Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized' • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:24 PM UTC

yoz-y wrote: post #161

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…

A big problem with automatic demonetization is that what frequently happens is that (let's assume that you are a popular Youtuber): You spend a lot of time and money to make a video. You upload it to youtube. It trips some random check and is flagged and de-monetized, you appeal. People come and watch your video, with this type of content the vast majority of views is in the few first days since publishing. Your appe…

Business disputes are not normally resolved with weapons. If you treat your Youtube presence as a business you are doing it wrong to begin with, and your conflict resolution venue will be the courts, not shooting at random employees.

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

#172

Post by dmode » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #152

_delirium wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

The problem is - and this goes for all the apologists for this person in this thread - that having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on. If you run a small business and you make that business entirely dependent on a third party you are inherently setting yourself up for failure. Whether it is Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, Medium or any other user generated content site you give up control the moment y…

I don't think the previous poster is being an apologist, but just pointing out that sudden changes in income can trigger people. My wife lost her shit when one fine morning she was laid off without any prior warning. 99% of people don't act out, but 1% do.

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

#173

Post by MaupitiBlue » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #145

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'm not going to defend shooting anyone, obviously. But YouTube has captured the entire market, practically, for streaming video, and encouraged people to look at it as a way of making money (even a full-time time job, for many). Why would you be surprised that someone would be upset about a capricious decision, which cannot be appealed, suddenly taking away the money?

I'm not surprised. While I love YouTube, most of the YouTube personalitys seem to be emotionally unhealthy and making videos for people drawn to that sort of psychic disorder.

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

#174

Post by dspillett » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #37

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 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?

> do people violently oppose vegans

I doubt being vegan is the key here.

Though there is a fair amount of bullying, through ad-homenim attacks or idiots just trying to wind people up for shits & giggles. There are also some with a persecution complex that seem to take even the slightest criticism as a violent attack. This is not constrained to veganism though: there are similarly unhinged people in many walks of life.

> or animal rights activists?

I expect this is the more important factor. Being a vegan is likely a consequence of her strong feelings in this area (the fact that some are highlighting the vegan thing is an example of the bullying I mention above). Animal rights is a very emotive area and some people (a few, but a very active and vocal few) get dangerously passionate about it to the point of losing all view of any other logic or moral sensibility (like not killing human animals).

> a workout video being age-gated: who would oppose that video?

I've not seen the video in question so I can't make specific guesses, but there are a couple of possibilities that spring to mind:

* Some people are very puritan about the showing of skin and so forth, perhaps there was a complaint about that sort of thing?

* Was anything potentially divisive said during the workout clip, even in passing? Given her apparent anger at the world that is not unlikely.

* It could just be someone that disagrees with her views on something else. Down-voting and reporting entirely unrelated content in response to something else is an immature but very common reaction.

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

#175

Post by colechristensen » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

DanAndersen wrote: post #113

colechristensen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The threat to freedom isn't non-public spaces exercising their rights, it's the nearly complete lack of actual public space online for anyone that isn't wealthy or a hacker. The issue is that, unless we have some sort of political movement toward a US-Government funded equivalent of YouTube, there will never be a public space online for the average person. More and more of daily social interaction is moving onto a p…

I'm sorry, the market can and should solve this problem.

I don't want a federally run YouTube, and I don't want to rob publishers of the right to choose what to publish.

There's nothing preventing a company from selling hardware and software to enable you to publish yourself. It won't be free, it shouldn't be free.

The only "platform" that should be a public space is TCP on the Internet.

There is one problem with two solutions.

Social media giants aren't public spaces.

You can either force them to be public spaces through strict and probably ridiculous regulation or you can create fundamentally different ways to publish on the existing public space of the Internet as a whole.

Except it's not fundamentally different. Much more towards the beginning of the Internet the way you shared information with people was by setting up a web server and an email server. They were yours so there was nobody to censor you.

That creating things yourself action hasn't really moved into the 21st century. It is still possible but ever more the realm of experts.

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

#176

Post by panzagl » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

So what exactly is the difference between a disgruntled youtuber and a coal miner fighting Pinkertons trying to break their strike? While I'm being facetious, the attitude of 'Oh well, they took away your livelihood sucks to be you' in this thread is kind of how US labor rights have been eroded for the last 40 years.

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

#177

Post by throw2016 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

This is a weird event, a tragedy even that perhaps could have been averted if someone had spoken to her and calmed her down.

But perhaps even then the outcome would have been the same. We can't know. And so must put this down to an individual failing and resist the temptation to seek answers in something larger.

No one can deny there is anger and frustration but the sheer scale and volume of content being uploaded hourly means it's simply not viable or even possible for humans to vet with proper support mechanisms, and automated systems are a big hammer that will inevitably leave people feeling helpless and dehumanized.

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

#178

Post by Damogran6 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #152

_delirium wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

The problem is - and this goes for all the apologists for this person in this thread - that having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on. If you run a small business and you make that business entirely dependent on a third party you are inherently setting yourself up for failure. Whether it is Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, Medium or any other user generated content site you give up control the moment y…

And over time, our economic model is to squeeze more and more profit out of a service. The downside of receiving an income from Youtube, as a subcontractor of Youtube, is that they'll want to make more money from you...or the next person to come along to create content for slightly less money.

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

#179

Post by emodendroket » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #165

emodendroket wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to defend shooting anyone, obviously. But YouTube has captured the entire market, practically, for streaming video, and encouraged people to look at it as a way of making money (even a full-time time job, for many). Why would you be surprised that someone would be upset about a capricious decision, which cannot be appealed, suddenly taking away the money?

> I'm not going to defend shooting anyone, obviously. And then you proceed to defend that anyway. Any webserver will be happy to serve up .mp4 content. There are free players (JWPlayer for instance) and you are entirely free to serve up whatever you want from your own hosted service. That capricious decision can be appealed, you can take Youtube to court if you feel they have wronged you. > Why would you be surprised…

Well, no, I don't think recognizing the validity of someone's grievance means you necessarily have to also support a mass shooting as a way of redressing said grievance.

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

#180

Post by psyc » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #152

_delirium wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

The problem is - and this goes for all the apologists for this person in this thread - that having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on. If you run a small business and you make that business entirely dependent on a third party you are inherently setting yourself up for failure. Whether it is Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, Medium or any other user generated content site you give up control the moment y…

Calling the critics of YouTube's whims 'apologists for the shooter' even in the context of this thread is a dirty rhetorical trick. Nobody is saying the shooter was justified.