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'

#421

Post by dwighttk » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:53 PM UTC

gnu8 wrote: post #398

dwighttk wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was f.lux ever available on the Mac App Store? I downloaded it for free from their website... It wasn't allowed on the iOS App Store because it needs access to private APIs.

I thought it was kicked out of the iOS App Store for using the private APIs, after it was accepted. That is fair on its face, because those are the rules Apple set. However, the F.lux developers pleaded with Apple to open up the APIs needed to implement their software and were ignored. Then Apple copied their functionality as a built in feature of the OS. So the full story doesn’t make Apple look good.

It was never on the App store, they just offered a download that could be installed without jailbreaking: https://justgetflux.com/sideload/

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

#422

Post by colechristensen » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #411

colechristensen wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces Where does it stop? Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If I start a newspaper or open a book store do I have to publish or sell whatever anybody wants me to? If I start a grocery store can I choose what to sell do the local farmers all get the right to sell in my store regardless of my wishes? Where does it stop exactly? > no single…

> Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If the comment section on your blog started to comprise 80-90% of all the comments on the Internet? Yeah, maybe it should, There's so much distance between your hypothetical and what YouTube, Facebook, et al are doing that it's not even a "slippery slope" argument. Maybe a "slippery Marianas Trench" argument.

I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line.

Does Congress pass a bill declaring Facebook public? The rules can't be gut feeling, how do I tell the difference between a comment section that is a public place and one that isn't?

If there are two types of things: A which is a public place and B which isn't, how do I sort into those two bins?

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos?

The government isn't allowed to tell me I can't say something or to punish me for doing so (with the exceptions decided by SCOTUS). The first amendment doesn't mean my neighbors have to be my friends if I use obscene language at dinner parties.

People seem to confuse the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act reached into much less public places and prevented certain behaviors. If YouTube was deleting videos because they were made by black people or Muslims or women, this would be a very different conversation. Religion, race, sex.... those are protected classes.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean your opinions are a protected class. The law doesn't and won't reach that far into the behaviors of private entities. The first amendment protects you from the government, nothing else.

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

#423

Post by _delirium » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

mistersquid wrote: post #269

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…

As I said in a different subthread, YouTube is in no way responsible for the actions Ms. Nasim took. However, it could be helpful to understand Ms. Nasim's motivations insofar as they stem from losing a source of revenue to which she had no entitlement. To that end, our collective social good might be promoted by platform owners like YouTube giving content-generators greater say over the monetization of their content…

I wasn't even looking at a particular solution when I posted this. Maybe YouTube should change something, maybe the social safety net should change, maybe gun laws should change. Lots of options. I just am skeptical that, compared to those options or maybe even others, repeating to people that they have no legally cognizant reliance interests on income that is not contractually guaranteed is a promising way out. I mean, yes, true, but some big billboards proclaiming that is not going to solve the problem.

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

#424

Post by _delirium » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #152

_delirium wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this kind of reaction is about philosophical "right" to an income from a particular company, more about sudden changes. It's similar to being fired: you previously got an income from this company, then they decided not to give you an income. Some people get angry at that, and sometimes feel desperate, worried about ending up homeless etc. depending on how much they relied on this income and what kinds o…

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…

> having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on

Sure, and having an at-will employment contract, which is what almost all YC companies offer, isn't something you should count on either. So I fail to comprehend your attempt to distinguish.

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

#425

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #424

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…

> having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on Sure, and having an at-will employment contract, which is what almost all YC companies offer, isn't something you should count on either. So I fail to comprehend your attempt to distinguish.

An employer does not provide a service for their employees, it's the other way around. Youtube provides a service to its users. That you can get paid for that is optional, that the service even functions is optional.

So the service-provider service-consumer relationship is inverted.

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

#426

Post by _delirium » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:41 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #425

_delirium wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on Sure, and having an at-will employment contract, which is what almost all YC companies offer, isn't something you should count on either. So I fail to comprehend your attempt to distinguish.

An employer does not provide a service for their employees, it's the other way around. Youtube provides a service to its users. That you can get paid for that is optional, that the service even functions is optional. So the service-provider service-consumer relationship is inverted.

Well, that's at least not the relationship that YouTube claims between itself and the content providers that it has chosen to hire commercially. YouTube's official position is that it has retained them as independent contractors and paid them in a manner reportable on a 1099 because they provide a bona-fide service to the company. YouTube files legal documents both to the IRS and to their shareholders that claim this under penalty of perjury.

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

#427

Post by andromeduck » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:21 AM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #386

icebraining wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But YouTube is serving them - the videos are kept online. They just don't show ads on them.

But we allow people of colour to dine. As long as they keep to themselves in the separate room and pay a big premium.

more like you can come to work but you won't get paid if we don't like you

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

#428

Post by Turing_Machine » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 3:21 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #422

Turing_Machine wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If the comment section on your blog started to comprise 80-90% of all the comments on the Internet? Yeah, maybe it should, There's so much distance between your hypothetical and what YouTube, Facebook, et al are doing that it's not even a "slippery slope" argument. Maybe a "slippery Marianas Trench" argument.

I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Does Congress pass a bill declaring Facebook public? The rules can't be gut feeling, how do I tell the difference between a comment section that is a public place and one that isn't? If there are two types of things: A which is a public place and B which isn't, how do I sort into those two bins? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the…

> I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line.

Well, one starting point would be looking at past examples of antitrust action. The AT&T and Standard Oil cases might be instructive.

> What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos?

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the First Amendment. I think they should either be declared a common carrier (and thus required to serve all without discrimination) or (conversely) they should have their DMCA safe harbor privileges revoked.

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

#429

Post by heedlessly3 » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

deftnerd wrote: post #70

AlexC04 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Be sure to remind youtube of their power and responsibility after tragedy strikes. To be clear - they aren't actually responsible for an active shooter showing up on campus. It sounds like you're saying they could have some responsibility in someone coming to their office with a gun.

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…

sounds like this is your way of saying "they were asking for it"

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

#430

Post by INTPenis » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 7:11 AM UTC

smoothgrips wrote: post #403

INTPenis wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well if you call criminals lunatics, which is a fair assessment, then yes. But not every person has contacts in the criminal underworld.

You're just going to have to trust me that I have a first hand perspective of both worlds in one european country and I can promise you that it's not easy to get a gun for any average person. Unless they are willing to jump through the legal hoops to get a licensed firearm.

One of my co-workers did this and from start to finish I think it took him a year to get a handgun. This does not count the hunting license because he was not interested in hunting, he wanted a handgun.

And once acquired he has to report to the police every route he wants to take with the handgun. For example between his home and the gun club.

And storage of the gun unloaded in a locked safe goes without sayhing.

Another friend had an AK47 brought up from Serbia, because macho reasons, and he was only allowed to have it because he was a member of the home guard here. But he had it mounted on the wall, once the police found out they forced him to take it down, disassemble it and store it in three different pieces as it was meant to.