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

Post by baud147258 » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 7:56 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #396

baud147258 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you treat your Youtube presence as a business you are doing it wrong to begin with Why? If you are aware of the risks, have alternate monetization scheme, back-ups and mirrors of your videos, what's the problem of relying on a company who can distribute videos way better than what one person can do?

That's a responsible attitude. Sadly, that attitude does not seem to be the prevailing one.

Post by yoz-y » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 11:13 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #432

yoz-y wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least one possibility would be to add a possibility to pass the checks before releasing the video.

> pass the checks before releasing the video. unless you're restricted in how many times you're allowed to check the video, this will just become the same game-able system. There isn't a good way tbh - i think a free-for-all (ala, streamable!) is the best democratic option.

Post by andromeduck » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

mistersquid wrote: post #189

deftnerd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 matter of time until one of those furious victims took up a gun to get revenge. I strongly disagree that given YouTube's arbitrary policies murderous retaliation was inevitable. However, your pointing to the economic context of…

Post by leshow » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 11:41 PM UTC

Kylekramer wrote: post #132

leshow wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't blame the advertisers one bit from wanting to remove their ads from many videos. Once the media starts playing the game that "an ad on the video == the advertiser agrees with the message" I too would want to do everything I can to ensure that I'm not associated with bad things. Why do we do that on youtube when we don't do that on TV? Do we assume that if you're ad runs during you agree with the jokes in it…

Happens on TV relatively often. Bill O'Reilly got the boot because advertisers pulled their ads after he got caught up in sexual harassment claims. TV just has also built up years of trust with advertisers and have legal departments reviewing all their content while YouTube was throwing up ads in front of ISIS recruitment videos.

Post by rpiguy » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 8:18 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #318

rpiguy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homicide has long been the number 2 cause of death in the workplace in the U.S. You can find statistics going back as far as 1992. Layoffs are indeed often a motivation. Hence the term, "going postal."

Homicide has long been the number 2 cause of death in the workplace in the U.S. That stat doesn't pass the sniff test, so I looked up some numbers[1]. In 2016, there were 500 workplace homicides in the US. No where near the 2nd most common cause of death. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf