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

261–270 of 439 posts

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

#261

Post by chii »

MaupitiBlue wrote: post #173
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 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.

> YouTube personalitys seem to be emotionally unhealthy

youtube was a platform for which people with issues could still produce an income, gain an audience, and be part of a social group (even if it was just subscribers and comments).

During the great boom era of youtube, it certainly helped lots of depressed and down on their luck people that had a creative spark. It's not that youtube draws them, but that they are desperate enough, and youtube was a good opportunity.

Now youtube becoming more mainstream means that those opportunities that it used to afford to socially awkward and/or depressed people no longer exists. It's a sad outcome imho.

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

#262

Post by jacquesm »

simias wrote: post #213
jacquesm wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think he was defending the shooting but rather the fact that many so-called "pro" Youtubers feel like they're getting shafted. I think you built a strawman that makes it harder to discuss because you seem to equate "being unhappy with Youtube's monetization scheme" with supporting that shooter which is obviously inane. I doubt anybody here is saying that you should go shoot Google HQ if you're unhappy with th…

There is no such thing as a 'pro Youtuber'.

That's about as silly as being a 'pro Mediumer'. There is such a thing as a professional blogger but they treat the thing as an actual business: with as much control over hosting and content delivery as they can get.

The moment you use a third party service as the key component of your business you lose your 'pro' status.

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

#263

Post by gowld »

DanAndersen wrote: post #76
jacquesm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something very ironic about a person that is supposedly so careful about animal rights that they will change their diet to relieve the pressure who at the same time has no problems in bringing a gun into the offices of a free service and shooting random strangers.

There is sadly a small segment of animal-rights or environmental advocates who let their cause mutate into a sort of misanthropy or disregard for humans. At its mildest levels it manifests as the half-joking comments of "we don't deserve dogs" or "dogs are the best people" that are all the rage on imgur et al., at its more severe levels it becomes anger or violence against those perceived to be enabling oppression of…

There are also sadly some segments of the human rights community who will hurt or even kill people to stop those people from torttuo or killing himans

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

#265

Post by GVIrish »

mschuster91 wrote: post #181
GVIrish wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but this is ridiculous. Someone decided that to respond to having video de-monetized on a website was justification for trying to kill people. How on earth is it reasonable to start down the path of 'well if she had talked to tech support...' Tier 1 support is now supposed to dissuade lunatics from murdering people? Are we supposed to construct our society around making sure that nothing, nowhere could possibly…

> at some decision that could inconvenience them? Losing one's job is not just an "inconvenience". It is an inconvenience in a country with a social safety net. In a country like the US where job loss often enough means direct loss of health insurance and a place to live, losing a job can (and will) lead to homelessness and eventual death.

Where does it say that Youtube was the sole source of this woman's income? But let's say it was. People lose their jobs all the time and don't result to violence. It makes zero sense to assign blame to Youtube for the shooting even if them de-monetizing her took away her only source of income.

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

#266

Post by dagw »

timkpaine wrote: post #195
jacquesm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Without addressing any of the actual arguments.. >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. This echos the classic dropbox comment, "you can just do it yourself". A layperson isn't going to. >That capricious decision can be appealed, you can take Youtube to court if you feel…

As the facebook controversies have show, people have a remarkably bad time using common sense

I think the problem is that people are using "common sense", but depending on your background "common sense" can lead you to dramatically different places.

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

#267

Post by dwighttk »

jacquesm wrote: post #235
dwighttk wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what was the similar feature Apple wanted to release?

App discovery services.

I don't know about that. iOS 7 didn't have any app discovery improvements in the App store. Unless you want to count slightly different top apps lists and the "Near me" feature. It wasn't until iOS 8 (a year and a half later) that they added the Explore tab.

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

#268

Post by [deleted] »

speeder wrote: post #77
DanAndersen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One possible way out of the trap is for regulation to acknowledge and classify these massive social media and content delivery platforms like YouTube and Facebook as the new version of the public square. One of the big issues with the demonetization on YouTube is that it's a binary flag -- either "acceptable content for advertisers" or "unacceptable for advertisers." As if advertisers were a single block with a singl…

This person videos weren't even strange or fringe... The attacker videos seemly were mostly about exercising, vegan diet, and some lighthearted videos... AFTER demonetization, seemly some videos with criticism about Youtube and US, saying that Iran (her home country) had more free speech than US, showed up.

[deleted]

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

#269

Post by mistersquid »

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…

As I said in a different subthread, YouTube is in no way responsible for the actions Ms. Nasim took.

However, it could be helpful to understand Ms. Nasim's motivations insofar as they stem from losing a source of revenue to which she had no entitlement.

To that end, our collective social good might be promoted by platform owners like YouTube giving content-generators greater say over the monetization of their content.

This is not an apology and I accord no blame for Ms. Nasim's actions to YouTube. Mine is just a suggestion that Ms. Nasim had an unjustified grievance which might have been alleviated by giving more agency to the content-generators upon whom platforms such as YouTube depend.

EDIT: add "insofar"

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

#270

Post by jacquesm »

simias wrote: post #253
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…

Are you seriously framing the discussion as "people who think ill of Youtube's monetization scheme are shooter apologists"? I didn't think so reading this comment but you seem to imply than in all your replies in this thread. That's such a ridiculous strawman that I don't even know where to begin. That being said I agree with your non-crazy point about how video uploaders shouldn't feel entitled to a share of the cak…

> Are you seriously framing the discussion as "people who think ill of Youtube's monetization scheme are shooter apologists"?

No, but there are such 'shooter apologists' in this thread.

Read the whole of it, at least one person writes that they feel that it was only a matter of time before someone brought a gun to a dispute like this.

Post reply on HN