Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by mikeash » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

vinculuss wrote: post #420

mikeash wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. YouTube is a victim too. Using an incident like this to criticize a policy you don’t like is completely beyond the pale. The fact that they apparently drove a crazy person to attempted homicide has no bearing whatsoever on whether those policies are good or bad.

I don't agree that corporations are people. If you believe that a corporation is a person, then I see your argument, despite not agreeing with it.

Why do they need to be “people” to be a victim?

Even if you want to insist that YouTube can not possibly be a victim, it’s still horrible to jump on a multiple attempted homicide to criticize policies about videos posted on a web site.

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

#422

Post by justicezyx » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

ssaew333 wrote: post #389

ng-user wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tw…

I thought it was clear from my post i was guesstimating. I don't typically do rigorous analysis of what I see in twitter results, so I'll just say, it seemed like a lot of right wing accounts implying that media was covering up the shooting, or that the shooter was actually motivated by radical islam.

Right, this statement, if were used by the original post, to me, is quite accurate.

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

#423

Post by antisthenes » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

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…

> Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking.

It did, once. Unfortunately, we have to accept that the average person's contribution will generally be thoughtless, emotional, and not very substantive. I wouldn't say it's their fault. They honestly do not know any better and feel like they are honestly expressing themselves in that manner.

Just saying that perhaps we should take it with a big grain of salt.

Building intelligent consensus is very hard.

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

#424

Post by orbenn » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #421

vinculuss wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that corporations are people. If you believe that a corporation is a person, then I see your argument, despite not agreeing with it.

Why do they need to be “people” to be a victim? Even if you want to insist that YouTube can not possibly be a victim, it’s still horrible to jump on a multiple attempted homicide to criticize policies about videos posted on a web site.

If you get in a car accident, no one counts your car as a victim. This is the same thing.

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

#425

Post by written » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:55 PM UTC

MertsA wrote: post #318

grizzles wrote: post #23

She's a disgruntled Youtuber. This is her website: http://nasimabc.com/ From her page showing a screenshot of her Youtube ad revenue dashboard: > Analytics Last 28 days > Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 Highlighted in Red: Revenue $0.10? There's also another bit where she shows her historical vs. current traffic and makes a reasonable case that she's getting down ranked. Interesting times.

There's some rather telling content on that site about her mental state. http://nasimabc.com/sitebuilder/images/car_attack_nasim2-426... She feels paranoid like everyone is out to get her and it probably didn't help that when YouTube "attacked" her online, it was direct, unambiguous, attributable to a distinct entity (to her at least), etc. When she ran over some debris in the road she came to the conclusion that ant…

I've seen first hand something similar with a person I have known. It was similar detail (in a sense that it would seem inconsequential to everyone else - bent pages in some work log on a day he made a mistake only he knew about) that mightily added to his sense that peope at the company he worked at were after him for some small oversight he made. He was not sleeping well or at all, ruminating, and well on the road to a major breakdown or suicide.

We managed to save him, by taking him to a psychological crisis management center, where he stayed for a few weeks, got a big change in his daily routine, found some new friends and was able to recover.

Might as well be that she simply was unlucky, that she stayed in contact with people who added into her fears/anger and paranoia, instead of pulling her out of her daily context and meaningfully opposing what seemed overblown and crazy about her thinking, helping her see alternative ways to achieve what she wanted, etc.

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

#426

Post by eh78ssxv2f » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #341

nkrisc wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to debate the state of her mental wellness as we can only speculate at this time, but I don't think a healthy person would feel that a tech giant is specifically targeting them, even if they think it might be unfair and arbitrary.

She didn't think she was being specifically targeted. In one of her rants she specifically stated that she knew of many other content creators having their videos censored, age restricted, and demonetized. Her methods are nuts, obviously, but her beef with Youtube is entirely justified. The end result, unfortunately, isn't going to be Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc... realizing the error of their ways - it's going to be…

> "...but her beef with Youtube is entirely justified."

I am curious as to how we concluded that? Until now, we have only heard her side of the story, and not that of YouTube. May be she was violating ToS? There could be thousands of well-justified reasons for YouTube to terminate her account.

Without hearing the other side of the story, how do we know that her beef was entirely justified?

And, of course, there is the usual argument that YouTube is a platform owned by a private entity. Nobody has a justifiable right to put their video on YouTube and earn revenue from it.

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

#427

Post by chillingeffect » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

ssaew333 wrote: post #387

justicezyx wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I wasn't complaining about labeling. I was complaining because assertions that she was an NRA or ISIS supporter were false. I believe my assertions were true. Here are the first two people I saw on my twitter search: Jack Posobiec Wikipedia: "John Michael "Jack" Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOW-bik; born 1985) is an American alt-right[1][2][3] internet troll, conspiracy theorist,[4][5] and self-described journalist,…

I followed this story last night into a live youtube stream where the presenter asserted everything with an authoritative voice:

After bumbling his way through some half-hearted doxing attempts and watching her videos, he was smugly confident in his extrapolations of her psychological diagnosis, political affiliations, family history, &c. And his commenters formed a sycophantic chorus.

Ideology is the failure of a mental model to adapt to error. It's an inflexible coping strategy that rams all perceptions into presuppositions.

Its air of authority is evidence of the delusion, not of successful reality-checking.

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

#428

Post by NicoJuicy » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #394

jimmies wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But were them though? I don't see reasons for the views in her videos indicating those problems.

Many Youtuber's pay for a package of Bots to watch their videos. You can get 1 million views for less than 10 dollars. It used to be a great way to cheat Youtube and Advertisers, but they have gotten better and better at catching it. My guess is that she probably did this. You can still get away with it big time, if the bots are not the majority of your traffic. If you just use them to get to sort of prime the pump.…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/12/20/methb... 5 million/day...

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

#429

Post by BRAlNlAC » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

celdon25 wrote: post #70

aaaaaaaaaaa12 wrote: post #59

One of her complaints was that YouTube age-restricted her yoga videos (which were modest by Western standard, she was just wearing shorts, a shirt and no socks), while not age-restricting much more explicit Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus videos. Is there any explanation to why YouTube does this?

That depends on your definition of explanation. There are loads of complaints and theories. Here's the official policy: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en I'm really not a fan of the policy, and it would be a real shame if it wasn't changed. But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. It shouldn't have come to this in the first place.

>But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting.

Well I put this 100% on the greed of Alphabet/Google. Building up a huge base of creators on your platform over the course of a decade, only to bow to advertiser pressure over a slim minority of your videos and demonetize algorithmically is terrible, straight up inhumane really. Youtube represents some of these creators livelihoods, and they don't seem to recognize that; I really think that the salary levels in the Valley insulate people here from how much more money is worth literally everywhere else. Honestly I've been waiting for something like this to happen, it only seemed like a matter of time to me and unless distribution platforms are much more careful about how they demonetize going forward, I don't think it will be the last. They should be promoting a campaign to shame their advertisers for acting so rashly and putting this front and center. "See what happens when you force a major overhaul of advertisements? People lose their livelihoods and lives. People think less of you on Youtube because we can't control our creators calling you out for demonetizing, it's bad PR and we're gonna make it worse because these actions resulted in this tradgedy."

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

#430

Post by BRAlNlAC » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #147

Density wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of tyrants. Sorry you can't see yourself as such.

I don't think random people working at Youtube are tyrants.

You only say that because your livelihood hasn't been ripped away from you by an algorithm.