Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

nbcbayarea.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 491 posts

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#371

Post by ng-user »

justicezyx wrote: post #353
ssaew333 wrote: post #338

If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this? Man, do I feel stupid f…

> 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists Right in a post complaining labelling, a labeling slapping to my face. I am a bit depressed by our species ability to do rational thinking.

A little contradictory, I concur.

Does claiming someone is a member of ISIS automatically make you a right-wing conspiracy theorist or is it different under these circumstances?

How is the number 40% actually determined, surely it must be an assumption from scrolling through the feed for a little while? To my knowledge it's difficult (near impossible without 3rd party tools) to determine in real-time the number of tweets pertaining to a certain topic.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#372

Post by magicalist »

titzer wrote: post #342
ikurei wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those two events have nothing to do with each other. In Paypal people send each other money, and the man in the middle is blocking it. In YouTube, Google decides whether or not to put ads on your video and give you part of the money. You aren't entitled to that cash just because you uploaded a video and people saw it. It's still terrible and irresponsible for YouTube to be arbitrary about it and have no clearly defin…

> You aren't entitled to that cash just because you uploaded a video and people saw it. I dunno, why should all the ad revenue go to YouTube for a user's content?

> I dunno, why should all the ad revenue go to YouTube for a user's content?

There are no ads on demonetized videos. That's the point of it.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#373

Post by freedomben »

dragonwriter wrote: post #294
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm struggling to understand the difference between a mentally unwell person and a mentally unwell corporation or government. I don't think YouTube is mentally unwell, but there have certainly been examples in the past of corporations acting in ways that resulted in the deaths of individuals - either through negligence (justified economically) or through rare but not nonexistent direct corporate violence. Contemporar…

> I'm struggling to understand the difference between a mentally unwell person and a mentally unwell corporation or government. Corporations and governments are collections whose concrete eleemtns are individuals. If corporations or governments act out of mental illness, it is the mental illness of one or more of the individuals comprising the collection. The aggregate might be subject to dysfunction distinct from bu…

WRT corporate mental illness, I'm not convinced it's widespread mental illness rather than simply the way humans are combined with poor/unethical/apathetic/etc leadership. The vast majority of us just go along with whatever an "authority" tells us is right. The Milgram Experiment [1] illustrated this well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#374

Post by scottlegrand2 »

vowelless wrote: post #281
John_KZ wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. I don't know about your way of thinking, but when a person is willing to give his life for a reason, I want to know exactly what it was. Sometimes it's just crazy talk, other times it helps you identify a problem and stop further shootings or ruined lifes that end in shootings.

Let's not turn America into the middle East where people use murder suicide for causes and changing policies...

I agree with your sentiment, but I also think we need to make America the kind of place where people don't think a murder-suicide like this is their only remaining option. I'm not too optimistic about that at the moment.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#375

Post by mikeash »

The amount of victim blaming in these comments is astounding. Three people are in the hospital because of an armed maniac, and a bunch of the comments are about how YouTube brought this on themselves with their policies about videos.

I’m not religious, but y’all need Jesus.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#376

Post by hankhill »

travmatt wrote: post #363
tristor wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a critical examination of the political sphere would show you that the far left has been using propaganda tactics for a very long time. It might even be most accurate to say that throughout recent human history that most of our current propaganda tactics were first discovered or invented by the far left.

Could you give me a rundown on American far left propaganda tactics you think I’m not aware of? Could you give me a rundown on why you believe the far left invented modern propaganda tactics? As far as I can tell, most modern propaganda tactics originate or start with Russia’s new nonlinear warfare campaigns (gerasimov doctrine), and have been used heavily by Putin in Ukraine and more recently across Europe. I have a…

the Russian trolls have pretty much taken over HN at this point wrt political discussion. either that or Silicon Valley really really loves Putin and hates democracy. Any criticism of extremist right wing politics gets immediately flagged and downvoted into irrelevance.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#377

Post by aoeusnth1 »

Wingwing wrote: post #367
Karunamon wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think mental illness is automatically implied when you go on a shooting spree for a video sharing site's monetization policies.

I don't remember reading that in the DSM. You perpetuate this problem when you trivialize their concerns in this way.

If wanton violence against random employees of a company is a rational response in your mind to ad policies, I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe get some help.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#378

Post by SiempreViernes »

kbp wrote: post #324
cporios wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, her videos were demonetized, not rejected. There's a huge difference between being silenced and being refused ad placement on your videos. Getting paid to express your opinion is not a human right.

> There's a huge difference between being silenced and being refused ad placement on your videos. If there's a huge difference between the impact that being silenced has on someone compared to having their primary source of income abruptly taken away, I would expect the latter to be worse for most people.

Yeah, and free speech and workers rights tend to be two separate questions.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#379

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

petercooper wrote: post #237
mayniac wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some channels do it acceptably. CGP Grey comes to mind, usually an ad for a service at the end of the video the advertiser has effectively funded. It's far worse when people do it without saying, ie product placement. Can't think of any good examples since people usually get away with it, although the obvious blatant example would be any of the Jenner's on Instagram which got into issues for not reporting paid endors…

Can't think of any good examples since people usually get away with it, Well, that's the thing. I can think of a good few respected tech sites that run "sponsored" articles that are disclosed in the smallest text possible and basically look like normal content. Not that I'm going to start industry beef by pointing them out :-D

This literally never happens, and you are completely wrong.

I would explain how totally wrong your are more... but I don't have enough time in my day to make the full commitment this comment should require.

I would have more time in my day if I was better organized, or kept my tasks in a program like Asana. But alas, I haven't even signed up for the free trial, because i have so little time. If I actually had Asana, I could even put writing an adequate reply to your comment as a task, so that I wouldn't forget, and I could make sure it got done.

But again. I don't even have Asana, so that won't be happening.

https://asana.com/ (Move your work forward)

Edit: I'm not complaining, I'm genuinely curious about the downvotes. People understand this is a joke right? Is it just not funny to you?

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#380

Post by classicsnoot »

ssaew333 wrote: post #338

If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this? Man, do I feel stupid f…

I know this may seem like a silly response, but i mean it in all earnestness: Democracy may not be a basically "good thing." I know this flies in the face of a ton of social programming, but at some point we have to take the evidence as it comes to us, and if it is consistently pointing to something we did not expect or like, we can only re-jigger the pretext so many times before we have to confront the fact that maybe our assumptions were wrong. Maybe the internet is the perfect vehicle for democracy, and mob rule isn't such a great thing.
Post reply on HN