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

401–410 of 439 posts

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

#401

Post by analognoise »

rowyourboat wrote: post #354
analognoise wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't be serious. Youtube is not infrastructure; if you don't like their policies, use a different service. Start a competitor. You pay the server time.

> You can't be serious Watch me. > use a different service What service is there for video creators that has a similar reach? In terms of short internet video, Youtube is a de facto monopoly. Moving to other platforms means giving up basically your entire viewership. Realistically, there is currently no "different service". > Start a competitor Now, it's up to me to say "you can't be serious". That's not really an op…

Then get a real job. It isn't YouTube's job to support every dipshit with a camera.

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

#402

Post by 18pfsmt »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #378
fzeroracer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most basic rights people have in America is the right to protest. You're attempting to rebrand protesting as mob censorship.

No. This is no protest. Protesting is great. Civil discourse is better. Using your twitter gang to side channel attack the people you hate because you can’t make your point in a direct way - is nothing but intimidation. You have no problem with this? Cool. Tell me how it’s “the American way” when it turns around on you. A proxy war between assholes and advertisers is good for no one.

In fact, boycotts are seen as a form of protest (going back to the Irish guy with the surname Boycott). Many of the companies that have dropped their NRA-affiliations have been targeted by NRA members/sympathizers.

Your responses where you assume the political affiliations of the commenters are actually against HN guidelines in that you are not assuming good faith.

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

#403

Post by smoothgrips »

INTPenis wrote: post #392
smoothgrips wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 authorit…

Your arguments are pretty hollow to me. Comparing your proposed 30000 guns in France with more guns than inhabitants in the US. Yes people get guns here in Sweden. You see it on the news almost weekly sometimes how gang members shoot each other. Smuggled weapons or imported plugged weapons that have been modified into live firearm. This argument still does not negate the fact that it's much harder to get your hands o…

> Comparing your proposed 30000 guns in France with more guns than inhabitants in the US.

My point is, even countries with very strict gun laws have lots of guns, most of which are illegal, but they're still there, still accessible to people who want them and go through the effort to get them.

> This argument still does not negate the fact that it's much harder to get your hands on a working firearm.

I wasn't trying to negate that. In fact, I agreed: "While I agree it is more difficult to find a gun in Europe than in America..."

I'm countering this claim that you made:

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

I believe that, yes, any lunatic _can_ find a gun. Yes, again, I agree, they are harder to get. However, I do believe that if said lunatic _really_ wanted one, he'd find one.

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

#404

Post by danso »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #373
danso wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a "horrible" tactic? Citizens have a right to free speech, not to make massive profit off of it as a corporation.

Using a low information mob to attack the people who advertise at the same places the people you hate are posting material - is a shitty tactic. It has no resemblance of discourse. It’s just intimidation. Edit: thought experiment... you really think you’d have the same opinion if some alt-right group was using this tactic to shut out people you agree with?

So instead of making a “thought experiment”, why don’t you actually cite a case similar to what’s happening to Laura Ingraham?

In the case of the NRA’s sponsors being boycotted, you must be fucking kidding or forgot what happened to Delta, or that the NRA is still doing fine. It seems you are just as low-information as the mobs you deride.

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

#405

Post by analognoise »

If you were silly enough to go "all in" on being a "pro YouTuber" and it failed, do what other businesses do: stop crying, move on.

Nobody cares about your need for a platform - nobody owes you a platform for your videos. Can't make a living at it? Get a real job. I can't believe how ridiculous and entitled a lot of these comments are.

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

#406

Post by _bxg1 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #307
pg_bot wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain what you mean by your last sentence.

I'm no expert in these matters so I'm not very qualified to give specifics, but roughly: 1) Something modelled after employment regulation to protect people whose full-time income comes from these platforms. There are tons of rules designed to protect employees which services like YouTube and Uber have been dodging (and actively fighting) for years. 2) Something like common-carrier status to protect the users of the…

Regulation comes in when it's necessary to acknowledge, as a society, that the natural forces at play (from the market or otherwise) in some context aren't enough to guard against sufficiently large risks to society's members or ability to function. It has less to do with the nature of the thing being regulated and more to do with the impact it has/can have on society.

With that perspective in mind, these platforms have (intentionally) maneuvered themselves into a position where millions or billions of people depend on them for some combination of livelihood and/or basic connection with the world around them. That is what makes them good candidates for regulation.

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

#407

Post by [deleted] »

analognoise wrote: post #401
rowyourboat wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't be serious Watch me. > use a different service What service is there for video creators that has a similar reach? In terms of short internet video, Youtube is a de facto monopoly. Moving to other platforms means giving up basically your entire viewership. Realistically, there is currently no "different service". > Start a competitor Now, it's up to me to say "you can't be serious". That's not really an op…

Then get a real job. It isn't YouTube's job to support every dipshit with a camera.

[deleted]

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

#408

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

danso wrote: post #404
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a low information mob to attack the people who advertise at the same places the people you hate are posting material - is a shitty tactic. It has no resemblance of discourse. It’s just intimidation. Edit: thought experiment... you really think you’d have the same opinion if some alt-right group was using this tactic to shut out people you agree with?

So instead of making a “thought experiment”, why don’t you actually cite a case similar to what’s happening to Laura Ingraham? In the case of the NRA’s sponsors being boycotted, you must be fucking kidding or forgot what happened to Delta, or that the NRA is still doing fine. It seems you are just as low-information as the mobs you deride.

Wait... you’re saying this isn’t a problem because only one side is manipulating public outrage and not both sides? And that “bad tactics” are OK if they don’t deliver a killing blow?

Dude, be honest. You are only OK with targeting advertisers because it lines up with your beliefs instead of allowing all speech and just making better arguments against those who you disagree.

Oh, surely this could never turn around on you!

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

#409

Post by [deleted] »

analognoise wrote: post #401
rowyourboat wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't be serious Watch me. > use a different service What service is there for video creators that has a similar reach? In terms of short internet video, Youtube is a de facto monopoly. Moving to other platforms means giving up basically your entire viewership. Realistically, there is currently no "different service". > Start a competitor Now, it's up to me to say "you can't be serious". That's not really an op…

Then get a real job. It isn't YouTube's job to support every dipshit with a camera.

[deleted]

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

#410

Post by rowyourboat »

analognoise wrote: post #401
rowyourboat wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't be serious Watch me. > use a different service What service is there for video creators that has a similar reach? In terms of short internet video, Youtube is a de facto monopoly. Moving to other platforms means giving up basically your entire viewership. Realistically, there is currently no "different service". > Start a competitor Now, it's up to me to say "you can't be serious". That's not really an op…

Then get a real job. It isn't YouTube's job to support every dipshit with a camera.

I don't know how to get this discussion back on a productive track. I never said it was Youtube's job to support everyone with a camera, nor do I publish content on Youtube. I simply would like to have a discussion about the effects of these powerful monopolies and how we, as a society, should deal with them.
Post reply on HN