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

321–330 of 439 posts

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

#321

Post by ensignro2340 »

Klinky wrote: post #302
ensignro2340 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not similar to being fired. [REDACTED: It's similar to a store owner allowing you to panhandle outside their business, and then later telling you you can't panhandle there anymore (but loiter all you want!).] It is not reasonable for adults to look at internet ad revenue as a reliable source of income. It's unfortunate if/when they fall on hard times because they made the mistake of relying on something so volat…

As we slide more and more towards a "gig economy", not only can we underpay people, but we can also tell them they don't even have a "real job". Someone producing content for YouTube or driving for Lyft is a beggar? Get real.

Lyft drivers are independent contractors. In my opinion they (and Favor deliverers, etc.) should be categorized as employees instead and should receive benefits. Uploading content to YouTube is not the same thing. I'm not meaning to say anyone's a beggar. But YouTubers just don't have an employer-employee relationship with YouTube. That's just a fact. This woman was not a YouTube employee, the people she targeted were.

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

#322

Post by fixermark »

ekianjo wrote: post #246
emodendroket wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark Ames wrote a whole book (which I admit I didn't quite finish) with the thesis that you could tie the rise of workplace shootings to an increase in worker precarity.

> you could tie the rise of workplace shootings to an increase in worker precarity. Funny, outside of the US even in countries with high unemployment nobody goes around and shoots anyone.

That's a complicated question, and I suspect it has a lot of dimensions.

I can't speak for the culture of other countries, but Americans have a deep-seated sense of worth tied to profession. Having your livelihood stripped raises existential questions about whether you have any value as an American (to understand this phenomenon better, it may be worth also comparing suicide rates in the US after a job loss to suicide rates in other cultures in similar situations).

... but in addition, the US has a pretty deep-seated cultural mythos that when your worth is taken by someone, you take it back, using violence if necessary. Witness the Revolutionary War and the recent phenomenon of a conservative political group naming itself after an economic rebellion against the East India Company.

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

#323

Post by ensignro2340 »

baud147258 wrote: post #228
ensignro2340 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not similar to being fired. [REDACTED: It's similar to a store owner allowing you to panhandle outside their business, and then later telling you you can't panhandle there anymore (but loiter all you want!).] It is not reasonable for adults to look at internet ad revenue as a reliable source of income. It's unfortunate if/when they fall on hard times because they made the mistake of relying on something so volat…

Well, it's not exactly panhandling, but more like a venue providing free spaces for artists. The venue is funded through advertissement and some of this money is given to the artists, taking into account the number of people looking at them. Because in that case, there's a content produced, which is used to bring people to the venue. But I agree on the rest of your point, relying on advertising and third-party servic…

Ah - I just saw this. Sorry I totally copied your comparison without meaning to. Thanks for getting what I meant despite my poor analogy.

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

#324

Post by ensignro2340 »

delecti wrote: post #212
ensignro2340 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not similar to being fired. [REDACTED: It's similar to a store owner allowing you to panhandle outside their business, and then later telling you you can't panhandle there anymore (but loiter all you want!).] It is not reasonable for adults to look at internet ad revenue as a reliable source of income. It's unfortunate if/when they fall on hard times because they made the mistake of relying on something so volat…

Youtube is a valuable platform in no small part due to content creators, and they recognize that, which is why they have a revenue sharing program to begin with. It's disingenuous to compare those content creators to panhandlers. I agree that they should realize it's a volatile system and prepare for downswings, but that doesn't make them beggars.

I didn't call them beggars - I was only meaning to call out the comparison to employees. Sorry for the confusion. I've edited the original comment.

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

#325

Post by ryanbrunner »

thefounder wrote: post #116
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…

People ahould not put too much trust in youtube-like companies. If you have a youtube career you don't really have a real career/job. You just found a way to make easy bucks. Youtube is not the "internet" of videos. You can have your own website

To some degree, it is though. YouTube has a quasi-monopoly on the promotion and discovery of video content, which is far more important than the distribution (which you're correct, is relatively cheap and straightforward)

If a business capriciously de-indexed from Google search, I think there'd be plenty of room for criticism of Google. I don't think there's a terribly large difference here. It might not rise to the level of illegality, and it certainly doesn't justify shooting employees, but I do think it's a predictable result.

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

#326

Post by ajross »

mschuster91 wrote: post #187
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.

> And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it. Good luck trying to sue one of the most powerful companies in history. I wouldn't dream of this.

What are you talking about? If it's less than the local statutory limit (quick google tells me $7500 in California, likely around what this woman thinks she was owed) then you don't even need a lawyer. File a small claims suit, show up at court, and make your case before the judge.

Now, she probably wouldn't win, because there's no contract here and Google has no affirmative duty to host anyone's video in particular nor to pay them for it. But you can absolutely do it.

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

#327

Post by jacquesm »

emodendroket wrote: post #311
jacquesm wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've sued several very large corporations over the last 30 years and have to this date come out the winner in each and every case. Yes it cost some money but the pay-off was substantially higher than the money invested in the court case. And no, we were not rich by any definition. In Europe the courts are still accessible for companies that do not have millions of $.

This story doesn't take place in Europe.

It couldn't take place in Europe.

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

#328

Post by Mithaldu »

fixermark wrote: post #322
ekianjo wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you could tie the rise of workplace shootings to an increase in worker precarity. Funny, outside of the US even in countries with high unemployment nobody goes around and shoots anyone.

That's a complicated question, and I suspect it has a lot of dimensions. I can't speak for the culture of other countries, but Americans have a deep-seated sense of worth tied to profession. Having your livelihood stripped raises existential questions about whether you have any value as an American (to understand this phenomenon better, it may be worth also comparing suicide rates in the US after a job loss to suicid…

More importantly, in many places in the USA, what would be medium inconveniences in other countries (illness, company folding) can quickly and easily destroy a life.

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

#329

Post by fricat1ve »

jacquesm wrote: post #284
tedunangst wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are people here who write that "It was only a matter of time until one of those furious victims took up a gun to get revenge." and that's well into apologist territory. Are they wrong? It's only a matter of time until lots of bad things happen. Still bad, still going to happen.

Yes they are wrong. "Victims"? The only victims in this story were the people that she shot.

The only person in this thread who used the word "victims" was you.

This is a Burning-man-sized strawman.

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

#330

Post by Mithaldu »

jacquesm wrote: post #270
simias wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is not apologism, that's realpolitik. It doesn't mean the deed is acceptable, but that people in power should've anticipated it.
Post reply on HN