which pays content creators with crypto coins based on watch time. What's interesting too is that instead of having ratings on videos, it shows you how much money a video has made.

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

#127

Post by ensignro2340 »

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…

It’s not the media’s fault. If you’re going to blame anyone - blame the advertisers. They are the ones with the money everyone (YouTube and YouTubers alike) is trying to get their hands on. Unfortunately they are the ones who hold the cards at the end of the day when it comes to their money.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

danso wrote: post #97
deftnerd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they're not directly responsible, the problem was entirely of their making. They created a whole new profession (even my 8-year-old son wants to grow up to be a "professional youtubber") and then arbitrarily destroy careers. The created an environment where people could work hard to create their own destiny while giving themselves the ability to destroy those destinies without cause or recourse. It was only a m…

So basically every company who has ever laid off or fired an employee should expect at some point to fall victim to a mass shooting?

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by _delirium »

jacquesm wrote: post #82

'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income. That's bonkers, it's already quite a service that Youtube allows you to upload your videos to reach an audience that you'd be hard pressed to serve from your own server. They do this for free. In the previous iteration of such platforms all the ad income would go to the owner of the website, not to the rights owners of the vid…

I don't think this kind of reaction is about philosophical "right" to an income from a particular company, more about sudden changes. It's similar to being fired: you previously got an income from this company, then they decided not to give you an income. Some people get angry at that, and sometimes feel desperate, worried about ending up homeless etc. depending on how much they relied on this income and what kinds of safety nets they have access to. Which is all true even if the company was within its rights to fire you. Of course most people who get angry about being laid off don't shoot anyone, but it's unfortunately not really a new story in the US (Google for something like, [laid off employee shooting], and there's dozens of hits).

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

#130

Post by jacquesm »

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…

It wasn't the media that pulled the trigger.
Post reply on HN