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'

#361

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

13of40 wrote: post #254

ensignro2340 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would suck for many people, but would totally be in their right. Again - how are people confused about this. If AWS drops you as a customer use an alternative. Moreover, these people's videos are still hosted on YouTube's servers.

One distinction is that AWS has major competitors you could switch to, but YouTube essentially has a monopoly on that kind of content distribution.

Youtube does not have a monopoly at all. What Youtube has a monopoly on is that your content will get a lot of eyeballs that you don't actually have to do much work for.

It's a mall with a large number of people flowing through it rather than just a content distribution engine.

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

#362

Post by smoothgrips » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

INTPenis wrote: post #103

Americans in the comment section are reacting about this woman being a disgruntled user, angry about perceived discrimination from Youtube, down on her luck, suicidal. Me, a european, I'm reacting to how easily she found a gun. I hate to bring up this very toxic debate, my comment will seem like fishing for trouble. Yet you have to understand our perspective. Not every lunatic where I live can find a gun when they ne…

> Not every lunatic where I live can find a gun when they need one

While I agree it is more difficult to find a gun in Europe than in America, that doesn't mean that a lunatic _can't_ get a gun. Guns exist in EU countries that have very strict gun laws. If said lunatic was determined enough, they _will_ get their hands on one.

> Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns.

> In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/16...

Firearms in Europe _are_ available, they're just harder to find. But I believe that if someone is determined enough, they'll find them, and use them.

Places like England, and Whales, which have very strict gun laws in comparison with places like the US, still suffer from gun related homicides all the time.

> gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year. [...] Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed. [...] Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362. [...] It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soa...

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

#363

Post by kamaal » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

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…

>>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.

And discoverability.

A whole generation of stand up comedians, music instrument players and other people have been able to reach people easily and then make careers on top of it all because one easily discovers content on YouTube.

YouTube to me is to get your content some mindshare in the crowds. How you build your career from there should be up-to you.

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

#364

Post by benmmurphy » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

deftnerd wrote: post #168

danso wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not saying that they would deserve it. If a company algorithmically fired portions of their workforce every day without even talking to those employees or giving them a chance to appeal, then I would expect something terrible to eventually happen. I would expect that eventually an employee would snap under the injustice of the situation and commit a mass shooting, just like eventually an employee would commit sui…

I think the problem with youtube is they have the choice of either using algorithms to filter/monetize content or extremely limiting the amount of content they host/monetize. I don't think employing people is an option for them. I don't think youtube generates enough revenue for this to be a possibility. I think this is a case of its just not possible to run the youtube business without heavy use of algorithmic filtering. Which I guess kind of sucks if you are making your livelihood from youtube. But I don't think this is a problem that is going to be solved in the near future.

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

#365

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

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…

> 'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income.

No, it doesn't: it suggests, accurately, that without and until that action, the content would be permitted to be enrolled in some income-generating program. Whether this is a matter of natural or legal rights or (as is in fact the case) merely the discretionary policy of the program operator is outside the scope of the implication of the term.

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

#366

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

Mithaldu wrote: post #351

jacquesm wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think 'entitled people will come and shoot at our employees' is something that any normal business should have to plan for.

And that's the point. Youtube is an extraordinary business with an utter monopoly.

Youtube doesn't really have a monopoly on the business of serving video. What they do have a monopoly on is the ability to get 100's of thousands of people to be directed to your video even if you yourself only do a fraction of the work required. This combination of technology and the audience is what makes Youtube so powerful.

But if you are claiming ownership of revenues then you are indirectly claiming ownership of that audience and this is a giant mistake. After all, hosting some video is trivial, getting that audience to your self hosted content is the hard part.

So if you take part in an ecosystem like that then you will have to (1) abide by the rules and (2) take into account that you serve at the pleasure of others. Failure to do so is going to result in a rude reminder of what your position really is: one of dependence.

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

#367

Post by kamaal » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #239

jacquesm wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube doesn't have 'whims', it's a company. If you have beef with a company you either take it to court or you take your lumps. You do not go and shoot at the company employees who are just like you dependent on that company for their income, the difference is that they have an employment contract with certain rights and you chose to go for the fame and the glory. There are people here who write that "It was only a…

As long as you maintain that the argument is about whether violence is an appropriate or in any way justified response to YouTube's conduct, you're arguing against a strawman. Again, nobody is saying that, and they aren't really implying it either, unless you believe that any statement that weakens a good case must be false or regarded as support for the opposing case - again, more of a rhetorical concern than a conc…

>>As long as you maintain that the argument is about whether violence is an appropriate

He clearly mentioned that YouTube is already doing great service to people by hosting their videos, providing serving infrastructure and content discoverability.

The fact that people seem to be, to the extent, expect YouTube to pay them, instead of being thankful to all the free stuff YT provides itself feels wrong here.

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

#368

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #363

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…

>>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. And discoverability. A whole generation of stand up comedians, music instrument players and other people have been able to reach people easily and then make careers on top of it all because one easily discovers content on YouTube. YouTube to me is…

Yes, that's a very important part here. But that audience isn't 'yours', the content is yours, and if you drive any measurable new traffic to Youtube (which would be quite hard) then maybe you could lay a claim to that fraction of the audience. But on the whole Youtube functions as a cable network with a huge number of eyeballs on the other side and they (not you) control that network and they will protect the network at the expense of the individual content generators (as they should).

It's pretty easy to get sucked in to the illusion that Youtube needs the content generators more than vice-versa but Youtube is drowning in content, a lifetime worth of new content is uploaded every day so they have the freedom to pick-and-choose at their pleasure and if you want access to those eyeballs then you are playing their game.

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

#369

Post by AndrewKemendo » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #89

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With 50 million channels it's impossible to give quality communication to everyone, so they prioritize based on size/viewership/ad dollars. Top creators have great communications channels - nobody's don't. It's not YouTube's responsibility to stroke everyone's fragile ego. The problem is people thinking they are more important than they are and then going to extreme lengths to make themselves relevant. That's what ma…

>it's impossible to give quality communication to everyone This is wrong though. See Valve for a counter example. Steam is also run by algorithms but Valve has managed to give people tons of information on what their algorithms are doing at various points on their store ("this game was shown to you because of X, Y and Z", for instance). The communication problem that YouTube has can be solved by them improving their…

You can't compare communicating with users that are buying stuff (Steam customers) and communicating with paid creators (The 50M+ YouTube Channel content creators). It's a completely different set of questions/answers and a completely different relationship.

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

#370

Post by kamaal » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #162

jacquesm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 want to see what the reaction here would look like if instead AWS we dropping a bunch of customers with no warning.

No the true reaction one should measure is by asking how one should react, if you put anything on the free tier usage of AWS S3, like say a video or a book and then expect Amazon to pay you for it.